Ethics and Conservation
of Capture-Release
Fisheries
Mikayla Roberts, Sharman Prior, Megan Fong
Capture and Release Definition
Capture and Release (C&R): process of capturing fish typically by hook and
line and then releasing live fish back to the waters where they were captured,
presumably to survive unharmed either voluntarily or by law (Arlinghaus et al.
2007)
Time to Vote!
Overall, do you support or oppose capture and release?
Playing with our food?
● 30 billion fish caught and released globally each
year1
● Average Canadian male angler is 48 years old,
female angler is 44 years old2
● In BC, 74% of angled fish released3
● Average of 20% mortality of C&R fish3
● 2005 - 3.2 million people bought licenses to fish recreationally in Canada and the
number increases 2% each year4
(1. Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2. Statistics Canada 2009, 3. Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC 2005, 4. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2007)
(Bartholomew & Bohnsack 2005)
What do we catch in Canada?
(Statistics Canada 2009)
Some Definitions
Animal Welfare: “the subjective feelings of animals, particularly the unpleasant
subjective feelings of suffering and pain” (Dawkins, 1988)
Animal Liberation: the view that the capacity to suffer gives a being interests and to
not acknowledge this is speciesism (Arlinghaus et al. 2012)
Animal Rights: the belief that animals are ‘subjects-of-a-life’ and thus have rights and
exploitation (recreationally or commercially) is a violation of these rights (Arlinghaus et
al. 2012)
(Arlinghaus et al. 2012)
Why would we release fish anyways?
● Fishing is fun but no desire or need to eat
the fish
● Undesirable species
● Questionable food value
● Wrong gender
● Illegal size
● Ethics
● Conservation
● Sport
● Reached max daily quota
(Cooke & Wilde 2007)
Support
● Protects and enhances wild fish stocks
(Arlinghaus et al. 2012)
● Put-and-take
● A fun, outdoor leisure activity
● Economic benefits - $1.6 billion in Canada
in 2005 (Statistics Canada 2009)
● Arguments that fish cannot feel pain
● Encourages biological, economical, and
social sustainability (Policansky 2002)
Opposition
● Angling is not necessary1
● The fish feels pain and suffering, ‘benefit
of the doubt’1
● Playing with food for unjustified reasons2
● Removes protective coating from scales,
build-up of lactic acid, oxygen depletion1
● Anglers continue fishing even population
overexploited 1
(1.Arlinghaus et al. 2012, 2. Aas et al. 2002)
“Aquatic Agony”
● PETA - “Fish have feelings,
too.”
● Animal rights groups
describe fishing as ‘cruel’
Do we know about the effects?
Recreational and C&R bycatch and mortality largely unstudied:
● Mortality not as obvious as in commercial fisheries
● Public resistance to believe that there is an issue
● Assumption that mortality is small
● Assumption that magnitude is minimal
● Only a resource management issue? Fish conservation?
(Cooke & Wilde 2007)
Banned Practices
● Catch and release tournament fishing (Meinelt et al. 2008)
● Use of live bait (Berg and Rösch 1998)
● Voluntary C&R of legally harvestable fish (Arlinghaus 2007)
Topic Paper
A Primer on Anti-Angling Philosophy and Its Relevance
for Recreational Fisheries in Urbanized Societies
Robert Arlinghaus, Alexander Schwab, Carsten Riepe & Tara Teel (2012)
Paper Focus: Societal view of catch and release fisheries in urbanized, developed
countries
Paper Objectives
1. Analyze the background, history, and future of opposition to
recreational angling
2. Understand the debate and examine potential consequences for
recreational fishing
3. Review the emerging hypothesis on increasing anti-angling sentiment in
post-industrialized, highly urbanized countries
4. Review the opinions of the public in certain countries on the morality of
recreational fishing
5. How pro-animal social norms could influence the acceptability of certain
recreational fishery practices
6. Outline management and policy implications
(Arlinghaus et al. 2012)
Social View
Social acceptance of fishing has changed over time
●
In general, concern for animals has has increased over the last 50 years as part of the Social
Reform Movement (Fraser 2008)
Claims connection between increased wealth and concern for animals
●
Animal welfare concerns more developed in affluent western countries (Germany, Finland)
(Arlinghaus et al. 2012)
In order to study this change through time “Wildlife Value Orientations” were created based on
cognitive connections between beliefs and values around wildlife
(Teel et al. 2005; Manfredo 2008; Manfredo et al. 2009)
More Definitions!
Utilitarian: representing a view that wildlife should be used and
managed primarily for human benefit
Mutualism: viewing wildlife as capable of relationships of trust with
humans, as if part of an extended
family, and as deserving of rights
and caring
(Teel et al. 2005; Manfredo 2008; Manfredo et al. 2009)
Social View
Mutualists are more likely to support protection of fish while Utilitarians are more likely
to justify the death of fish. (Manfredo 2008)
Anthropomorphism = the act of imposing
Human personalities and traits onto animals
(Manfredo 2008)
Mutualists are more likely to view wildlife
in human terms (Miller 2005)
Shift in Social Views
The shift in society towards more Mutualist viewpoints is
attributed to:
●
Increased economic productivity leading to a decrease need for
sustenance hunting and fishing
○ Leading to an elevated emphasis on self-realization
●
Increased view of animals (dogs/cats etc) for companionship
or part of social groups
●
Increase of urbanization: less threat and food source views
o Experiencing wildlife not firsthand but through media
(Miller 2005)
Urbanization VS Mutualization
Fish VS Puppies
There are lots of attitudes regarding treatment of animals but not many are
specific to the species
Dependent on context and intents. example:
● Education and Research > Cosmetic testing and Clothing
● Non-lethal (dog show)
> Lethal/Injury (dog fighting)
● Hunting/Fishing for food > Hunting/Fishing for sport
(Driscoll 1992, 1995; Wells and Hepper 1997; Wuensch and Poteat 1998)
Fish VS Puppies
People generally approve testing of Mice/Rats over Dogs/Primates. Why?
In a study of 33 animals with six dimensions (lovableness, usefulness etc)
● Fish were grouped in with Earthworms and Chickens as useful to humans
and not lovable (Driscoll (1995))
● Fish usually rank in the middle/bottom of valued animals
Hypothesis was that an increase in predicted human-like abilities would lead to
a decrease in approval of activities that harmed the animal
(Arlinghaus et al. 2012)
Worldwide
Austria : Majority of people surveyed considered angling a reasonable leisure activity (Kohl 2000)
●
⅕ considered cruelty to animals
●
⅕ considered disruption to ecological balance
Germany : 2002 - 57% agreed with recreational fishing (Arlinghaus 2004)
2008 - 35% agreed with recreational fishing (Riepe and Arlinghaus 2012)
●
Large percent agree (61%) with fishing with an intent to eat fish, not as positive on catch and
release for sport (Riepe and Arlinghaus 2012)
England/Wales: Animal rights movements not very focused on fish concerns (Simpson and
Mawle 2005)
●
71% approve of angling as leisure activity
●
50% think anglers care for the environment
Worldwide
Finland : High participation in fishing (40%),
however strong disapproval of catch and release,
emphasis on sustenance fishing with only 30% of people releasing fish. (Toivonen 2008) (Salmi and
Ratamäki 2011)
USA : Increasing disapproval in more urbanized states,
20-30% don't agree with fishing compared to 20% in more
rural states. (Driscoll 1995)
Implications on Fisheries Regulations
Example: Germany
Banned the practice of Catch and Release, Live bait and Tournament fishing (Arlinghaus 2007)
●
●
●
Fishing is only allowed with intention to consume
Anglers have to take a course on proper handling of fish
Focused on individuals gain and not economic benefit
(von Lukowicz 1998)
-Difficulty in legal proceedings as they are based around the intent of the Angler (hard to prove in
court) (Niehaus 2005)
Political Environment
● England and Wales - protect fish from overharvesting
● Switzerland the priority is to ensure that anglers behave ethically
● Recreational fishing is politically well supported in England and
Wales
● Switzerland and Germany anglers are less effectively organized,
politically weaker, and overall enjoy less political support
Arlinghaus et al. 2012
Recommendations
●
Develop an appreciation of potentially conflicting viewpoints and try to understand
them
●
Strengthen political support and lobbying
●
Address practices that are hard to reconcile with contemporary fish welfare ideas
(e.g., engage in rapid kill rather than letting a fish die slowly by hypoxia)
●
Repeatedly remind the public and political decision makers about the various
benefits that recreational fishing offers
Despite all of these measures, it is likely that the changes in social values will lead to
more negative attitudes toward recreational fishing practices in the future.
Arlinghaus et al. 2012
Criticisms
● Most of this research is cross-sectional and lacks a longitudinal
perspective (Arlinghaus et al. 2012)
● Surveys
o Telephone surveys vs. Face to face interviews – behaviour
while being ‘watched’
o Completed with several years in between each
● Only dealt with human perspectives, no contribution from
ecological aspect
Tournament fishing
●
German tournament fishing with catch and release is prohibited today (Arlinghaus et al.
2012)
●
Determine ‘winner’ by fishing for
small, overabundant cyprinids to
remove fish for ecological reasons
rather than for fun (Meinelt et al.
2008)
●
Fish experience more time out of
water and in live-wells than if only
caught recreationally (Siepker et
al. 2007)
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/nakedpastor/file
s/2013/05/catch-and-release1-550x284.jpg
Arlinghaus et al. 2012
Mortality
●
Rainbow trout mortality was 55% when the hook was removed by hand and only 21%
when the hook was not removed (Schisler and Bergersen 1996)
●
Deep hooks tended to be corroded or had been evacuated, and survival rates of whitespotted charr released by cutting the line are sufficiently high (Tsuboi et al. 2006)
●
Hooking striped bass in the oesophagus increases opportunity for internal damage to
organs and blood vessels located near the oesophagus (Millard et al. 2003)
●
Physical stressors, such as longer playing and handling times (Schisler & Bergersen
1996), and angler inexperience, may also exacerbate hooking mortality (Millard et al.
2003)
●
Better to cut line and leave hook!
Sublethal Disturbances
“Non-lethal effects imparted by recreational
angling to fish that are released including
physiological, behavioural and fitness impacts
as well as physical injuries.”1
●
Bleeding – external and internal
●
Rapid depressurization leads to hemorrhaging
●
Up to 60% of rainbow trout in Alaska were found
to be injured (Meka 2004)
●
Bluefish experienced either an osmotic
imbalance or cellular damage (Fabrizio et al.
2008)
http://www.davelewisflyrods.com/barbless/torn4.jpg
Ecological Effects
●
●
●
●
Salmon prespawning exploration behaviour could be altered (Richard et al. 2014)
o lower probabilities of crossing obstacles
o travelled shorter distances overall during the summer and fall
Rainbow trout growth rate and feeding ability negatively affected due to chronic injury
(Meka & Margraf 2007)
Higher nest abandonment rates in largemouth
bass, with tournament-angled males
abandoning their nests at a higher rate (90%)
than catch-and-release males (33%) (Diana et
al. 2012)
Population effect depends on species -- long
lived, low recruitment species greatly affected
by even low levels of mortality (Schroeder &
Love 2002)
http://fishesofboneyardcreek.weebly.com/uploads/
1/3/5/6/13567119/6461775.jpg?361
Management
●
●
Minimum size limits
o
can protect spawning potential
o
increase biomass
o
produce larger individuals
o
predate on coarse/undesirable prey
Slot limits
http://www.tackletour.com/images3/picpyramid3.jpg
o
harvest small and large to protect medium sizes
o
prevent or reduce stunting
o
more harvesting of small sizes
Management
●
●
●
●
●
Catch limits
o daily quotas
o must predict fishing pressure
o difficult or impossible to release live bycatch without damage in some
commercial equipment
Number of rods (may increase effort)
Time
Access (eg. marine protected areas)
Gear limit or prohibition
o live bait, roe
http://www.dec.ny.gov/images/fish_marine_images/
o scented lures/flies
hooktype2.jpg
o mesh size
o treble, barbed and J hooks - circle hooks not always effective (Cooke and Suski 2004)
How to Improve C&R Fisheries
● Species specific guidelines
● Decrease the duration of the angling event to
reduce physiological disturbance
● Minimize air exposure
● Avoid angling at extreme water temperatures
● Use barbless hooks and artificial lures to reduce
hooking injuries and handling time
● Avoid angling immediately prior to or during the
reproductive period to decrease harm to fitness
(Cooke & Suski 2005)
Time to Vote! (Again)
Overall, do you support or oppose capture and release?
Discussion Questions
1. Would motions to ban C&R fisheries in the US be realistic?
2. Is a fun experience in nature justification for C&R fisheries?
3. If pain and physiological/behavioural damage are minimized through
management, would catch and release be acceptable?
4. Is C&R acceptable if only stocked fish are targeted? (ie. put-and-take)
5. What is the best way to educate the public on methods of removing hooks
to minimize mortality?
6. Would the shift to a more mutualistic society decrease the pressure on
fisheries worldwide?
References
Aas, Ø., C. E. Thailing, and R. B. Ditton. 2002. Controversy over catch-and-release recreational fishing in Europe. Pages 95–106
in T. J. Pitcher and C. E. Hollingworth, editors. Recreational fisheries: ecological,
Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S. J., Lyman, J., Policansky, D., Schwab, A., Suski, C., Sutton, S. G., and Thorstad, E., B. 2007.
Understanding the Complexity of Catch-and-Release in Recreational Fishing: An Integrative Synthesis of Global Knowledge from
Historical, Ethical, Social, and Biological Perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 15: 75-167.
Arlinghaus, R., Schwab, A.,Riepe, C., and Teel, T. 2012. A Primer on Anti-Angling Philosophy and Its Relevance for Recreational
Fisheries in Urbanized Societies. Fisheries, 37(4): 153-164.
Buitenweg, K. M. and Breyer, H. 2008. Protection of the environment through criminal law Amendment 34, Article 3 (i c). Proposal
for a directive (COM(2007)0051-C6-0063/2007-2007/0022(COD)). European Parliament.
Cooke S. J., Cowx I. G., 2004. The role of recreational fisheries in global fish crises. BioScience 54:857–859
Cooke, S. J., and Suski, C. D. 2004. Are circle hooks an effective tool for conserving marine and freshwater recreational catchand-release fisheries? Aquatic Conservation, 14(3): 299-326.
Cooke S. J., and Suski, C. D. 2005. Do we need species-specific guidelines for catch-and-release recreational angling to conserve
diverse fishery resources? Biodivers Conserv 14:1195–1209
References
Cooke S. J., and Wilde G. R. 2007. The fate of fish released by recreational anglers. Pages 181–234 in Kennelly SJ, ed. By-catch
Reduction in the World’s Fisheries. Springer
Davie, P. S. and Kopf, R. K. 2006. Physiology, behaviour and welfare of fish during recreational fishing and after release. New
Zealand Veterinary Journal, 54: 161–172.
Diana, M. J., Larsen, A. L., Siepker, M. J., and Wahl, D. H. 2012. Effects of tournament compared with catch and release angling
on nest abandonment of largemouth bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32(5): 832-837.
Driscoll, J. W. 1992. Attitudes toward animal use. Anthrozoös 5:32–39.
Driscoll, J. W. 1995. Attitudes toward animals: species ratings. Society and Animals 3:139–150.
Fabrizio, M. C., Scharf, F. S., Shepherd, G. R., and Rosendale, J. E. 2008. Factors affecting catch-and-release mortality of
bluefish. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28(2): 533-546.
Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare—the science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
Kohl, F. 2000. Soziale und ökonomische Bedeutung der Angelfischerei in Österreich. [Social and economic importance of
recreational fisheries in Austria.] Österreichs Kuratorium für Fischerei & Franz Kohl, Unpublished Report, Wien, Austria
References
Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and A. D. Bright. 2003. Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife
8:287–306.
Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and K. L. Henry. 2009. Value orientations in the Western United States. Social Science Quarterly
90:407–427
Meinelt, T., Jendrusch, K. and Arlinghaus, R. 2008. “Competitive fishing in Germany: an overview”. In Global challenges in
recreational fisheries, Edited by: Aas, Ø., Arlinghaus, R., Ditton, R. B., Policansky, D. and Schramm, H. L. Jr. 254–258.
Meka, J.M. 2004. The influence of hook type, angler experience, and fish size on injury rates and the duration of capture in an
Alaskan catch-and-release rainbow trout fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 24: 1309–1321
Meka J.M. & Margraf F.J. 2007. Using a bioenergetic model to assess growth reduction from catch-and-release fishing and
hooking injury in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14, 131–139.
Millard, M.J., Welsh, S. A., Fletcher, J. W., Mohler, J., Kahnle, A., and Hattala, K. 2003. Mortality associated with catch and
release of striped bass in the Hudson River. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 10(5): 295-300.
Miller, J. R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:430–434
Niehaus, M. 2005. Zur Strafbarkeit des Zurücksetzens lebender Fische (sog. catch & release). [On the criminal nature of catch
and release of live fish.] Agrar- und Umweltrecht 35:387–394
References
Richard, A., Bernatchez, L., Valiquette, E., and Dionne, M. 2014. Telemetry reveals how catch and release affects prespawning
migration in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 71(11): 1730-1739.
Riepe, C., and R. Arlinghaus. 2012. Einstellungen der bevölkerung in Deutschland zu fragen des tierschutzes in der
angelfischerei. [Atttitudes of the German public to aspects of animal protection in recreational fisheries.] Berichte des IGB.
Salmi, P., and O. Ratamäki. 2011. Fishing culture, animal policy, and new governance: a case study of voluntary catch-andrelease fishing in Finland. American Fisheries Society Symposium 75:235–249.
Schisler, G. J., and Bergersen, E. P. 1996. Postrelease hooking mortality of rainbow trout caught on scented artificial baits. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16(3): 570-578.
Schroeder DM, Love MS, 2002. Recreational fishing and marine fish populations in California. CalCOFI Rep 43:182-190
Singer, P. 1990. Animal liberation, New York: Avon Books.
Teel, T. L., A. A. Dayer, M. J. Manfredo, and A. D. Bright. 2005. Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values
in the West.” (Project Rep. No. 58). Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Fort Collins, Colorado
Toivonen, A. L. 2008. Recreational fishing in Finland. Pages 21–25 in Ø. Aas, R. Arlinghaus, R. B. Ditton, D. Policansky, and H. L.
Schramm, Jr., editors. Global challenges in recreational fisheries. Blackwell Science, Oxford
References
Tsuboi, J. I., Morita, K., and Ikeda, H. 2006. Fate of deep-hooked white-spotted charr after cutting the line in a catch- and-release
fishery. Fisheries Research, 79(1-2): 226-230.
Statistics Canada. 2009. Gone fishing: A profile of recreational fishing in Canada. Retrieved from the Statistics Canada website
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008002/article/10622-eng.htm#ftn1
Wells, D. L., and P. G. Hepper. 1997. Pet ownership and adults’ views on the use of animals. Society and Animals 5:45–63.
Von Lukowicz, M. 1998. Education and training in recreational fishery in Germany. Pages 287–293 in P. Hickley and H. Tompkins,
editors. Recreational fisheries: social, economic and management aspects. Blackwell Science, Fishing News Books, Oxford.