Reviews in Fisheries Science, 15:75–167 - Angling Trust

94 Pages·2007·0.96 MB·English

This article was downloaded by:[Carleton University]
[Carleton University]
On:28 April 2007
Access Details:[subscription number 769425782]
Publisher:Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reviews in Fisheries Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713610918
Understanding the Complexity of Catch-and-Release in
Recreational Fishing: An Integrative Synthesis of Global
Knowledge from Historical, Ethical, Social, and
Biological Perspectives
To cite this Article:, '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, 15:1, 75
- 167
To link to this article: DOI:10.1080/10641260601149432
URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641260601149432
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
Thisarticlemaybeusedforresearch,teachingandprivatestudypurposes.Anysubstantialorsystematicreproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independentlyverifiedwithprimarysources.Thepublishershallnotbeliableforanyloss,actions,claims,proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
© Taylor and Francis 2007
ReviewsinFisheriesScience,15:75–167,2007
Copyright©Taylor&FrancisGroup,LLC
ISSN:1064-1262print
DOI:10.1080/10641260601149432
7
0
0
2
pril Understanding the Complexity of Catch-and-Release
A
8 in Recreational Fishing: An Integrative Synthesis of
2
34 Global Knowledge from Historical, Ethical, Social,
5:
0
At: and Biological Perspectives
y]
sit
er
niv ROBERTARLINGHAUS,1 STEVENJ.COOKE,2 JONLYMAN,3
U
n DAVIDPOLICANSKY,4 ALEXANDERSCHWAB,5 CORY
o
et SUSKI,6 STEPHENG.SUTTON,7 ANDEVAB.THORSTAD8
arl
C
y: [ 1Leibniz-InstituteofFreshwaterEcologyandInlandFisheries,Departmentof
B BiologyandEcologyofFishes,Berlin,GermanyandHumboldt-University,
d
e FacultyofAgricultureandHorticulture,InstituteofAnimalSciences,
d
oa Berlin,Germany
wnl 2FishEcologyandConservationPhysiologyLaboratory,DepartmentofBiology,
o
D CarletonUniversity,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada
3AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,DivisionofSportFish,Juneau,Alaska,
USA
4NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC,USA
5Schwab&Sohn,Biglen,Switzerland
6Queen’sUniversityBiologicalStation,DepartmentofBiology,Queen’s
University,Kingston,Ontario,Canada
7SchoolofTropicalEnvironmentStudiesandGeography,JamesCook
University,Townsville,Australia
8NorwegianInstituteforNatureResearch(NINA),Trondheim,Norway
Mostresearchoncatch-and-release(C&R)inrecreationalfishinghasbeenconducted
fromadisciplinaryanglefocusingonthebiologicalsciencesandthestudyofhooking
mortalityafterrelease. Thishampersunderstandingofthecomplexandmultifaceted
natureofC&R.Inthepresentsynopsis,wedevelopanintegrativeperspectiveonC&R
bydrawingonhistorical,philosophical,socio-psychological,biological,andmanage-
rial insights and perspectives. Such a perspective is helpful for a variety of reasons,
suchas1)improvingthesciencesupportingsuccessfulfisheriesmanagementandcon-
servation,2)facilitatingdialoguebetweenmanagers,anglers,andotherstakeholders,
3)minimizingconflictpotentials,and4)pavingthepathtowardsustainablerecreational
fisheriesmanagement.Thepresentworkhighlightsthearrayofcultural,institutional,
psychological, and biological factors and dimensions involved in C&R. Progress to-
wardsuccessfultreatmentofC&Rmightbeenhancedbyacknowledgingthecomplexity
inherentinC&Rrecreationalfishing.
Keywords angling,animalwelfare,catch-and-release,environmentalethics,fishery
management, hooking mortality, history, human dimensions, sublethal effects, recre-
ationalfishing,philosophy
Address correspondence to Robert Arlinghaus, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and
InlandFisheries,DepartmentofBiologyandEcologyofFishes,Mu¨ggelseedamm310,12587Berlin,
Germany.E-mail:[email protected]
75
76 R.Arlinghausetal.
Introduction
7 Catch-and-release(C&R)angling1hasalonghistoryandhasreceivedincreasingattention
0
0 recently.Itisnotwithoutitsdetractors,however,aswedescribeindetailinthepresentglobal
2
pril synthesis. An integrative perspective that unifies historical, ethical, social, and biological
A aspectsofC&RisconsideredessentialtounderstandthecomplexityofC&Randoffera
8
2 basis for its application in the management and conservation of recreationally exploited
4
3 fish populations. In this article, we summarize and evaluate the available knowledge on
5:
0 C&R from a multidisciplinary angle, hoping to improve understanding of C&R, identify
At: knowledgegaps,andmakeclearertheimportantresearchneedsinC&R.Theultimategoal
y] ofthepresentworkistobetterinformrecreationalfisheriesmanagementdecisions.
sit
er
v
Uni ContextofCatch-and-Release
n
eto Fishing in general has increasingly been recognized as affecting global fish populations
arl (NRC,1999).Often,thepublicandacademicdiscussiononthepotentialforfishing-induced
C
y: [ declinesoffishpopulationsfocusesoncommercialfishing,particularlyinthemarineenvi-
B ronment(Paulyetal.,2002).Thenotionthatanglingcanimpactfishstockshasbeengiven
d
e lessattention,butitsroleisincreasinglyrecognized(McPheeetal.,2002;Postetal.,2002;
d
a SchroederandLove,2002;CookeandCowx,2004;Colemanetal.,2004;Arlinghausand
o
wnl Cooke, 2005; Cooke and Cowx, 2006; Lewin et al., 2006). However, the general aware-
o
D ness that recreational fishing can deplete fish populations is much older, as indicated by
the implementation of minimum size limits and other rules limiting angler harvest since
theMiddleAgesinEurope(Policansky,2002).Insomeecosystems,particularlyinmany
freshwater ecosystems of the temperate regions, but also in some coastal regions, recre-
ationalfishinghaslargelyreplacedcommercialfisheriesandthusisthesoleusergroupof
fishstocks(Arlinghausetal.,2002).Consequently,forseveralspeciesthatarealsoofcom-
mercial importance, angling is today the largest source of fishing mortality (NRC, 1999;
Coleman et al., 2004; Arlinghaus and Cooke, 2005; Lewin et al., 2006). Using estimates
fromCanadianrecreationalfisheries,CookeandCowx(2004)suggestedthatonaglobal
scale,anglingcatchcouldbeashighas47.1billionfishannually,ofwhichabout17billion
areretained.
Anglingandcommercialfishingsharemanyissuesofrelevanceformanagementand
conservation,suchasfishing-inducedtrophicchanges,reductionsinbiomass,ageandsize
truncation, fishing-induced evolutionary changes, habitat impacts, pollution, and bycatch
(CookeandCowx,2006).Therearealsosomestrikingdifferences.Forexample,compared
toalargetrawlerintheocean,asingleanglerischaracterizedbyalowcatchrate.Byconsid-
eringmillionsofanglersworld-wide,however,theircumulativeimpactcanbehigh(Cooke
and Cowx, 2004, 2006; Lewin et al., 2006). Another difference between an angler and a
commercialfisheristheeconomicincentivetofish.Acommercialfisherwillsoonerorlater
stopfishingorreducefishingintensityifthecatchdoesnotoffsetthecost.The“survival”of
anangler,however,doesnotnecessarilydependonhighcatchrates,althoughtheultimate
productoftheanglingexperience,anglersatisfaction,isoftencatch-dependent(Arlinghaus
1We use the term angling synonymously with recreational fishing, i.e., fishing that does not
generateresourcestomeetphysiologicalneedsessentialforhumansurvival(e.g.,nutrition)andfor
whichobtainingfoodorsellingfishingproductstooffsetcostisnottheprimarymotivation.Inwestern
cultures,recreationalfishingistypicallyconductedwithhook,line,androd,oftenincludingareel,
duringfreetime(asopposedtoworkingtime),doesnotinvolvesellingfishingproductstogenerate
income, and is subjectively defined by the individual participant as being leisure; it is therefore
non-commercial.Werefertoparticipantsinrecreationalanglingasanglers.
Catch-and-ReleaseRecreationalFishing 77
andMehner,2005;Arlinghaus,2006).Therefore,anglersmightcontinuefishingevenifthe
catchopportunitiesarelowduetooverfishingorotherimpactssuchashabitatalterations
7 leadingtostockdeclines.
0
0
2 Postetal.(2002)proposedthatsomerecreationalfisheriesarenotself-regulating,i.e.,
pril anglersdonotnecessarilyreducefishingwhenstocksdecline.So-calleddepensatorypro-
A
8 cessesincreasetheprobabilityoffish-stockcollapsesinpopulationsexploitedbyanglers
2
4 (Postetal.,2002).Depensatoryprocessesinvolveanincreasingper-capitamortalityprob-
3
5: abilityatlowpopulationabundances.Inrecreationalfishing,depensationcanoccurdueto
0
At: inversedensity-dependentillegalharvestrates(Sullivan,2002)orinversedensity-dependent
y] catchability(Postetal.,2002).
sit OnefrequentlyappliedandpromotedmeanstocopewithhighanglingeffortisC&R
ver angling(BarnhartandRoelofs,1977,1987;Policansky,2002).Inasense,C&Ranglingis
ni
U equivalenttobycatchanddiscardingincommercialfisheries(CookeandWilde,inpress),
on although the definition of bycatch does not apply if an angler releases a fish that was
arlet intentionally caught, which is often the case. Due to the nature of the capture method,
C fish typically experience less damage when captured by angling than when caught by
y: [ most commercial fishing gears such as seines and gill-nets. Therefore, releasing fish in
B
d comparativelygoodconditionismorelikelyinrecreationalfishingthaninmostcommercial
e
d fisheries.Consequently,theoptionforC&Rfishing,ifproperlyapplied,providesafishery
a
o
nl management answer to potential angling-induced impacts on fish population (Lucy and
w
o Studholme,2002).
D
From a fisheries management and conservation point of view, common sense would
suggestthatimplementingC&Rencouragesthebiological,economic,andsocialsustain-
abilityofrecreationalfishing,andmuchevidenceshowsthatitdoes(Policansky,2002).For
example,byreleasingfish,theimpactofanglingontheresourceisminimizedwhile,atthe
sametime,providingimportantsocialandeconomicbenefitstosociety(Arlinghausetal.,
2002). This perspective, however, overlooks ethical issues with C&R, cultural and legal
conflictsassociatedwithsomeformsofC&R(Arlinghaus,2005;inpress),andmanifold
biologicalimpactsthatmighttakeplaceifC&Risconductedinappropriately(Cookeetal.,
2002a;CookeandSuski,2005).
Definitions
C&R refers to the process of capturing fish by using hook and line, mostly assisted by
rods and reels, and then releasing live fish back to the waters where they were captured,
presumablytosurviveunharmed.C&RisarelativetermandimpliesagradientfromC&R
only to catch-and-kill (harvest) angling (Policansky, 2002). It can be a voluntarily action
or the result of harvest regulations, i.e., mandatory (Quinn, 1996). Over time, the use of
thetermhasbroadenedfroma“nokill/zerolimit”principletoincludetheuseofspecial
regulations,includingsize(minimum,maximum,slot)andbaglimitsthatforceanglersto
releasepartormostofthefishcaught.
Initsmostextremeform,totalC&R,everyfishcaughtbyananglerisreleasedalive;
tothedegreepossible,thefisharereleasedunharmed.RegulatoryC&RreferstoC&Rthat
is required by regulations such as length-based limits (i.e., all fish smaller or larger than
the specified size limit must not be retained, and therefore must be released), protected
seasons,baglimits,protectedspecies(e.g.,somespeciesareprotectedandcannotlegally
be retained), etc. Voluntary C&R refers to the voluntary decision of an angler to release
fish.Itcanbetotalornot,butitisnotmandated.Forexample,ananglermightretainonly
onefishofadesiredspeciesandsizeandvoluntarilyreleaseallothers.
78 R.Arlinghausetal.
Inthisarticle,weusethetermC&RtorefertoanyformofC&Rdiscussedabove.It
doesnotmeanonlytotalorvoluntaryC&R,unlessspecificallystated.
7
0
0
2
pril MagnitudeofCatch-and-Release
A
8 Globally,millionstobillionsoffisharereleasedaftercapturebyrecreationalanglerseach
2
4 year.Roughglobalreleaserateestimatesareabout60%(CookeandCowx,2004).Inthe
3
5: United States alone, in 2000 an estimated 11 million anglers participated in 78 million
0
At: marine fishing trips and caught 445 million fish, of which 253 million or 57% were re-
y] leased (Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005). The proportion of caught and released fish
sit has increased from 34% of the total catch in 1981 to 59% in 1999 (Bartholomew and
ver Bohnsack,2005).However,thereismuchdiversityinC&Rratesindifferentcultures,in-
ni
U stitutionalenvironments,situations,andspecies,withlittleroomforreliableestimatesthat
on apply in general. Angling for non-salmonid species in the U.K., so-called coarse fishing,
arlet is an example of an extreme form of C&R, in which almost all fish are released (North,
C 2002). The same is true for some species-specialized fisheries around the world, such
y: [ asbiggameanglingintheUnitedStates,e.g.,Atlanticwhitemarlin,Tetrapturusalbidus
B
d (Cramer,2004);bonefish,Albulaspp.(Policansky,2002);steelhead,Oncorhynchusmykiss,
e
d inNorthAmerica(Policansky,2002);andcarp,Cyprinuscarpio,inmuchofEurope(Ar-
a
o
nl linghaus and Mehner, 2003). Release rates can also be as low as near 0% if caught fish
w
o areusedforhumanconsumption.Thisis,forexample,thecaseinmanyrecreationalfish-
D
eriesinEasternEuropeandinmanypartsofNorthernEurope.Becausemostrecreational
fisheriesinindustrializedcountriesaretodaymanagedbasedonsomevariantsoflength-
based size limits (Arlinghaus et al., 2002), C&R, in one form or another, is a day-to-day
practice in contemporary recreational fisheries and is mandatory for specific species or
sizes.
Rationale
Becauseofitsappealofconservingexploitedfishpopulationswhilemaintainingangling
use, C&R has been adopted to varying degrees by anglers as well as by fisheries man-
agerstoreducethe(presumednegative)effectsofanglingonfishpopulations(Policansky,
2002).C&Rhasseveralmeaningsforanglers,conservationists,managers,scientists,and
politicians. It can mean a harvest regulation, a management strategy, an angling philoso-
phy,and,forsomespecialistsanglers,astrictreligion(Aasetal.,2002).Fromtheangler’s
perspective, it can be conducted for conservation purposes to preserve fish for their own
sake (non-consumptive motive) or for conservation purposes to preserve the opportunity
forrecapture(consumptivemotive,Arlinghaus,2005).
Fromthebiologicalperspective,understandingthelethalandsublethalimpactsofC&R
eitherontheindividualortheexploitedpopulationisthefocusofappliedresearch.From
ahumandimensionsperspective,twoadditionalaspectsofC&Rareparticularlyimportant
to understand: 1) the ethic of voluntary C&R cross-culturally and within a particular an-
glercommunity,and2)theillegalharvestofprotectedfishunderregulatoryC&R.Illegal
harvest by anglers can lead to a decline of the fishery if, for example, immature fish are
killedinsignificantamounts(Sullivan,2002).Incontrast,undervoluntaryC&R,anangler
voluntarilydecidestonotharvestafishandthus,consciouslyorunconsciously,contributes
toresourceconservation.Theconditionsthatfavorordisfavorthispropensityaremanifold,
species-andsituation-specific,withlimitedroomforpredictionsabouttheC&Rbehavior
ofanglersthatapplygenerally(Ditton,2002).
Catch-and-ReleaseRecreationalFishing 79
However, understanding the institutional and social dynamics leading to voluntary
C&RbehaviororacceptanceofregulatoryC&Riscrucialforimprovingtheimplementa-
7 tion of C&R management policies. For example, in Germany the Animal Protection Act
0
0
2 hasresultedinasocialnormtokilleachfishthatisnotprotectedbysizelimitsorprotected
pril seasons (Arlinghaus, 2007). In such an environment, implementation of scientific insight
A
8 showinghowtoamelioratetheimpactofC&Rbecomesdifficultorevenimpossible.The
2
4 same is true for fishing cultures that resent releasing fish on cultural grounds (Jones and
3
5: Williams-Davidson,2000;Lyman,2002;Policansky,2002;Aasetal.,2002;Wolfe2006).
0
At: Insuchcultures,promotingC&Rpracticescanresultinconflictwithintheanglingcom-
y] munityandbetweendifferentsectorswithinterestsinthewell-beingoffish(Lyman,2002;
sit Arlinghaus,2007;Wolfe,2006).
ver PreviousresearchonC&Rhasrarelybeenintegrativeinorientationandthushasnot
ni
U coupledthesocialwiththebiologicalsciencescross-culturallytoprovideacompleteand
on globalperspective.MuchofthepreviousworkhasfocusedononespecificaspectofC&R-
arlet hookingmortality(MuonekeandChildress,1994;BartholomewandBohnsack,2005).No
C formofanglingentailszeroriskofmortalityforthefish,soC&Rwith100%survivalrate
y: [ ofthereleasedfishisanidealratherthanapracticalreality.Consequently,survivalratesor
B
d alternativemortalityratesofreleasedfishhavebeenandareamajorfocusofC&Rscience.
e
d Mostoftheavailablepeer-reviewedpapersestimatehookingmortalityofreleased“sport”
a
o
nl or“game”fish,whichmeansthatresearchisavailablemainlyforalimitednumberofhighly
w
o valuedrecreationalspecies(CookeandSuski,2005).
D
Dependingonthegearused,thespeciesoffish,theangler’sskillandintentions,and
many environmental factors, hooking mortality can range from less than 1% to >90%,
the latter, for example, if fish are hooked in vital organs (Muoneke and Childress, 1994;
Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005). Although hooking mortality has been studied under
manyconditionsformanyfishspecies,muchisstillunknown,andrelativelylittleisknown
aboutsublethaleffectssuchaslossofstatusofahookedfishinasocialhierarchy,physi-
ologicalchanges,decreasedreproductivesuccess,alteredbehavior,anddecreasedgrowth
rate(Cookeetal.,2002a).HookingmortalitywasfirstreviewedbyMuonekeandChildress
(1994),butnopaperhasreviewedhookingmortalityalongwithadditionalaspectsassoci-
atedwithC&Rsuchashistoricaldevelopment,ethicalperspectives,thesocialdimension,
economicfactors,andsublethalimpactsonthereleasedfish.Somemorerecentsyntheses
havebeenpublishedonspecificaspectsofhookingmortality(e.g.,CookeandSuski,2005;
BartholomewandBohnsack,2005)andonthehistoryofC&RinNorthAmerica(Polican-
sky,2002),butnocomprehensivereviewonhookingmortalityandthefactorsinfluencing
itisavailablethatcoverstheglobe.Lessbiologicalresearchisavailableonpotentialsub-
lethal impacts of C&R, and most C&R research has focused on selected species such as
largemouthbass(Micropterussalmoides),stripedbass(Moronesaxatilis),Atlanticsalmon
(Salmosalar),rainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),andwalleye(Sandervitreum,Cooke
andSuski,2005).
AnotherlineofresearchhastriedtounderstandthehumandimensionsofC&R,most
oftenfromasocio-psychologicalresearchperspectiveintheUnitedStates(Sutton,2001).
UnderstandingC&Rinanyonecountryiscomplexbecausemanypeoplefishforvarious
reasons(FedlerandDitton,1994;ArlinghausandMehner,2004)andhavevariouscultural
backgrounds (Lyman, 2002; Wolfe, 2006). The boundaries between angling, commercial
fishing, and subsistence fishing can be blurry at times (e.g., NRC, 2005). Studying C&R
acrosscountriesismorecomplexbecausethehistory,laws,culture,economicenvironment,
and many other factors differ from one country to another, even as the reasons and ways
thatpeoplefishvarywithincountries.Forexample,forsomestakeholders,releasingfishis
80 R.Arlinghausetal.
areprehensiblepracticebecauseC&Risviewedas“playingwithfishfornogoodreason”
(Aasetal.,2002;Lyman,2002;Policansky,2002;Wolfe,2006).Byfocusingresearchonly
7 on the biological aspects or exclusively on the social psychology of the voluntary C&R
0
0
2 behaviorofanglers,thecomplexityoftheissueislost,andlimitedinsightscanbegathered
pril tounderstandthediversenatureofC&Rfishingfromanintegrativeperspective.Suchan
A
8 integrativeperspectiveisneededforimprovingthesciencesupportingsuccessfulfisheries
2
4 management and conservation; facilitating dialogue among managers, anglers, and other
3
5: stakeholders;minimizingconflictpotentials(Arlinghaus,2005);andpavingthepathtoward
0
At: sustainablerecreationalfisheriesmanagement;amongotherreasons.
y]
sit
ver Objective
ni
U
n The objective of this article is to provide a cohesive, synthetic view of C&R, including
o
et historical,ethical,social,andbiologicalperspectivesfromaroundtheglobe.Thebasisof
arl oursynthesesisonpeer-reviewedliterature,acknowledgingthatimportantgrayliteratureon
C
y: [ C&Risavailable,muchofwhichisnotcoveredhere.Wedonotfocusonparticularspecies,
B ecosystems,orenvironments(e.g.,inlandwaters),typesoffisheries,ornations.Instead,we
d
e documentthecurrentstateofknowledgeofC&Rfromthebroadculturalperspectivesofan
d
oa internationalgroupofauthors,evenaswerecognizethatmanyculturesarenotincludedin
nl
w ourgroup.However,thegrouphailsfromEurope,NorthAmerica,andAustralia,andhas
o
D researchexperiencefromotherpartsoftheworld.Wealsocompriseavarietyofscientific
disciplines,whichwetakeadvantageofinthisarticletosummarizehistorical,ethical,social,
biological, and other knowledge to document the diversity of perspectives and identify
furtherresearchneeds.Ouraimistohelpinformfisherymanagementofpolicyandsocietal
decisions.
WebeginwithahistoricaloverviewofC&R.Asectiononethicalissuesinvolvedin
C&Raroundtheworldfollows,becauseethicsandinstitutions(i.e.,formalandinformal
rules-in-use),whichareexpressionsofthecultureofparticularsocieties,settheultimate
constraint on the implementation of any C&R policy and because questions about right
andwrong(ethics)shapehowsocietyandmembersofsociety(anglers)viewandapproach
C&R.ThepaperthendocumentsthesocialandbiologicaldimensionsofC&R.Questions
tobeansweredincludewhatanglertypesandunderlyingpersonaltraitspromoteadherence
toC&R,whatfactorsfacilitatetheseverityoflethalandsublethalimpactsofC&R,andhow
those factors can be ameliorated. A separate management section elucidates documented
potentialsandpitfallsofC&Rpolicies.Thissectionisintendedtodiscussissuesratherthan
provideathoroughreviewofpapersthathaveevaluatedregulatorychangesinvolvingC&R
(e.g.,changesinminimumsizelimits).Suchareviewisbeyondthescopeofouranalysis.
Finally,somefutureareasofresearchareoutlined.
OriginofRecreationalFishingandCatch-and-Release
Understanding the origin of C&R fishing requires a historical context because voluntary
and regulatory C&R is restricted to recreational fishing but not always associated with it
(e.g., total catch-and-remove angling irrespective of fish size). We therefore begin with a
discussionontheoriginsofrecreationalfishingthatinvolvesomeformofC&R.
Fishing techniques that involved hooking the fish (angling) were invented at least
50,000YBP(yearsbeforepresent),primarilytocatchfishforfood(SahrangeandLund-
beck,1992).Thefirstevidenceofanglingasarecreationalactivitynotmotivatedbypersonal
Catch-and-ReleaseRecreationalFishing 81
consumption,sale,ortradederivesfromanimagefrom3,290YBPdisplayinganEgyptian
noble(PitcherandHollingworth,2002b).TheancientGreeksandRomansregardedrecre-
7 ationalfishingasfitonlyforslavesandchildrenandatemptationtobeavoided(Pitcherand
0
0
2 Hollingworth, 2002b). They also considered fish species found in springs or clean flow-
pril ingwaterstobesacredtothegodsorgoddessesbecausecleanwaterwasrarearoundthe
A
8 Mediterranean.Accordingly,anglingwasnotdoneformanyfreshwaterspecies(Radcliffe,
2
4 1926,p.201).Nevertheless,recreationalfishingwascommonduringthattime,particularly
3
5: amongwealthypeople(Haase,2000).ItisnotcleartowhatdegreeC&Rwasinvolved.
0
At: Althoughthereareearlierreferencestoreleasingaportionofone’scatch,weconfine
y] ourdiscussiontotheoriginsofrecreationalfishingandC&RtotheMiddleAgesinEurope
sit and England, as there is little documentation from earlier times and England seems to
ver betheoriginofvoluntaryC&R.RomanCatholicEurope,theemergingclassstructurein
ni
U England,andtheearlyhistoryoftheUnitedStatesproducedsimilarbutdistincthook-and-
on line recreational fishing cultures despite some interactions, and they generated different
arlet responsestofishandthepracticeofC&R.
C
y: [
B Europe
d
e
d UnderResCommunesfromRomanlaw,flowingwatersandtheirfisheswerepublicproperty.
a
o
nl BecausemedievalEuropeansconsumedgreatquantitiesoffish,fishingpressureincreased
w
o in relation to population growth (Hoffmann, 1996). By the 13th century, legislators were
D
already complaining about overfishing. As a result, privatization of previously common
or public fishing rights was widespread in much of medieval central Europe (Hoffmann,
1995). By about the year 1200, grants from kings or simple seizure put landowners in
possession of all but the largest inland river fisheries (Hoffmann, 1996). Between 1200
and 1400, markets and fishing rights developed. One-time lordly servants evolved into
full-time fishers who paid annual monetary dues or, rarely, a share of the catch for the
right to exploit the lord’s water (Hoffmann, 1995). In this context, fishing with rod and
linewasonemeanstoappropriatefishforpersonalconsumptionanddespiteitssubsistence
componentwassimilartomodernrecreationalfishing.TheHeidelbergFishingTract(1493)
isamongtheearliestextantworksonrecreationalfishing.Oneofitsregionallypublished
forms,theTengresseFishingTract,containsnotonlycompleteinstructionsonhowtocatch
fish and where to find them but also the recipes for fly patterns (Hoffmann, 1997); the
first artificial baits were, however, invented by Romans (Hensel and Vogel, 1978). In the
MiddleAges,developmentofrecreationalfishinganditspopularitywerelinkedtotheart
ofprinting(1440A.D.)andtheassociatedpublicationofanglingbooks(Hoffmann,1997).
The first clear reference to angling as distinctly recreational occurs in the The Country
Farm(1307,Italy;Estienne,1616).Itreferstoanglingequipment“and...theseasonsand
time of the year fittest for the sport.” The term “sport” fishing often used synonymously
today with recreational fishing derives from the verb “to disport,” which means to take
one’sease,tore-create.ItwasusedinEnglandtorefertoallformsofrecreationalactivities
and field “sports,” including recreational angling. In the 18th century, “to disport” was
replaced by “to sport” in England and thereafter also taken over into recreational fishing
terminologyinmainlandEurope(Ko¨rbs,1964).Itisdifferentfromthemoderndefinition
ofsportbecauseonlyparticularformsofrecreationalfishing,suchascompetitivefishing,
can be described as sport in the modern context of competitive sport science (Heister,
2005).
Fishing for food and recreation greatly increased in popularity in the 19th and 20th
centuries. In Germany, recreational fishing was popular but did not have the same social
82 R.Arlinghausetal.
statusasotherchivalrousactivitiessuchasshooting,climbingandhunting(Kru¨ger,2004),a
situationthatissimilartoday.ItisnotentirelyclearhowmuchC&Rfishing,eitherregulated
7 or voluntary, took place in the Middle Ages, but minimum-size regulations and seasonal
0
0
2 closures in England (Policansky, 2002) and in France (Mascall, 1590, cited in Marston,
pril 1903),requiredthereleaseofsomefish.
A
8
2 Catch-and-ReleaseinEngland. Fishingforfoodhasawell-documentedhistoryinEngland
4
3 as well, and regardless of developments noted below, fish have always been relied on as
5:
0 food by most Britons, leading to a prohibition of weirs on all English rivers even in the
At: MagnaCarta(1215A.D.)(Getzler,2004,p.21).
sity] The first reference to releasing fish in English literature appears in the ploughman
er stories,beginninginthe15thcentury(PiersofFulman,1420,citedinMerwin,1995).In
v
ni ATreatyseonFysshyngewythanAngle(originallywrittenaround1420,butnotpublished
U
n until1496),DameJulianaBernes2 arguedforconservativeharvesttoprotecttheresource
o
et (McDonald, 1963). But recreational fishing in those days was a gentleman’s sport, not
Carl typicalofthecommonpeople.
y: [ The plague of 1348 killed a third of the population in England. It followed hard on
B
d thefirstdecadesofthelittleiceage,thedeclineoffeudalism,andtheadventofthecash
de economy.Manyoftheserfswhohadbeenforcedoffthelandandintocitieschosetoreturn
a
o to lives of farming and subsistent hunting and fishing in the largely empty countryside.
nl
w Qualification statutes were quickly imposed that prevented people who needed fish and
o
D gameasfoodfromtakingthem.Huntingwasreservedfortherulingclass,specificallyto
preventpeasantsfromreturningtoasubsistentlifestyleinaruralEnglandwithnofences,
few defined land holdings, and a greatly diminished population. In the new England of
the late Middle Ages, commoners’ labor was needed for mills and farms. The Statute of
Laborers (1351) required commoners to work. They were not allowed to fish or hunt for
theirfood:“Noneshallhuntbutwhichhavesufficientliving”(Lund,1980,p.8,22).One
ofthedemandsofthePeasantsRevoltof1381wasthereturnoftherighttofishintheRiver
Ver(Herd,2003).
Aboutonehundredyearslater,WynkyndeWorde,thepublisheroftheTreatyse,wrote
that the little work on fishing was published with the text on heraldry and falconry to
keep it out of the hands of “every idle person who would desire it” (McDonald, 1963).
When viewed against the historical background of depopulation and hardships and the
subsequent imposition of the qualification statutes for the taking of fish and game, these
earlyreferencestoreleasingfishandconservativeharvestmaywellrepresenttheoriginof
theideathatreleasingaportionofone’scatchwasthemarkofagentleman.
DuringtheperiodbetweenATreatyseonFysshyngewythanAngle(1496)andIzaak
Walton’sfirsteditionofTheCompleatAngler(1653),littlewaswrittenaboutfishingexcept
forsimpleretellingsofBernes’smaterial(Marston,1903;Gingrich,1974).Earlyeditions
ofWalton(1653onward)containnoreferencetoreleasingfish.Althoughhelivedalifeof
someease,Waltonwasacommonerandalifelongmemberoftheironmonger’sguild.In
TheCompleatAngler,hekillshiscatch,buthedoesspeakforconservation.
ForthefiftheditionofTheCompleatAngler,WaltonaskedCharlesCotton,ayounger
gentleman,towriteasectiononflyfishing;thiscontainsaspecificreferencetovoluntary
C&R:“Thisisadiminutivegentleman,e`enthrowhiminagain,andlethimgrowtillhe
bemoreworthyyouranger.”ThislineisnotedinalaterpopulareditionofTheCompleat
2DameJuliana’snameisspelledinvariousways,usuallyBernes,Barnes,orBerners.Thereis
almostnoevidenceofherexistenceasananglingwriter,andhernamealmostcertainlyisapseudonym
(Blades,1881;McDonald,1963;Schullery,1987,1999).
Catch-and-ReleaseRecreationalFishing 83
Angler(Walton,1853,p.288)toestablishCottonasa“realsportsman”for“Hecontemns
catchingsmallfish”andsays“throwtheminagain.”
7 Cotton’scontributiontoTheCompleatAnglerwaswrittensoonaftertheEnglishCivil
0
0
2 Wars.ThosedissenterswhosurvivedKingCharlesII’spurgeswereprohibitedfromhunting
pril bytheGameActof1671,whichallowedonlyProtestantgentryearningover100pounds
A
8 annuallyfromtheirlandstohunt.Theacteffectivelykepttheopposition,Catholics,andthe
2
4 less well-to-do from practicing with the new technology: firearms. The remaining gentry
3
5: andtherapidlygrowingmerchantclasshadonlyfishingtoelevatethemselvesasgentleman-
0
At: sportsmen.Whatbetterwayfortherisingmerchantordisenfranchisedgentrytoshowthat
y] theyweretrulyoftheupperclassthantonotneedone’scatchasfood?Releasesomefish,
sit therebygivingcredencetothe1853edition’sinterpretationofCotton’sinstructionsasthose
ver ofagentleman.Evenso,mostanglerskilledmostofthefishtheycaught,andregulations
ni
U mandatingreleasesincreased.InthereignofGeorgeII(1727–1760),sizelimitsforroach
on (Rutilusrutilus)werealsoimposed,anditwasillegaltotake,possess,orsellanyundersized
arlet fishorfishcaughtoutofseason(Policansky,2002).
C InTheCompleatAngler,IzaakWaltonquotedapopularphrase:“Everyman’sbusiness
y: [ isnoman’sbusiness”(Walton,1853),whichisaclearaccountfortheconcernsmuchlater
B
d described as “the tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). The English solution to this
e
d problemofoverexploitationwastopasstheActsofEnclosure.Startingintheearly1700s,the
a
o
nl actswereinitiallyimposedtoallowlargerlandownerstoconsolidatetheirholdingswithin
w
o boroughs,therebyincreasingtheiryieldthoughefficiencyofeffort.Asalllandownershad
D
to pay for the needed surveys, thousands of small-tract farmers who could not afford the
surveyswereforcedfromthelandtourbancenters,anintendedresultoftheActsbecause
workers were needed for the growing number of mills. The Industrial Revolution led to
furtherincreasesinthenumberofmillsonmanyrivers,alongwiththeneedformanpower
(Getzler, 2004). The Acts of Enclosure’s final iteration, passed in the 1840s, specifically
prohibitedallbutownersortheirassigneesfromfishingmostwaters.Theseactswereso
onerous and had such impact that they were published in a children’s fishing tract, with
punishmentsforpoaching,includingfines,jailtime,ordeportation(Salter,1841).TheActs
ofEnclosurecontainedthemostsignificantreductionofthepublic’srighttofish,andits
effect was greatest just as the “Nation of Shopkeepers” was gaining the leisure needed
to pursue field sports in the 18th and 19th centuries (Herd, 2003). Similar developments
occurredincentralEurope:fishingbecameaprivaterightcoupledwithrigorousregulations
leadingtoregulatoryC&R.
Asflyfishingbecamemoreregimentedin19thcenturyEnglandastheexclusiveactivity
ofthewell-to-doorwellconnected,writersincreasinglymentionedreleasingaportionof
one’scatchvoluntarily.SirHumphreyDavywroteofthequestionablemoralityofallfield
sportsandthendefendedrecreational(“sport”)fishingwith:“Everygoodangler,assoonas
hisfishislanded,eitherdestroyshislifeimmediately,ifheiswantedforfood,orreturnshim
tothewater”(Davy,1970,reprintfrom1828,p.11).Themostpopularanglingauthorofthe
mid-19thcenturywroteoftheneedtoletout-of-conditionfishgotogrowfatandhealthy
(Francis,1995).By1913,Halfordcoulddeclarethat“thesportsmanisnotonlywillingto
returnanybelowthelegallimitofthewater,butexercisesgreatcarebothinextractingthe
hookandreturningthefishtothewater”(Halford,2000,p.309).AnditwasanEnglishman
oflittleregardinthefishingworld,LordBaden–Powell,whodidmosttopopularizeC&R
inEngland.TheheroofMafekingandthefounderoftheBoyScoutmovementlaterbecame
an ardent angler (Baden-Powell, 1986). Revered by millions of boys worldwide between
1900and1939,Baden-PowellpreachedthegospelofC&Rwhereverhefished(Precourt,
1999).Hewroteoftheneedtoletfishgosothatotheranglersmighthavegoodsport,that