Fishery regulations cause the season does not always coincide with the

17.4.2 Fishery regulations cause the season does not always coincide with the

reproductive period, as is typically observed in the In addition to direct intervention on the fish UK (Hickley et al. 1995). Furthermore, there is no populations/communities, recreational fisheries evidence that closed seasons lead to better recruit- also require the introduction and enforcement of ment within the fish populations, as other biotic various regulatory constraints to prevent over- and abiotic factors appear to have a stronger influ- exploitation of the fishery and maintenance of a ence on this process (Mills and Mann 1985). suitable stock structure. The various measures

Closed areas are designed to protect stocks that are commonly operated in recreational fish- directly by denying access to the angler. These eries through Europe (Hickley et al. 1995) and can range from sanctuary areas, where fishing is North America (Noble and Jones 1999), and their prohibited to protect vulnerable life stages or expected outcome, are summarized in Table 17.5. species of fish (e.g. Polunin, Chapter 14, this These regulations are similar to those imposed on volume), to restrictions on fishing in areas where major commercial fisheries but the scale and in- the fish are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, tensity are usually less draconian. Elsewhere in such as the aggregation of salmon below weirs the world, regulations are mainly restricted to the and waterfalls during their upstream migration. gear that can be used.

For example, Ontario, Canada, has used seasonal Closed seasons are imposed to protect the fish sanctuaries to restrict anglers from large-mouth mainly during the breeding season or the early bass spawning areas for over 60 years (Noble and development stages. This includes protection of Jones 1999). Management of put-and-take fisheries migratory fish as they move towards spawning or may include closed areas where stocking takes feeding grounds, especially at places where they place to prevent anglers removing fish when they will be particularly vulnerable to heavy exploita- are highly vulnerable immediately after they have tion, and provides a respite for fish to spawn been stocked. unimpeded (Noble and Jones 1999). In practice

Where the catch is removed for consumption, this action has been extended to protect stocks limits are frequently placed on total catch to pre- which are heavily exploited and thus restrict vent overexploitation and conserve the spawning catch, for example chinook salmon (On- stock. Such restrictions allow for the sharing of the corhynchus tshawytscha ) off the west coast of catch when stocks are low or under intense fishing Canada (Walters and Cox 1999). This restriction pressure. Bag limits are commonly applied in mi- has often come under heavy criticism because gratory game and put-and-take fisheries to ensure closed seasons are wrongly timed and do not pro- equity of catch. An alternative to the bag limit is tect the fish when they are most vulnerable, be- catch and release (see Section 18.2.3) where restric-

Table 17.5 Techniques for regulating angling effort and the ecological requirements of the fish stocks that are addressed.

Free passage Fish welfare technique

Regulatory Population

Closed areas *

* Closed season

* * Catch limit

* Fishing pressure

Type of gear * Size of fish

Chapter 17

tions are placed on catch and all fish must be re- leased back to the water. However, for this action to be successful it is important that proper proce- dures are followed with regard to playing, handling and releasing of fish. A combination of both catch restrictions and release is often employed so that the angler can still enjoy the experience if fishing is good but he has reached the bag limit.

Gear restrictions are used to reduce exploita- tion of populations by influencing the efficiency of the fishing method, the species caught or the size of fish caught (Misund et al., Chapter 2, this vol- ume). There is also the requirement to protect indi- vidual fish by reducing any stress and physical damage associated with being caught and held in keep-nets, if the intention is to return them alive. In some cases, angling may still impose physiolog- ical costs on the fish, even if the fish are released (Forsgren et al., Chapter 10, Volume 1). It is neces- sary to base the regulations on sound information on the life histories and effectiveness of different angling techniques, but this information is rarely available. In recreational fisheries, angling is often restricted to hook-and-line fishing practices. Commercial gears, such as nets and traps, are rarely used except in countries where recreational fishing has more in common with subsistence fishing and provides food for consumption.

The final regulatory mechanism commonly used is limitation on the size of fish that can be taken. Restrictions of the size of fish that can be removed for consumption are commonplace in commercial fisheries and are equally applicable to recreational fisheries. The restriction is designed to ensure all immature fish are returned to the water to allow a self-sustaining population to persist. This is sometimes supported by restricting retention of larger mature individuals to allow spawning escapement, thus creating what is termed a ‘slot size’ for fish that may be retained. These restrictions generally refer to salmonid fisheries in Europe (Templeton 1995) and North America, and work especially well where harvest is high and recruitment low (Noble and Jones 1999). For size limitations to work, they must be based on sound information about population size structure, size at sexual maturity and natural

mortality rates. In addition, problems may arise because too little is known about post-release mortality (e.g. Bettoli and Osborne 1998; Cooke et al. 2000; also see Section 17.5.1).