HARRISBURG (TNS) — Ever-improving and more sophisticated technology, such as electronics and modern materials, are diminishing the fish populations in our rivers, streams and lakes, according to research at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York.
Gradual advancements in fishing technology — from improved fishing gear to wider use of electronics and faster spread of fishing knowledge via apps and social media — mean that each hour a well-equipped angler spends fishing likely will see him catch more fish than did his father or grandfather fishing the same waters for the same amount of time with state-of-the-art gear in their prime fishing days.
“This technological creep has been well documented in commercial fisheries, and it’s occurring in recreational fisheries as well,” said fisheries biologist Chelsey Nieman, who was a postdoctoral researcher at Cary Institute when the research was conducted.
Nieman and co-author Chris Solomon, an ecologist at Cary Institute, believe that further research into the impact of advancing technology and other gradual social changes could provide critical guidance to guide management actions needed to protect fisheries and fish populations.
“For too long recreational fisheries were seen as self-regulating,” Nieman said. “We now know that their sustainability depends on both natural and human features. When these conditions change, it can have big implications for fish populations and the quality of the fishing experience.”
The recent study is one of the first to explore the role that slow social change plays in the resilience of recreational fisheries.
“When change happens over many years or generations, it can be hard for people to perceive it or summon the will to act on it,” Solomon said. “Yet our work shows that slow social changes that can degrade fisheries may be quite common and widespread.”
Using a mathematical model of open access recreational fisheries, and data from Wisconsin, the western Pacific and British Columbia, the researchers considered the impacts of three kinds of social change on fish abundance: the effectiveness of fishing technology, the cost of going fishing and the importance of catch to angler satisfaction.
“These are three key determinants of fish abundance and there is reason to believe that each of them might be changing in ways that gradually drive fish abundance lower,” Nieman said.
Travel tends to be a major cost of going fishing, with improvements in road infrastructure that accumulate over many years reducing travel time and encouraging more fishing.
A study in northern Wisconsin, where lake access is one of the primary uses of roads, found that road density more than doubled between 1937 and 1999.
The importance of catch to angler satisfaction may also change over time, but anglers also value other aspects of the fishing experience, such as spending time in nature, socializing and mastering angling-related challenges.
“Because catching fish is only one of many reasons that people go fishing,” Solomon said. “They may continue to enjoy going fishing even as catch rates decline.”
A study looking at motivations for fishing in British Columbia found that from 1990-2005, catch-related motivations declined while non-catch motivations changed very little.
“It’s like the old story about boiling a frog,” Solomon said. “If anglers gradually become accustomed to lower catch rates, they may not notice the signal that it’s time to jump out of the water. Ultimately, that can be bad for the fishery, because fishing pressure continues even as fish populations drop to dangerously low levels.”
While anglers may not notice changes that arrive gradually over time, there are actions they can take in the face of those changes.
Anglers can embrace the challenge of fishing to fight technological creep.
“Limitations on fishing methods are commonly accepted or even adopted by anglers out of a sense of fair play and a desire for challenge,” Solomon said. “Extending these limitations — for instance, by voluntarily avoiding the use of technologies like fish finders — could go a long way.”
Second, anglers can take steps to reduce fishing mortality by using best practices to release captured fish whenever possible. “Limiting fish mortality helps to sustain good fishing opportunities,” Nieman said.
Third, anglers can support and advocate for adequate funding for fisheries monitoring by state management agencies, who play an essential role in understanding and conserving fish populations in the face of social and environmental change. Improvements in monitoring lead to more effective responses by managers, and better outcomes for fish populations.
Fisheries managers also have some options that are already in use in some places.
First, some fishing opportunities should be managed for high catch rates.
“Many waterbodies are managed to support high fishing effort,” said Nieman. “This is important for making sure that people have opportunities to fish, but because it’s hard to have lots of people fishing and high catch rates at the same time. It may contribute to decreases in the importance of catch to angler satisfaction.”
Second, the authors urge careful consideration of the long-term impacts of investments in infrastructure such as boat launches. When access improves, fishing pressure ramps up.
“Everyone wants good and equitable access to fishing opportunities,” Solomon said. “Providing that access while ensuring long-term fisheries sustainability will take careful thought.”
