It is the position of the Recreational Fishing Alliance that the release of recreationally caught fish in marine fisheries should be, in most cases, the ethical and moral prerogative of the angler and that attempting to impose "catch and release" exclusivity is a fishery management tool of the last resort. Voluntary catch and release of undersized fish or those fish not being utilized by the angler has been firmly established as ethical behavior in books, the outdoor media and well promoted by the sportfishing industry with extraordinary results.

 Recent symposiums convened by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have exposed an undercurrent of feeling that requiring total catch and release can be used to remedy management problems in fisheries that actually require more stringent controls on, or in some cases, the total elimination of commercial harvest. The RFA believes that mandating catch and release to alleviate allocation problems is a move in the wrong direction and will further alienate recreational fishermen and decrease compliance with existing regulations. The RFA is concerned that the management community might press ahead with the development of regulations that could phase in total catch and release in some fisheries and recognizes that it would be detrimental to recreational fishing participation and the industry at a time when recreational fishermen are already releasing the majority of the fish they catch for ethical reasons, due to current bag limits, size regulations or season closures, or for a combination of these reasons.

 This paper will explore the good points of catch and release as practiced in the marine environment and the trap of mandating catch and release as a management tool, especially in those fisheries with a commercial and recreational component.

A Brief History:

 Catch and release has been a part of sportfishing, in one form or another, for most of the twentieth century. One hundred years ago, members of the Tuna Club of Avalon located on Catalina Island off the coast of California were developing rules for ethical angling, which began with promoting the use of "light-tackle" to give the fish a sporting chance. One of the club's best known members, famed sportsman and author Zane Grey, was espousing the release of prized gamefish as a way of further elevating sportfishing ethics and as a means of helping protect fish stocks from depletion which, even in his day and age, was occurring due to commercial overfishing. In his masterwork, Tales of Fishes, published in 1919, Grey wrote, "if we are to develop as anglers who believe in conservation and sportsmanship, we must consider the fish - his right to life and, especially, if he must be killed, to do it without brutality." Grey and other visionaries believed conservation should be the individual angler's ethical and moral imperative and they did their best to teach that philosophy. The teaching continues today at a much elevated pace.

 It wasn't until 1952 that regulated "catch and release" was first used as a management tool. The state of Michigan, in part as an effort to reduce the cost of stocking hatchery-raised trout to satisfy a growing number of anglers, classified certain trout streams as "Fish-for-Fun" waters and prohibited the retention of fish caught from them. With the precedent set, many states quickly followed suit instituting similar programs under a variety of names. Not everyone in the management community and the fishing public were thrilled with the concept, but it stuck and "no-kill" zones became a commonly used tool in freshwater fishery management.

 The implementation of catch and release regulations, similar to those imposed in freshwater, have occurred only rarely or in limited areas in marine fisheries. However, the latest trends in management are, in fact, creating de facto catch and release regulations that must be carefully monitored. Marine recreational fishing is a different state of affairs and does not easily lend itself to regulations that mandate catch and release exclusively.

A Simple Definition:

 The term "catch and release" refers to recreational fishing in which the angler hooks, fights and effectively "catches" a fish, but does not kill and retain it for consumption, as a trophy or for other purposes. Ideally, the fish is revived and released at the end of the encounter in good condition to continue its life cycle. There are two forces that promote catch and release for marine anglers. One encourages catch and release as a sportsmanlike practice while the other dictates it.

Catch and Release As Ethical Behavior:

 Voluntary catch and release evolved during the transition of recreational fishing into the sport we participate in today and has become part and parcel of sportfishing's guiding principles or ethics. Ethics require a moral code and that code has been established over decades of promoting sportsmanlike conduct and conservation. However, angling ethics are not applied in a similar manner to all marine fish pursued by anglers. Certain species of fish are elevated to the status of gamefish, while some are sought by anglers for their eating quality and still others fall into a gray area somewhere in-between. It is important for conservationists and fishery managers to recognize these differences because recreational fishing has a range of meanings and perceived benefits to different segments of the fishing population. While catch and release is considered ethical behavior to anglers who pursue highly regarded gamefish, it is not embraced by anglers who pursue a species of fish as much to eat as for the enjoyment. The position of the latter becomes even harder when the fishery he is participating in has a commercial component. Prohibiting the retention of fish by individual anglers that may be caught and sold by commercial interests is simply unsupportable. Each angler is right in his respective position, but should not seek to impose his position on the other. Fishery managers must recognize these positions when regulating harvest in any fishery and anglers who seek to impose their behavior on their fellow anglers engaged in different fisheries should be more considerate of the differences that exist.

 Species perceived as prized gamefish are elevated to such lofty status because of the difficulty in catching them or for the fighting ability they exhibit. These fish are most likely to be released voluntarily by anglers. Most notable are marlin and sailfish, which are revered for their acrobatic display when challenged using appropriate tackle and which are, to some degree, prohibited from commercial harvest. Bycatch mortality in commercial fisheries is still the leading cause of fishing mortality among all billfish.

 Killing these fish at the end of a spirited fight is considered anathema by most anglers. The regard in which they are held is evident in the percentage of billfish released by anglers prior to the implementation of even the first regulations (size limits) placed on them by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1988. In 1987, 60% of the blue marlin, 73% of the white marlin and 94% of the sailfish caught recreationally in U.S. waters were released voluntarily. (Source: 1994/1995 Report of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center - Billfish Program) The trend toward release has continued on a steady pace with the constant education process undertaken by the sportfishing media and industry.

 Today, anglers rarely retain billfish except in the cases of a possible record fish, to have a special catch mounted, or those caught in the course of a tournament, which requires the weighing of fish to determine the winner. In recent years, even the number of marlin and sailfish killed in tournaments has declined dramatically through efforts to improve communications while the contest is in progress and by the institution of catch and release format contests. In recent years, U.S. anglers have maintained a release rate well over 90% for marlin and sailfish and even though there are federally regulated size limits in place aimed at reducing angler harvest, they are not credited with impacting the practice of live release to any degree.

 Only a few other species are held in similar regard to billfish and experience similarly high voluntary release rate. Tarpon, bonefish and Atlantic salmon are notables, while a host of other marine species benefit from the gamefish perception to a varying degree. More species are gaining greater acceptance as gamefish and that perception combined with regulation has seen live release soar to unprecedented levels.

Regulatory "Catch & Release":

 There is a second form of catch and release that has evolved as a result of regulations imposed on anglers by federal and state agencies. In this instance, the release of fish caught is in response to the imposition of size limits, bag limits, seasonal closures or, in rare instances, a complete moratorium on the harvest of a particular specie (i.e. The current ban on the harvest of jewfish due to the species' once precariously overfished stock situation, which makes any angler encounter exclusively catch and release). Fish that might have been retained for consumption or other use must be released under penalty of law. In recent years, regulatory catch and release has become commonplace for saltwater anglers due to the decline in stock abundance of almost all of the species that are recreationally popular. Many of the stock declines come at the hands of commercial overfishing, habitat loss and regulatory mismanagement. As part of the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) aimed at reversing the declines and rebuilding sustainable fisheries, recreational fishermen have shouldered a significant portion of the burden through regulations. Many of the species with strict recreational regulations are not considered gamefish, but are pursued by anglers for their food quality in addition to the enjoyment gained from fishing. In such cases, those fish large enough to retain for consumption most likely would not be released voluntarily, however, as part of an FMP, angler harvest is limited by size limits, bag limits and/or seasonal closures and therefore release a significant percentage of the fish they catch. In some cases, the percentage of catch released has reached levels that were unimaginable just a few short years ago.

 One of the most sought-after fish in the Mid-Atlantic States is the summer flounder. Summer flounder are by no means a gamefish. They are pursued for their fine eating characteristics and, to a lesser extent, because they are relatively easy and fun to catch. Since the implementation of the FMP to rebuild their depleted stocks in 1993, which came with the imposition of strict size and bag limits and seasonal closures on recreational anglers, the level of angler release grew to 80% of the fish caught by 1999! During the ten years prior to the FMP, voluntary release, mostly of undersized fish exclusively, averaged approximately 45%. (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service - Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey)

Synthesis Improves Management Effectiveness:

 Somewhere between voluntary and regulatory catch and release is a middle ground which anglers practice that is strongly influenced by the status of the species being caught. For example, the live release of striped bass today is well in excess of even the highly restrictive size and bag limits imposed on anglers. In 1999, over 90% of the stripers caught were released. This is an extraordinary percentage when you look back and realize that just 25 years ago almost every striped bass caught by anglers was killed to eat or to sell (sale of angler caught striped bass was legal in many states). The transition from an almost 100% kill to a 90% release ratio is simply astounding. (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service - Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey) Could regulations alone influence anglers to release such a high percentage of the stripers they catch? The answer is unquestionably, no.

 Striped bass have not always been considered a gamefish due to their excellent food quality. However, the perception by anglers has changed considerably in recent years. The near tragic loss of this specie due to decades of commercial and recreational overfishing gave way to an air of cooperation in the efforts put forth by the Atlantic States to reverse the stock decline and save the specie from total collapse. Draconian regulations and even periods of total harvest moratoriums in some states were put in place and, as the stocks slowly started to rebuild, the perception of anglers evolved from one of a fish destined for someone's table to a premiere inshore gamefish that must be protected. Regulatory catch and release through size and bag limits and seasonal closures were actually exceeded through voluntary catch and release of all stripers by an amazing number of anglers who had come to believe that killing this fish for anything short of a trophy was unconscionable. The shift in perception had a dramatic effect on the rate of compliance with the harsh measures implemented in the FMP. It was the combination of voluntary catch and release as ethical behavior with regulatory catch and release imposed by the FMP that created the atmosphere for the plan to succeed. Today, striped bass are rebuilding to remarkable levels of abundance and anglers are permitted to retain a small percentage of their catch for personal consumption or as trophies, should they desire to do so, yet many anglers continue to release far more striped bass than the law compels them to.

 Even in the case of summer flounder, anglers comply with regulation not just because it is the law, but also because they have been conditioned by their sense of ethical behavior. They comply with the regulations believing it is their ethical responsibility and that releasing fish today will result in improved stock abundance and less regulation in the future.

 It is imperative that fishery managers realize that compliance with many regulations restricting recreational harvest is the result of the ethical angling behavior, an adjunct to voluntary catch and release, as much as it is in response to the letter of the law. Most anglers understand, as do state and federal fishery managers and enforcement agencies, that compliance with recreational regulations must be overwhelmingly voluntarily. Gaining compliance through enforcement efforts is nearly impossible because of the number of recreational fishermen involved in most fisheries and the limited resources available to the enforcement agencies.

The Downside of Mandatory Catch & Release:

 While catch and release plays a role in today's recreational fisheries, if improperly applied as a management tool, it will have dire consequences for fishermen, the industry and the management process. Those in the management community who believe that mandating expanded catch and release as an alternative to angler harvest risk the consequences of dramatic reductions in angler participation and diminished economic benefit gained by their participation.

 There is a disturbing trend in the management community's vision of recreational fishing in the future as evidenced by the focus of recent meetings held by NMFS. In symposiums with anglers, conservationists and industry representatives, it appears that some in the agency may be exploring the possibility of replacing traditional recreational fishing with regulated harvest with catch and release exclusively. Such a move is ill advised and evidence of the dramatic disconnect between some managers and their understanding of what drives recreational fishing.

 While some fisheries lend themselves to the catch and release scenario, they are overwhelmingly found in freshwater. Even states that employ catch and release or no-kill streams or zones in some fisheries do not completely prohibit the retention of recreationally caught fish within their total jurisdictions. They merely pick and choose specific water to close to harvest. The RFA is concerned that federal and state fisheries managers are seeking a method by which to declare entire fisheries catch and release only, attempting to employ an ethical principle as a management panacea rather than recognizing it as a tool to be used with extreme care and only where absolutely needed. Once agencies have embarked on such a course of action, they will reduce angler interest in some of the most recreationally popular fisheries and cause the loss of economic benefits to the economy generated by the sport. If reducing angler participation is being seriously contemplated, mandatory catch and release would accomplish that goal nicely.

 Most species of marine fish of interest to anglers currently benefit from a significant degree of catch and release be it voluntary or associated with seasonal closures, bag and size limits. In fact, fully 60% of the recreational catch of the ten most popular species in the Atlantic region were released in the period between 1989 and 1998. (Source: NMFS - Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey) Of all the species sought by anglers, there are few indeed that have not been regulated to reduce fishing mortality and anglers have had to endure drastic regulation even though the major portion of this mortality and stock depletion is the result of commercial over-fishing and years of poor management by government agencies.

In Conclusion:

 If the push for additional regulations that result in excessive catch and release or if a move to make certain species catch and release exclusively is overused, and it is reaching or has reached that point in many FMPs already, angler compliance will be the first thing to suffer. The majority of the angling community has given its wholehearted support to rebuilding efforts and regulations they view as fair and balanced, even in fisheries where the culprit was commercial overfishing. Their compliance has been key to successfully reducing fishing mortality in many FMPs, especially those in which there is a strong recreational component. The RFA feels the management community must strive to better understand the importance of maintaining fairness in its management plans and recognize the reasons the public participates in recreational fishing before continuing down the slippery slope toward mandating catch and release practices to a greater degree than is currently in use today.

 Even in the case of the highly regarded billfishes, which now have among the strictest controls on harvest of any recreationally important specie; to mandate total catch and release, or raise the size limits further to effect that goal, will have serious consequences. It will reduce participation by denying the angling public the ability to harvest even a tiny fraction of the fish they catch in tournaments or as trophies. The loser will be the municipalities and states where billfish tournaments provide a much-needed economic boost to their economies. If catch and release is mandated in other fisheries, the consequences will be even more far-reaching and dramatic.

 Fishery management is frequently a balancing act: Excluding recreational participation through over-regulation; employing management practices that are patently unfair to one user group; or mandating fishing behavior and ethics that could bring about the demise of the management system as it exists today and risk the rebuilding of many fisheries that are finally responding to sensible management solutions.

 

Copyright 2003 - RFA -  All Rights Reserved

Website authored and designed by  Randy Davis - Webmaster.
Copyright © 2008 by  RFA - Texas.  All rights reserved.