Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture

ISSN: 2330-8249 (Print) 2330-8257 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs21

Global Participation in and Public Attitudes Toward Recreational Fishing: International Perspectives and Developments

Robert Arlinghaus, Øystein Aas, Josep Alós, Ivan Arismendi, Shannon Bower, Steven Carle, Tomasz Czarkowski, Kátia M. F. Freire, John Hu, Len M. Hunt, Roman Lyach, Andrzej Kapusta, Pekka Salmi, Alexander Schwab, Jun-ichi Tsuboi, Marek Trella, Daryl McPhee, Warren Potts, Arkadiusz Wołos & Zi- Jiang Yang

To cite this article: Robert Arlinghaus, Øystein Aas, Josep Alós, Ivan Arismendi, Shannon Bower, Steven Carle, Tomasz Czarkowski, Kátia M. F. Freire, John Hu, Len M. Hunt, Roman Lyach, Andrzej Kapusta, Pekka Salmi, Alexander Schwab, Jun-ichi Tsuboi, Marek Trella, Daryl McPhee, Warren Potts, Arkadiusz Wołos & Zi-Jiang Yang (2020): Global Participation in and Public Attitudes Toward Recreational Fishing: International Perspectives and Developments, Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2020.1782340

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1782340

Published online: 29 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=brfs21 REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1782340

REVIEW Global Participation in and Public Attitudes Toward Recreational Fishing: International Perspectives and Developments

Robert Arlinghausa , Øystein Aasb , Josep Alos c, Ivan Arismendid , Shannon Bowere, Steven Carlea, Tomasz Czarkowskif,Katia M. F. Freireg , John Huh, Len M. Hunti , Roman Lyachj, Andrzej Kapustaf, Pekka Salmik, Alexander Schwabl, Jun-ichi Tsuboim , Marek Trellaf, Daryl McPheen, Warren Pottso, Arkadiusz Wołosf, and Zi-Jiang Yangh,p aDepartment of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries & Division of Integrative Fisheries Management, Humboldt-Universit€at zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; bNorwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management &, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Lillehammer, Norway; cInstituto Mediterraneo de Estudios Avanzados (CSIC-UIB), Esporles, Spain; dDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA; eInfinity Social and Ecological Solutions, Ottawa, Canada; fThe Stanislaw Sakowicz Inland Fisheries Institute (IFI), Olsztyn, Poland; gDepartamento de Engenharia de Pesca e Aquicultura, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Brazil; hDepartment of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA; iCentre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Thunder Bay, Canada; jInstitute for Evaluations and Social Analyses (INESAN), Prague, the Czech Republic; kUnit Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Turku, Finland; lEichelm€andli Verlag, Hofstetten, Switzerland; mJapan Fisheries Research and Education Agency, Nikko, Tochigi, Japan; nFaculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Robina, Australia; oDepartment of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa; pChinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS The literature on global trends in recreational fishing, the determinants of participation in Environmental ethics; fish recreational fishing, and the social embedding of recreational fishing in the public eye are welfare; recreational fishing reviewed across the world. Data support a conceptual life-cycle model of fisheries according participation; global mapping; biodiversity to which interest in recreational fishing rises rapidly with economic development before lev- conservation; social eling off and eventually declining. Participation in recreational angling across the globe surveys; global varies substantially and is directly related to societal-level developments affecting resources, time, and socialization into fishing. Moreover, culture and the way that fish are historically situated within society appears to affect interest in fishing and the public perception of cer- tain fishing practices. Across the more developed western countries, a sustained shift in public values from anthropocentric to more biocentric viewpoints is documented. This shift puts traditional fisheries management that manages ecosystems for optimal fishing experi- ences under increasing scrutiny and elevates biodiversity conservation toward a key goal of contemporary fisheries management in many countries. However, while a pro fish welfare discourse can be traced to almost all developed countries covered in this review, this does not mean the recreational activity is threatened or welfare-oriented regulations are widely implemented, with a few exceptions in selected countries. Public surveys conducted in mainly developed countries around the world instead reveal that people generally view recreational fisheries as an acceptable pastime. Major structural changes are occurring in many societies related to immigration, increasing ethnic and cultural diversity of popula- tions, and social value change. Yet, little is known how these changes might affect recre- ational fishing participation and behavior, and the view of the general public toward fishing in the future. Panel research designs that repeatedly survey the public, and recreational fish- ers, will be needed to track value and participation changes over time, but such designs are rarely implemented in most countries that were reviewed in this work. Data gaps are par- ticularly strong for Africa and large parts of Central and South America as well as Russia and Asia.

1. Introduction humans and ecological systems interact intimately Recreational fisheries are prime examples of strongly across scales (Arlinghaus et al., 2008; Fenichel et al., coupled social-ecological systems (SESs) where 2013; Arlinghaus et al., 2017). The tight linkage of

CONTACT Robert Arlinghaus [email protected] Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries & Division of Integrative Fisheries Management, Humboldt-Universit€at zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. people and nature in coupled SESs is not new to fish- fisheries. The objective is achieved by reviewing data eries scientists and managers (Arlinghaus et al., 2008). and studies on fishing participation rates and determi- Despite the early recognition of the importance of the nants of the rates, and by reviewing philosophical and social aspects in fisheries science since the 1950s ethical perspectives on recreational fisheries. Based on (Gordon, 1954; Larkin, 1977; Aas and Ditton, 1998), a range of case studies in several areas of the world, there has been a tendency among recreational fisheries the social embedding of recreational fisheries is scholars and managers to take a “piscicentric” (Cowx described. Given shared historic backgrounds, it is et al., 2010), “reductionistic” (Aas, 2002) and overall assumed that there are “clusters” of countries with “narrow” (Pope et al., 2016) view that tends to focus specific perspectives toward recreational fisheries and on local biological and social issues and particular tar- that it is possible to associate these with wider soci- get species. Yet, all local or even regional recreational etal-level deployments that shape cultural and moral fisheries are embedded in other higher-order social- values in a given country. The core assumption here ecological systems, such as land use systems and soci- is that society and cultural values exert direct and ety at large (Hunt et al., 2013; Arlinghaus et al., 2015, indirect effects on fishing participation, the acceptabil- Pope et al., 2016). Changes and developments in the ity of fishing practices, and the acceptability of man- ecological and social fabrics of this broader SES will agement interventions by the public at large. almost always exert effects, directly or indirectly, on a fishery and create many tradeoffs related to a range of 2. The life-cycle of fisheries: a conceptual services provided by ecosystems (Pope et al., 2016). model of recreational fisheries development Relatedly, a local recreational fishery will be sensitive to changes in regional ecological factors, technology, Although recreational fisheries are of high importance communication channels, and altered societal norms globally (FAO, 2012; Arlinghaus et al., 2019), consid- and expectations about what fisheries managers and erable inter-regional and inter-country variance in its recreational fishers should do (e.g., fish welfare debate relative importance exists when compared to commer- in central Europe; Arlinghaus et al., 2012), or altered cial and subsistence fisheries or other uses of aquatic fishing participation in response to urbanization and ecosystems. Broadly speaking, recreational fishing demographic change (Arlinghaus et al., 2015). activity increases with economic development of soci- Therefore, a “reductionistic” perspective risks missing eties because people can afford to spend time fishing important cross-scale effects. during leisure time rather than engage in fishing as a If one is interested in foreseeing developments of primary means to secure nutrient input or even sur- recreational fishing participation in a given society, it vival (Smith, 1986). Clearly, there are borderline cases is worthwhile to ask general questions about societal- among recreational and other types of capture fish- level developments that shape the values and interests eries; in particular when recreational fishers have of members of society to engage in fishing relative to strong subsistence motives (Cooke et al., 2018). other leisure activities. Similarly, when a fisheries Recreational and subsistence fisheries, however, differ manager is designing management interventions, it by the need to secure personal essential nutritional may not be enough to be alert to the expectations of benefits through fishing products. Recreational fish- local resource users because decisions about actions eries start where fishing products are complements such as fish stocking or introduction of fish are very and not primary resources for survival (FAO, 2012), likely to affect stakeholders and their interests well and this is typically the case after significant economic beyond the core fisheries circle. In many western development of a given society provides employment countries, biodiversity conservation has become an opportunities beyond the primary fishing sector. important societal goal (Arlinghaus et al., 2002; FAO, Although the use of coastal and sometimes even off- 2012; Rahel, 2016), and thus, the appropriateness of a shore marine fish stocks by recreational fisheries also given management action is likely affected by cultural develops with economic development of a society, the values and the way society thinks about desirable states shifts from subsistence to commercial and finally and of nature, even in abstract terms. Recreational science is often exclusively to recreational use of wild fish stocks well advised to capture these systematic effects of the are particularly pervasive in inland fisheries social embedding of recreational fisheries. This review is (FAO, 2010b). an attempt to reach toward this goal. According to FAO (2010b) almost linear increases The aim of the present review is to take a wider in recreational fishing interest in a society are perspective on societal-level influences on recreational expected to occur with its economic development. REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 3

Recreaonal Conservaon locally and regionally important activity (Mike and fisheries, water- based recreaon Cowx, 1996; Potts et al., 2009; Everard and Kataria,

s r Fish producon 2011). The situation is different in less developed e s and commercial u

f

o fisheries countries, where subsistence and commercial fisheries

r e b usually dominate and consequently, subsistence and m u N commercial fisheries strongly influence the manage- ment and development of aquatic ecosystems. Because recreational fisheries initially increase with Degree of industrialisaon and anthropogenic impact economic development, many contemporary recre- Fishery regulaons (targeng fishery) ational fisheries take place in pervasively anthropogen- MANAGEMENT Stock enhancement (targeng fish stock) MEASURES ically-altered habitats and ecosystems that are affected Rehabilitaon (targeng ecosystem) by many impacts unrelated to fishing, such as dam- Figure 1. The life-cycle of inland fisheries (modified from ming, pollution, habitat simplification, and non-indi- Cowx et al., 2010). The number of “users” involves all stake- holders of aquatic ecosystems, whether they are direct users genous species establishment (Arlinghaus et al., 2002; (e.g., recreationists) or indirect “users” (e.g., people that care Carpenter et al., 2017). Moreover, many recreational about aquatic ecosystems without directly using them). fishing habitats in more developed countries are char- acterized by multi-use patterns (e.g., navigation, flood control, energy production, waste disposal, fisheries, Yet, infinite growth of recreational fisheries is boating, and tourism). Recreational fisheries, there- unlikely. Specifically for inland fisheries, the “life- fore, rarely operate in a vacuum, and thus, a range of cycle” of fisheries introduced by Smith (1986) and stakeholders, activities, and interests must be consid- extended by Arlinghaus et al. (2002) and Cowx et al. ered. The strong effects of non-fishery impacts on (2010) predicts a stabilization or even decline of recre- aquatic ecosystems, particularly in freshwaters of ational fishing growth after an initial rise with eco- industrialized countries, not only affects the quality of nomic development (Figure 1). According to this many recreational fisheries but they also motivate conceptual model, the maximum recreational fishing conservation concern by the wider society, sometimes participation rate is expected to occur during an inter- involving concern for the welfare of fish and for bio- mediate phase of economic development (represented diversity conservation in general (Arlinghaus et al., by industrialization and urbanization), after which 2002, 2009)(Figure 1). One consequence of rising recreational fishing interest is expected to decline. societal demands for conservation of wild living Before this eventual decline, likely caused by now resources, including the need to avoid any further bio- urbanized people losing contact to and interest in fish diversity impacts (Cowx et al., 2010), is that recre- and wildlife (Arlinghaus et al., 2015), a rapid rise in ational fisheries must be managed using integrated freshwater recreational fishing interest coupled with a (i.e. across various sectors) policies involving a range decline in subsistence or commercial fishing is of tools, including habitat management approaches, expected in all countries that experience strong besides the more traditionally employed harvest regu- growth in economic development. Indeed, many lations, effort controls, season controls, or fish stock- countries in transitional economies in Asia, Latin ing (FAO, 2012). America, South America and Africa are currently experiencing sharply rising development of recre- 3. Global recreational fishing participation and ational fisheries (Potts et al 2009; FAO, 2010b; its drivers Welcomme et al., 2010; Freire et al., 2018, Bower et al., in press), and in many regions (e.g. southern To understand the drivers of recreational fishing par- Pantanal and Iguape and Cananeia Lagoon Estuarine ticipation, the best available data and studies on fish- System in southern S~ao Paulo, both in Brazil) catches ing participation rates around the globe were by recreational fisheries for selected species have sur- compiled and recreational fisher numbers relative to passed those by commercial fishers (Catella, 2006; the total population size were mapped (Figure 2). This Motta et al., 2016). These results suggest that with work updated previous assessments (Arlinghaus et al., economic development, subsistence fisheries may 2015, 2019). Data availability on recreational fisher transform into, or be replaced by more leisure-like numbers strongly varies around the globe (Figure 2). forms of fishing, and in some developing nations rec- Data gaps are particularly widespread in developing reational fishing tourism and/or guiding has become a countries (Figure 2), but there is good coverage in 4 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

Figure 2. Revised map of fishing participation rates as a fraction of the entire population of a country (updated from Arlinghaus et al., 2019). n.a. no estimate available. ¼ Oceania, Europe, and much of North America. activities than fishing, freeing time and resources for Recreational fishing hotspots with more than 20% of outdoor recreational activities, such as fishing (Figure the total population participating in recreational fish- 1). Consequently, more resources can be invested in ing include some Scandinavian countries and Russia. leisure activities to meet “higher order” personal needs On average across the globe, the recreational fishing and psychological goals (see for general sociological participation rate is about 10.6% (Arlinghaus et al., perspective, Inglehart, 1990; see for a conceptual 2015) summing to about 120 million recreational fish- model in recreational fisheries, Smith, 1986; ers in North America, Oceania and Europe alone. Arlinghaus et al., 2002; FAO, 2012). Yet, there are Collectively, the World Bank (2012) estimates a min- limits to growth, and indeed in many highly industri- imum of 220 million recreational fishers globally, but alized countries, recreational-fishing interest has either this estimate must be considered a vast underestimate stabilized or even declined in recent years (e.g., given that in China alone 220 million recreational Canada: Gray et al., 2003; Brownscombe et al., 2014; fishers have been reported (China Society of Germany: Arlinghaus, 2006a; United Kingdom: Fisheries, 2018). Aprahamian et al., 2010; The Netherlands: van der A range of supply-related factors (e.g., availability Hammen and Chen, 2020). Several factors associated of water bodies, Adams et al., 1993) and demand- with urbanization likely contribute to these trends related factors (e.g., preferences and perceived con- (Adams et al., 1993; Aas, 1996; Arlinghaus, 2004; straints by individuals, Sutton et al., 2009) interact to Arlinghaus et al., 2012). In several of these countries affect the likelihood that a person participates in rec- and after several years of declines, however, a recent reational fishing (Edwards, 1989). In terms of demand rise in angling participation has been documented factors, micro-level decision making by individuals is (Aprahamian et al., 2010; Brownscombe et al., 2014; nested in, and affected by, macro-level societal devel- USFWS, 2018). opments (Manfredo et al., 2009). For example, the Macro-level observations, such as the participation macro-level factor “industrialization” is a major driver rate for fishing in a country, are an emerging property of cultural and corresponding value change in many of complex micro-level individual decision-making countries worldwide (Inglehart, 1990; Manfredo, processes. Recreational fishing is a goal-oriented pro- 2008). Following the life-cycle of fisheries, many of cess that helps the individual person meeting expected the industrialization-induced societal changes initially psychological and social outcomes, alternatively foster public interest in recreational fishing because termed “needs”, “benefits”, or “utilities” (Driver and increasing wealth helps large fractions of society meet Knopf, 1976; Driver and Cooksey, 1977; Manfredo their base needs for nutrient intake through other et al., 1996; Hunt, 2005). Yet, even if a person is REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 5 motivated to fish, this motivation can only be found support for both aging and cohort (i.e., a gen- achieved if opportunities are available (e.g., nearby erally decreasing interest in fishing across younger sites, licenses, and areas with abundance of desirable generations) effects that negatively affect fishing par- fish species, Edwards, 1989; Adams et al., 1993; Hunt ticipation interest (Burkett and Winkler, 2019). The et al., 2017), and one has the time and financial conclusion of the aging effect, however, is not univer- resources to engage in fishing (Walsh et al., 1989; sal among different studies. At the individual-level, Floyd and Lee, 2002). As a next step, perceived per- formal education is associated with a reduced likeli- sonal constraints must be overcome and negotiated hood of fishing in freshwater (Arlinghaus, 2006a; van (Crawford et al., 1991; Stensland et al., 2017). Indeed, der Hammen and Cheng, 2020) but it is associated the literature on leisure constraints has often identi- with an increased likelihood for saltwater fishing in fied “lack of time”, such as due to family commit- the USA (Lee et al., 2016), possibly indicating con- ments, as an important barrier to initiation of fishing text-specific effects depending on the type of fishery (Fedler and Ditton, 2001; Sutton, 2007; but see and the financial resources needed to acquire access. Freudenberg and Arlinghaus, 2009 for an alternative Despite these uncertainties and partly conflicting find- finding). Against this background, one might expect ings, studying demographic variation among countries that societies where the average individual has more offers a promising way to explain variation in partici- resources available greater recreational-fishing partici- pation rates in consumptive recreational activities, pation rates will occur. Similarly, greater water avail- such as hunting (Heberlein et al., 2002) and fishing ability should be positively associated with fishing- (Arlinghaus et al., 2015). participation rates (Adams et al., 1993). Developing models that predict participation rates The country- (and state-) level participation rate in in fishing across countries requires aggregate informa- recreational fishing is influenced by demographic tion that describes demographic and geographic con- (e.g., aging) and other societal-level factors, such as ditions for entire countries or states (e.g., average age proximity to the coastline (Loomis and Ditton, 1988; of individuals in the nation, available surface water Edwards, 1989; Murdock et al., 1992, 1996). Among for fishing in a country). This requirement means the many factors affecting fishing likelihood, social- moving the sampling unit from the individual mem- structural variables are better predictors of participa- ber of society to countries or states. By doing so, one tion in leisure activities than are self-reported can use the observed variance in participation rates in intrapersonal or interpersonal constraints (Shaw et al., recreational fishing among countries, states, or regions 1991; Aas, 1996; Sutton et al., 2009). One way to within a country as a sample to develop statistical quantitatively understand fishing-participation rates is models at the aggregate country-level. This approach to statistically associate individual-level demographic has been adopted to study participation rates in the metrics, such as age, income, or residency in urban USA (Edwards, 1989; Adams et al. 1993; Poudyal areas, to individual-level observations of engagement et al., 2011), in specific Canadian provinces in recreational fishing, and thereby estimate a prob- (Dabrowska et al., 2014; Hunt et al., 2017), and glo- abilistic model of fishing interest (Walsh et al., 1989; bally (Arlinghaus et al., 2015). Arlinghaus et al. (2015) Floyd and Lee, 2002; Arlinghaus, 2006a). Using this concluded that four general factors drive variation in approach, many associations between individual-level fishing participation rates, which were broadly sup- demographic variables and the likelihood of fishing ported by Poudyal et al. (2011) for the USA. recreationally have been established. Income, male First, recreational-fishing participation is positively gender, and proximity to, and quality of, fishing sites related to the cultural importance of fish and fishing positively relate to fishing participation, while age (but in a given country. Cultural importance was opera- see Floyd and Lee, 2002; Arlinghaus, 2006a for other tionalized by Arlinghaus et al. (2015) through the findings), household size (but see Walsh et al., 1989), crude indicator of total fishing landings. As expected, and urban residency negatively relate to the likelihood a positive relationship existed between total fish land- to fish recreationally in specific studies (e.g., Walsh ings and the proportion of a given society that recre- et al., 1989; Floyd and Lee, 2002; Arlinghaus, 2006a; ationally fishes. It is likely that countries with a long Thunberg and Fulcher, 2006; Lee et al., 2016; van der tradition in harvesting fish for either subsistence or Hammen and Cheng, 2020). While it is unclear commercial reasons exhibit a heritage of fishing in whether the age effects reported in these individual- society, which might spur interest in recreational fish- level studies reflect period, aging, or cohort effects, a ing as resources and leisure-time become available recent study from the Great Lakes area in the USA with industrialization. 6 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

Second, there is a negative effect of post-industrial- achievement associated with the catch of challenging ization and urbanization on recreational-fishing rates. game fish (Freudenberg and Arlinghaus, 2009). Post-industrialization can be assessed by the per capita Catching and experiencing nature aside, the very same gross domestic product (GDP) while urbanization can psychological benefits may also be served by alterna- be assessed by population density. Both variables were tive leisure activities such as golfing, indoor sports, independently significant in the study of Arlinghaus wildlife watching, jogging, or computer gaming. For et al. (2015), indicating that both post-industrializa- some people, the motivation of achievement might be tion and urbanization are negatively associated with better served by computer gaming than through meet- recreational fishing participation rates. The negative ing the challenge of catching a trophy fish, in turn impact of the size of the economy (GDP) on recre- decreasing the likelihood to engage in fishing if the ational fishing may at first appear counterintuitive. alternative leisure activity becomes available through This relationship, however, agrees with the life-cycle technological development. Motivations aside, the of fisheries (Figure 1). Accordingly, interest in recre- increasingly supported “videophilia hypothesis” ational fishing first rises with economic development (Pergams and Zaradic, 2006) positions that electronic and hence average prosperity of a country, but then entertainment as well as other leisure activities merely typically it stabilizes or declines after reaching a peak compete with hunting, fishing, and other traditional in fishing participation (Figure 1). nature-based recreational activities for time and peer Multiple social processes are likely responsible for support in contemporary western societies. Simply the combined negative effects of economic develop- said: if one has limited time and your peers engage in ment and urbanization. One important contributor computer games or other indoor activities, interest in could involve change of social values, value orienta- fishing might decline through social copying. tions, and animal and environment-related norms as a Considerable evidence now exists that increasing elec- result of post-modernization (see section 4). In fact, tronic entertainment causes or is at least strongly cor- economic development of societies tends to de- related to a decline in nature-based recreational emphasize utilitarian and favor egalitarian world-views activities, such as recreational hunting (Pergams and of so-called mutualistic type, which foster an animal- Zaradic, 2006; Robison and Ridenour, 2012). use-related ideology of caring as opposed to personal Another distinct feature of post-industrialization is use of wildlife and fish (Manfredo, 2008). Reductions increasing urbanization, which has a range of effects in utilitarian values constrain the interest of the public that are not conducive to fishing and hunting partici- in engaging in consumptive outdoor recreational pation. These effects include, but are not limited to, activities, such as hunting and fishing (Bruskotter and reducing the exposure of individuals to traditional Fulton, 2008; Manfredo, 2008; Manfredo et al., 2009). rural recreational activities such as hunting and fish- Arlinghaus et al. (2012) reported that the proportion ing (Heberlein et al., 2002; Manfredo, 2008), reducing of people holding negative moral attitudes toward the availability of unmodified land and water for fishing increased with the proportion of society living hunting and fishing (Walsh et al., 1989), and alien- in urban areas in the USA and Germany. Collectively, ation of large segments of society from direct contact economic development could favor values and beliefs with wildlife and nature, contributing to the “nature within society that reduce the social acceptability of deficit disorder” (Louv, 2009). Tied to these factors fishing as a leisure activity, but more research on this are reductions in the social standing of fishing and topic is warranted. For example, the currently rising hunting as a form of recreation or even life-style “green” or “slow food” movements in some of the (Manfredo, 2008), which in turn negatively affects most economically advanced and urbanized European socialization into fishing. The early exposure of fishing countries could also lead to increased interest in fish- and hunting to children by adult family members is ing for meeting nutritional needs based on self-caught probably the most important entry point to develop a local fish. fishing interest later in life (Sofranko and Nolan, Another contributor to declining fishing interest 1972; Arlinghaus, 2004). If opportunities to go fishing with growing prosperity is the growth of alternative are not available in the now urbanized neighborhood, leisure activities, many of which may provide similar it is likely that the younger generations will seek alter- expected psychological outcomes as fishing. For native leisure activities to meet their expected psycho- example, an important motive for recreational fishing logical outcomes. These alternative activities may also is temporary escape (Driver and Knopf, 1976; Fedler provide more pleasure if they happen to coincide with and Ditton, 1994; Ditton, 2004) and personal the habitual environment experienced as “built urban REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 7 environment”. In fact, spill over leisure theory (Kraus, using US state-level data, Poudyal et al. (2011) 2008) argues that people will choose recreational revealed positive impacts of income and negative activities that are contextually similar to their work impacts of education, full-time employment status, environment. As less physically active indoor activities and commute time, and a generally declining interest grow in urbanized countries, people may prefer recre- among younger cohorts on fishing participation in the ation that is similarly structured (Robison and USA. The same was reported from the Great Lakes Ridenour, 2012). Not surprisingly, more urbanized states more specifically, but only for males, while fish- states and countries tend to host less recreational fish- ing by females was recently showing increasing trends ers (Adams et al., 1993; Aas, 1996; Arlinghaus, 2004) (Burkett and Winkler, 2019). Also, recent data show and hunters (Heberlein et al., 2002), corroborating the increasing participation rates of young people in the findings of Arlinghaus et al. (2015). USA (USFWS, 2018). Independent of this ongoing Other key factors associated with urbanization that discussion particularly related to the aging versus diminish participation in recreational fishing relate to cohort effects, Arlinghaus et al. (2015) adds to this lit- structural changes in society (e.g., rise of specific erature by highlighting how resource-related factors minority groups that fish less than Caucasians, exerts effects across countries in relation to recre- Murdock et al., 1996), increases in commute time, ational fishing participation rates. urbanization-induced changes in available fishing In the study by Arlinghaus et al. (2015), average waters due to land use change, rising education, and weekly working hours was positively associated with effects of high opportunity costs of time (see Poudyal the participation rate in recreational fishing. While et al., 2011 for details). one might be inclined to perceive work time as a con- Third, the availability of individual time and finan- straint and hence barrier to fishing, it is important to cial resources and the perceived leisure needs affect realize that the variable rarely (< 5% of all values) recreational fishing interest. Indicators of resource exceeded 42 weekly working hours (Arlinghaus et al., availability of states or societies are for example aver- 2015). It is contended that this amount of work time age age, average household size, unemployment rate, commitment does not constrain people from engaging and average weekly working hours (Poudyal et al., in fishing due to “lack of time” (Aas, 1995; Fedler and 2011; Arlinghaus et al., 2015). The first three variables Ditton, 2001; Sutton et al., 2009). The positive effect might be interpreted as measuring the availability of of weekly working hours, all else being equal, on par- physical (age), time (household size), and monetary ticipation rate, instead, is consistent with the idea that (unemployment rate) resources of the average member development leads to a greater need for leisure, of society. Some individual-level statistical models of thereby elevating the likelihood that people engage in fishing participation have previously documented that fishing. Indeed, temporary escape from work-commit- age (Walsh et al., 1989; Thunberg and Fulcher, 2006, ments in aquatic nature is often a dominant motive but see Arlinghaus, 2006a for alternative findings), for choosing to fish recreationally (Driver and Knopf, household size (Arlinghaus, 2006a), and low availabil- 1976; Ditton, 2004). ity of monetary resources (Walsh et al., 1989; Floyd Fourth and finally, availability of quality fishing and Lee, 2002; Arlinghaus, 2006a; Lee et al., 2016) opportunities, or rough surrogates such as access to negatively affected the probability of fishing for recre- waters, exerted a positive effect on angling participa- ation, likely reflecting physical, time and financial tion across the world (Arlinghaus et al., 2015). This constraints. As before, correlation is not causation and result is confirmed by Hunt et al. (2017) who found a there is only one study that separates aging from positive relationship between fishing participation in cohort effects on recreational fishing participation Ontario, Canada and proximity to areas with higher (Burkett and Winkler, 2019). Given there is only one fish abundance (Hunt et al., 2017). While this effect is cohort study, it is unclear whether early demographic not surprising per se, the measurement of quality fish- studies from the USA reporting that aging at the soci- ing opportunities is often proxied by availability of, or ety-level is expected to reduce angling rates (Murdock access to, water (Walsh et al., 1989; Adams et al., et al., 1996) generally holds true across the world 1993; Poudyal et al., 2011; Stensland et al., 2017). The (Arlinghaus, 2006a). For the USA, studies by use of this proxy makes it difficult to assess the rela- Thunberg and Fulcher (2006) revealed that the partici- tive importance of quality fishing opportunities versus pation effects of household income, education, and other factors in influencing fishing participation rates. age were stable across survey years in a study on mar- In the one instance with a more direct measure of ine recreational fishing in the USA. More recently, quality fishing opportunities, Hunt et al. (2017) 8 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

Figure 3. A conceptual model of multi-dimensional and hierarchically organized (from contextual at the level of cultures to indi- vidual-level) drivers of recreational fishing participation. concluded that urbanization (as measured by popula- consciously or subconsciously (Lee et al., 2016). If fish- tion density) had a stronger effect than fish biomass ing becomes one way to achieve personal aims, the at influencing rates of fishing participation in regions availability of individual resources will then determine of Ontario, Canada. Relatedly, in the multi-country whether one has the means to fish for recreation. study by Arlinghaus et al. (2015) access to the coast- Personal resources fall on particularly fruitful grounds if line and extent of freshwater areas available to fishing opportunities for fishing exist. Most importantly, how- had much lower importance to affect recreational fish- ever, the participation decision and the continuation of ing than urbanization or the size of the economy. recreational-fishing interest will be strongly driven by This result agrees with constraint studies in lapsed key brokers such as relevant others (e.g., parent, friend, recreational fishers who consistently reported that uncle, aunt, neighbor, etc.) that socialize oneself into structural aspects such as “lack of time” or too many fishing when young. All aspects mentioned (i.e. resour- commitments exerted greater inhibitory effect than ces, opportunities, and socialization), clearly, are affected availability of water per se (Fedler and Ditton, 2001; by demographic, economic, and other structural societal Sutton et al., 2009). Of course, it is unlikely that recre- changes, many of which correlate with urbanization. It ational fishing interest can be entirely decoupled from is, thus, concluded that societal-level trends and drivers fishing quality in a specific region. that are largely outside of immediate control of the fish- To conclude, it is proposed that the general propen- eries manager will exert a large overall effect on recre- sity of a society to host recreational fishers is first related ational fishing participation (Figure 3). On this basis, to the cultural precondition and fishing legacy of the sustained and increased interest in recreational fishing is country (Figure 3). This conclusion suggests that con- predicted for economies in transition, while participation textual effects that vary among countries and cultures rate, on average, could decay (further) in most highly will be relevant and can put a certain national recre- urbanized societies, simply because increasing urbaniza- ational fishery on a given development track. Put differ- tion is a major global trend (see projections by the ently: although the present review so far suggests that, World Bank, www.worldbank.org). Pro-angling cultural on average, the life-cycle of fisheries should hold, patch conditions in particular societies as well as dedicated dependencies (e.g., access to marine environments leads marketing and the removal of barriers to participation to early fishing, which in turn lead to societal appreci- (e.g., urban fishing, the need to pass examinations in ation for consumptive resource use) can contribute to some countries, Heberlein and Tomson, 1997) can, how- country-specific patterns that deviate from the expected ever, help to increase fishing participation in countries impact of urbanization and development. Given the where the interest has declined recently (e.g., UK, see right cultural climate, any member of society is a poten- Aprahamian et al., 2010). tial recreational fisher. Whether one becomes a recre- ational fisher then depends on the interaction of 4. Perspectives from environmental ethics on socialization, opportunity, cultural embedding, and other recreational fisheries and their challenges contextual conditions and personal goals and needs, par- ticularly the personal choice and motivation to engage Recreational fisheries are embedded in sociocultural in recreational fishing, rather than in other recreational processes. Changes in social values toward recreational activities, to fulfill the expected psychological outcomes fishing will eventually affect norms, policies, REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 9

Figure 4. Different domains of interest and key demarcations of moral concern in different schools of environmental ethics. institutions, and perspectives by politicians, agency On the opposite level to anthropocentrism, non- staff, and managers toward recreational fisheries. In anthropocentric views common in debates of environ- fact, all societies and human communities design laws, mental philosophy encompass biocentrism and holism regulations, and other forms of institutions to suit the (Figure 4). Biocentrism places the entire living world contemporary “Zeitgeist” in society, which is a repre- at the center of considerations. While humans are sentation of social and cultural norms and values. The part of the living world, morally speaking, the world academic discipline that tries to sort the resulting does not exclusively revolve around humans. Holism moral issues in navigating human-environment inter- takes the broadest approach and considers the entire actions is environmental ethics, which is a branch of ecosphere including abiotic matter (Leopold, 1970; philosophy that deals with the relationship between Foltz, 2003). humans and nature. Environmental philosophy consti- The moral status of animals, including fishes, tutes the general framework of the current debate on within anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric views animal use including use for recreational fisheries differs widely, but there are three clear perspectives (Arlinghaus et al., 2012), and thus, it will be briefly represented in the philosophical literature: animal wel- reviewed to provide context. fare, animal liberation, and animal rights (Arlinghaus Broadly speaking four major dimensions of increas- et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2012). There are also hybrid views ing moral concern toward animals and the natural (Sandøe and Christiansen, 2008), which feature vari- environment, including obviously fishes, can be iden- ous elements of these and other ethical positions and tified (Figure 4): anthropocentric, suffering-centred are more difficult to characterize clearly. Each per- (pathocentric), biocentric, and holistic worldviews spective has different implications for the social (Arlinghaus and Schwab, 2011). The anthropocentric acceptability of recreational fishing as is briefly (i.e., human-centred) view holds that human beings described below (details in Arlinghaus and Schwab, and their needs are at the center of moral concern. 2011). This description is done acknowledging that Anthropocentrism is believed to be at the root of the the public actually holds a variety of diverging and world-view of the fisheries profession because fisheries potentially contradicting beliefs and attitudes toward management is about actions to achieve human- the treatment of fishes that might not as neatly be defined goals and objectives for fisheries resources categorized as the attempt below and the field of and aquatic ecosystems, considering tradeoffs environmental ethics suggests. It is, nevertheless, use- (Arlinghaus et al., 2002). ful to be reminded about the root moral principles of 10 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. different ethics schools as these neatly underscore are a widely accepted reason and a popular motive for conflict and conflicting perspectives surrounding rec- recreational fishing (Cooke et al., 2018). reational fishing and its activities. 4.1.2. Economic benefits According to FAO (2012), recreational fishing is dis- 4.1. Anthropocentrism as dominant historical tinguished from commercial fishing in that the indi- route of fisheries management vidual fishing protagonist does not pursue the The core idea of anthropocentrism is that recreational economic goals of securing resources to meet his or fishing is good because it provides material and non- her own survival. Recreational fishers, instead, seek material benefits often described as ecological services the abstract concept of utility, which is a non-market to individual participants, to society at large, and pos- reward composed of a range of catch and non-catch- sibly also to ecosystems, habitats, and fish populations. related utility components (Hunt, 2005). One measure When taking this perspective, which is very common of the degree of utility that a recreational fisher among hunters, fishers, and fisheries management receives is the total amount of monetary resources professionals, actions maximize the production of the that the individual would be willing to invest before instrumental benefits that fishing creates while main- deciding to do something else (a concept known as taining the extracted resource and the habitats needed willingness-to-pay, Johnston et al., 2006). The benefits to support the resource. Such perspective ad the core received minus the actual costs incurred are known as of the traditional sustainability concept related to nat- economic value or consumer surplus (Weithman, ural resources. In this context, one can identify the 1999; Parkkila et al., 2010) and represent the net ben- following set of instrumental values associated with efits received by a recreational fisher. These net bene- recreational fishing in the discourse – all of which fol- fits of a fishing day are usually substantial across the low a utilitarian (use-oriented) perspective about rec- world (see review by Johnston et al., 2006). reational fisheries. Accordingly, recreational fisheries The actual costs (expenditure) incurred by recre- are perceived by anthropocentrists as good because ational fishers reduce the value of fishing to the fish- they provide the following benefits to individuals, ers (because the fishing would even be inducing larger society, and ecosystems and populations at large (e.g., utility than when forced to pay for it), but at the same Parkkila et al., 2010; Tufts et al., 2015). time induce a range of economic impacts in the econ- omy (Parkkila et al., 2010). These expenditures fuel a 4.1.1. Food benefits large macroeconomic activity in a range of sectors. Recreational fishing is fun, but also about food For example, fisher expenditures in the USA is (Cooke et al., 2018). Although underappreciated, the responsible for feeding over 828,000 jobs in a $115 quasi-subsistence component of recreational fisheries billion USD industry (Southwick Associates, 2012). In is substantial in many areas of the world (Aas and Germany alone, recreational anglers are responsible Skurdal, 1996; Cooke et al., 2018). Fishing for food is for feeding about 52,000 jobs (Arlinghaus, 2004), and also the most basic justification of fishing in general, the total marine recreational fishery in Europe gener- which also holds for recreational fishing (Arlinghaus ates roughly 100,000 jobs (Hyder et al., 2018). The et al., 2012), and success in catching food for dinner total jobs created by recreational fisheries in countries also brings pleasure. The English explorer and adven- such as USA and Germany are larger than the jobs turer Captain John Smith (1580-1631) observed about dependent on commercial fisheries (Tufts et al., 2015). indigenous people: “In their hunting and fishing they Recreational fishing is thus not only a private affair take extreme paines; yet it being their ordinary exer- during leisure time, but also a producer of a large cise from infancy, they esteem it a pleasure and are industry and of many million jobs world-wide (World very proud to be expert therein.” (as cited in Bank, 2012). Ironically perhaps, the economic benefits Goodspeed, 1939). Such early fishing may not qualify of recreational fisheries are the least well known to as recreational fishing as it is defined today (FAO, the public, according to a public survey in Germany 2012). If, however, Izaak Walton (1593-1683) enjoyed (Riepe and Arlinghaus, 2014). Note that from a eating his catch, it was part of recreational fishing macroeconomic perspective, however, the job effects where fishing did not provide essential resources for are particularly relevant for a given region if they ori- personal survival (FAO, 2012). Whether for fresh or ginate from nonresident fishing and thus, truly consti- saltwater recreational fishing, the pleasures of the table tute novel money that is circulating in the economy REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 11 only due to the fishing activity (Parkkila et al., 2010, “recreational fishing interests”, are involved in all sorts Butler et al., 2020). of water and habitat improvement efforts to help pre- vent the loss or degrading of the aquafauna and flora. 4.1.3. Psycho-social benefits Conservation driven by the recreational fishing inter- It is tempting to distinguish neatly between individual ests may also create social, economic, and individual and social benefits (Parkkila et al., 2010), which is dif- benefits. For example, on the shores of, or in the ficult to achieve because all benefits experienced by catchment area of a heavily polluted lake, house and individual recreational fishers collectively sum to land value are typically lower than on a healthy lake determine social benefits. The problem is where to (Muller, 2009). All other wildlife, furthermore, will draw the line if indeed that is possible. Recreational thrive, thereby increasing biodiversity and in turn fishing contributes, for example, to a healthy work- potentially making entire regions more attractive for life-balance of individuals and generates a range of tourism in general and not just fishing tourism. Like desired psychological outcomes related to temporary in charity or educational work, conservation benefits escape, accomplishment, self-determination, and other many. Clearly, recreational fishers also negatively psycho-social benefits (Manfredo et al., 1996). impact on ecosystems and fish stocks (Post et al., Individual-level benefits scale to affect the social envir- 2002; Lewin et al., 2006), which is why one needs onment in which everyone is embedded and collect- proper management to capitalize on the positive ively represent social benefits. Likewise, if an individual potentials and avoid the damages. The FAO (2012) is involved in a fishing club, the benefits are not clearly provides international guidelines on how to develop attributable to an individual. Fishing clubs can engage, recreational fisheries responsibly. for example, in all kinds of charity work, providing facilities for disabled people, organizing educational 4.1.5. Intrinsic and cultural benefits events for children and young adults, thereby increas- A somewhat more abstract final value category related ing the awareness for environmental issues and social- to recreational fisheries relates to the cultural value of izing the next generation into the sustainable use of recreational fishing (Parkkila et al., 2010). This argu- fish and wildlife (Daedlow et al., 2011). Introducing ment is like the arguments fashionable in biodiversity young people to fishing helps to direct their energies science and conservation where people and policy mak- on constructive activities and leads often to a lifetime ers assign value to individual species or populations no interest (Sofranko and Nolan, 1972). Fishing clubs are matter which instrumental value (or ecosystem service in some places also a vital part of the web of rural life in modern terms) they produce to humans (Ghilarov, (Arlinghaus, 2006b), and they can assist in research 2000). There is intrinsic value to species, and similarly projects and supervise conservation efforts for threat- there is intrinsic value to some people for recreational ened species in their area (Daedlow et al., 2011; fishing. In the written record, British, European, and Harrison et al., 2018). Recreational fishers also fight American traditions emphasize that the “Treatyse of visible pollution in and out of the water and support Fyshynge with an Angle” (published 1496), popularly research into causes of invisible pollution (Bate, 2001). ascribed to the nun Dame Julia Berners but probably All such activities benefit both the individual recre- an invention (Pitcher and Hollingworth, 2002), was a ational fisher (e.g., gain of knowledge, experience, turning point in the history of fishing (Herd, 1999). pleasure, satisfaction of achievement) and society at Herd (1999) observed perspicaciously: “The prologue large because it profits from this kind of volun- of The Treatyse introduces fishing as a sport which is tary work. not merely equal, but superior to hunting and hawking, a sentiment that would have raised a few eyebrows in 4.1.4. Conservation benefits view of the rigid conventions of the time. The places of Recreational fishing impacts on fish populations and hunting and hawking were well-established, but fishing ecosystems, but the overall outcomes are not necessar- was, by and large, a pot-filling exercise for the masses ily negative. Traditionally, recreational fishers have rather than a sport for the elite.” In other words, by also been key guardians of aquatic ecosystems. elevating fishing to a field sport, modern popular recre- Recreational fishing has a vital interest in conserva- ational fishing was born. That is not to say that in ear- tion, and fisher expenditure contributes to fish conser- lier times and other cultures there were not individuals vation actions across the world (Granek et al., 2008; practising “recreational fishing”. Indeed, there is evi- Tufts et al., 2015). Not surprisingly, angling non-gov- dence for all times and all cultures that such a practice ernmental organizations (NGOs), or more generally was indeed the case (Pitcher and Hollingworth, 2002), 12 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. but The Treatyse is a convenient (albeit western cen- close look at recreational fishing, perhaps wondering what tric) historical marker for the early modern and mod- it is that gets people hooked on fishing. We conclude that ern period worldwide. While the focus on the there is something called cultural and spiritual value to the following characterizations of attitudes toward recre- history of recreational fisheries that may justify intangible ational fishing is on the present day it should not be assets attached to it without the need to justify instrumen- forgotten that there is a significant historical dimension tal, material aspects. to recreational fishing and a rich worldwide cultural heritage to which perhaps not all due attention is paid from the scientific community. The popular side of recreational fishing culture as 4.2. Pathocentric viewpoints as demarcation of expressed in all sorts of beautiful angling kitsch, in lit- social value shifts erally hundreds of thousands of how-to-books, in Manfredo (2008) analyzed the belief systems of people memoirs, and in angling magazines is well known. An in the context of different wildlife value orientations. often overlooked but integral part of recreational fishing People who use wildlife like in hunting or fishing will are the cultural achievements in literature and fine arts. “find justification for treatment of wildlife in utilitar- Recreational fishing in this context might be cause and ian terms.” Examples have already been provided on inspiration or both. Perhaps the most striking illustration the instrumental and intrinsic values of fishing. The of angling literature capturing general interest is Izaak most basic justification in the case of recreational fish- Walton’sTheCompleatAngler(Walton,1995), which, ing is usually straightforward: the catch is eaten, fish- along with the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and ing is for food. The situation may be different if one the complete works of Shakespeare is the most frequently sees recreational catch-and-release as playing with reprinted book in the English language. To famous food for no good reason (Aas et al., 2002). Even if the authors, like Nobel Prize winner Ernest Hemingway, fish- catch is retained for consumption, recreational fishing ing was a source of inspiration. Yet, wherever you look for maybe seen by some as morally wrong because the it you will find recreational-fishing literature and fisher- fish is said to suffer for an insufficiently important man-authors outside the English speaking world. A case reason that is to fuel the fun of the recreational fisher in point is Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov (1791 – 1859). His (de Leeuw, 1996). This view has gained increasing “Notes on Fishing” (Aksakov, 1997)isalandmarkin support in about the last 30 years, at least in influen- Russian literature. Other Russian authors who fished or tial academic circles among selected bioethicists. Some wrote about fishing include: Ivan Goncharov, Anton protagonists even demand a complete ban on or all Chekhov, Fjodor Dostoevsky, and Konstantin Paustovskii. parts of recreational fishing (see review in Arlinghaus More examples come from China. From the ancient et al., 2012). Indeed, practicing voluntary catch-and- ShunDi (about 2277 BC - 2277 BC) along the Lazer (now Heze, Liangshan, Shandong Province) patrol, to the ZIya release fishing of legally harvestable fish is already Jiang of Shang Dynasty (about 1156 BC - about 1017 BC), banned in Germany and Switzerland because recre- the story of “Jiang taigong fishing, willing to hook up”,the ational angling is only justified there if it is practiced recreational fishery in China has been around since for food (Arlinghaus, 2007). Effectively, this means ancient times. From more than 2.000 years, the Chinese that a mandatory catch-and-kill regime exists in poems in The Book of Songs “monsoon” and the ancient Germany and Switzerland, except for undersized or Chinese literati, keen on fishing, used poetry to express otherwise protected fish. Such policies can only suc- their love for fishing, culminating in the rich contempor- ceed in a public climate that has changed from mor- ary leisure fisheries culture in China. In the Tang dynasty, ally putting humans at the center of concern toward a the poet Li Bai and the writer and philosopher Zongyuan perspective that heavily emphasizes the well-being of Liu promoted the ancient Canon, painting an artistic con- individual animals, while down weighing the benefits ception related to fishing. These examples show: from realized by recreational fishing to individuals or soci- ancient times to the present there have always been repre- ety. This is clearly an extreme example that has not sentations of fishing. Murals, pottery, mosaics, drawings, gained global traction, but it is useful to revisit the and pictures testify the stellar importance of fishing for underlying moral argument. The supporting philoso- human life and culture. The nearer to the present day the phies centering around the well-being of individual more obvious the purely recreational character of the fish- animals can be grouped into animal welfare, animal ing scenes are depicted. Some of the greatest names in liberation, and animal rights perspectives (Arlinghaus European art like Turner, Renoir, Monet, and Klee had a et al., 2012). REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 13

4.2.1. Animal welfare acceptable given due concern for the health and well- Animal welfare allows the use of animals including being of fish is implemented and actions are taken to fish for the benefit of people under certain conditions, reduce the potential for pain, suffering or stress dur- such as minimizing the harm to the individual animal. ing and after capture (Arlinghaus and Schwab, 2011). Animal welfare does not stand for a philosophical the- This perspective appeals to common sense, although ory or doctrine but for a historically evolved concept one is surprised how variable fisher behaviors, such as tied to economic development and cultural values of the killing process following capture, are across societies. Animal welfare originally began in the UK the world. and elsewhere and focused on protection against or prevention of cruelty to animals. The famous Martin’s 4.2.2. Animal liberation Act of 1822 (i.e. the first animal welfare law globally) The concept of animal liberation (Singer, 1990) differs ran under the heading of “An act to Prevent the from welfare as it depends on the ability of an indi- Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle”. The vidual to feel pain and suffer; it is thus pathocentric. extended law of 1911 was called Protection of Animal liberation is a utilitarian philosophy in the Animals Act and only the contemporary version of sense that all ethical thinking is determined by pain 2007 is called the Animal Welfare Act in the UK. The and pleasure and the relative presence and absence of shift in language is greatly significant because welfare it. Animal liberation rests essentially on three pillars: implies positive promotion, and therefore (scientific) (i) suffering – if a being can suffer, it has interests; knowledge of what benefits fish. Without science- (ii) speciesism – a “prejudice or attitude of bias in based information, welfare policies cannot be put favor of the interests of members of one’s own species in place. and against those members of other species.”; and (iii) The animal welfare perspective is anthropocentric utilitarian calculus - actions are right or wrong in pro- (Evans, 2005) because it assumes that the ethical cul- portion to their producing pleasure (happiness) or ture of human beings has no meaning for animals pain (suffering). and plants. It is, therefore, impossible for non-human Equal suffering means equal interests and equal life to participate in the ethical culture of human consideration. The corollary is if something does not beings. This, however, does not mean that humans suffer, it has no interests. That in turn means that lack obligations to animals or plants. The sources of there is no moral status for the “something”, be it a these obligations can vary considerably and overlap: stone or a fish. If it does not suffer, it does not matter tradition is one angle, others include: compassion, morally speaking. religion, utility, aesthetics, preferences, and law. In Like racism and sexism, speciesism is seen as a contemporary animal welfare considerations, animal social evil. Animal liberation sees itself as part of suffering plays an important part but it does not rep- social reform and moral progress. resent the entire consideration. Strictly speaking, it The utilitarian calculus means only the consequen- does not matter for animal welfare whether an animal ces of an action are morally relevant. A sine qua non is capable of suffering, is particularly clever, or both; condition for animal liberation is the ability of an ani- animal welfare concerns all animals and their health mal to feel pain and suffer, which both are conten- and well-being (Arlinghaus et al., 2009). Recreational tious in the fish literature (pro pain, Braithwaite, fishing is seen as a legitimate pursuit if it is conducted 2010; Sneddon et al. 2014; critical of fish pain, Rose in a manner to minimize negative impacts on the wel- et al., 2014; Key, 2015). Without suffering, animal lib- fare of fish or other aquatic organisms. Measures eration ideas would not be applicable to fishes. A con- taken by recreational fishers or managers from a wel- venient short-cut in certain circles is then to lobby for fare perspective range from the choice of tackle the precautionary approach and provide fish with the through the proper handling of the catch (Cooke and benefit of the doubt: even if there is doubt that fish Sneddon, 2007; Arlinghaus et al., 2010; Brownscombe are capable of a subjective experience, one should et al., 2017; Danylchuk et al., 2018). Ideally, fish wel- treat them as if they were sentient and capable of feel- fare measures for recreational fishing are science- ing pain (Sneddon, 2006). In turn, all fishes fall under based and based on objective measures of impaired animal liberation thinking and ethics. well-being (Arlinghaus et al., 2009). Animal welfare is, What does animal liberation mean for recreational as defined here, not an anti-fishing philosophy and is fishing? If fish targeted by recreational fishers are cap- not promoting any form of recreational fishing as able of suffering, they have interests. No great deal of both catch-and-release and catch-and-kill are utilitarian imagination and calculation is required to 14 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. construe the sum of pain (suffering) produced by fish- between “moral agents” and “moral patients”. The ing as greater than the sum of pleasure (happiness) paradigmatic moral agent is a normal human adult because recreational fishing is often perceived as not capable of deliberating his or her actions. The corre- essential for survival of the human being, and there- sponding moral patient is incapable of making delib- fore angling is (largely) unnecessary. Recreational fish- erations about his or her actions; the paradigmatic ing then violates the interests of the fish and the moral patients are mammals older than one year and pleasure of the recreational fisher is outweighed by human babies. Moral agents and moral patients seem the presumed infliction of pain to fish. worlds apart but the common feature that they share This anti-angling outcome is not a panacea. is that they are all, what Regan describes as: “subjects- Theoretically, utilitarianism opens a door because of-a-life”. Subjects-of-a-life are those organisms that depending on how one weighs the different elements in fulfill certain criteria such as the capacity to believe the utilitarian calculus, the outcome might favor recre- and desire, perception, memory, a sense of the future, ational fishing. For example, one could say that recre- ability to experience, and an ability to pursue individ- ational fishing provides so many economic benefits to ual welfare. The subject-of-a-life criterion demarcates society that the infliction of pain is considered accept- the border between organisms or objects like plants or able. The animal liberation perspective, however, is ideo- stones, which are neither moral agents nor moral logically driven by those who subscribe to it, and the patients. Regan postulates that all subjects-of-a-life presumed fish pain in practice regularly outweighs the have equal inherent value (it does not come in pleasure of the recreational fisher and the generation of degrees). According to Regan, this inherent value con- other socio-cultural and socio-economic benefits pro- fers on moral agents and moral patients alike the right duced by recreational fishing. For example, after examin- to respectful treatment. Respectful treatment in turn ing the evidence for pain and suffering in fish and means the right not to be harmed. Rights according concluding that fish probably can experience these men- to Regan always refers to individual rights. Like the tal states, the German animal behavior scientist Wurbel€ animal liberation perspective this seems to close the (2007)statedthatwhetheranglingasanactivitycon- door on all meaningful ecological thinking: a habitat ducted for pleasure is to be further tolerated must be or a shoal of fish is not a rights holder as only an renegotiated. The Brazilian fish biologist Volpato (2009) individual being can be a right holder. expressed the resulting conclusion more explicitly by Regan was unsure whether fishes are “subjects-of-a- saying that “the imposition of discomfort in activities life”, and thus in the category of moral patients. solely for human pleasure (e.g., recreational fishing and Nevertheless, recreational fishing is considered an aquarism) is unacceptable”,andWebster(2005)also unacceptable practice: Even assuming birds and fish judged that a catch-and-release event would traumatize are not subjects-of-a-life, to allow their recreational or an individual fish to such a degree that for fish welfare economic exploitation is to encourage habits and reasons it would be better to kill the fish rather than to practices that lead to the violation of the rights of ani- preserve its life by releasing it. Accordingly, some popu- mals who are “subjects-of-a-life” (Regan, 1983). The lar angling practices, such as catch-and-release, or the full implications of the view of Regan take shape in entire activity may well be banned. Thus, animal liber- the following passage: “The goal of wildlife manage- ation constitutes anti-angling philosophy that is popular ment should be to defend wild animals in possession in pro-animal activist groups such as People for the of their rights, providing them with the opportunity Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Animal liberation to live their own life, by their own lights, as best as philosophy is also deeply embedded in propositions of they can, spared by that human predation that goes several Animal Protection/Welfare Acts and has had by the name of ‘sport’. We owe this to wild animals, substantial influence on constraints and bans induced not out of kindness, nor because we are against cru- toward once popular angling practices most visible in elty, but out of respect for their rights” (Regan, 1983). Germany or Switzerland (Arlinghaus et al., 2012). Thus, in animal rights ideology, recreational fishing is out of the question (Arlinghaus and Schwab, 2011). 4.2.3. Animal rights “The Case for Animal Rights” was first published in 4.3. Biocentrism as moderator among 1983 (Regan, 1983). While Peter Singer (1990, first populations/habitats and human impacts published 1975) uses the idea of rights rhetorically, the concept of animal rights is central for Tom Regan. Further and final challenges to recreational fishing How do animals get their rights? Regan distinguishes emerge from biocentric and holistic viewpoints, which REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 15 assume that recreational fishing may negatively impact littering, and illegal introduction of fish actions populations and ecosystems and more generally the (Lewin et al., 2006). Effectively dealing with these natural world. Although biocentrism does not put actions requires better management, better compli- pain or suffering of animals in its core of moral con- ance, and better education of recreational fishers. sideration, it instead focuses on natural processes, spe- Therefore, resolving these issues does not require the cies, populations, communities, and natural habitats. abolition of recreational fishing. Moreover, recre- In much of the biocentric and holistic philosophical ational fishers are among the most important social literature, humans and nature are treated as opposites, groups working voluntarily and often very effectively and humans are seen as a non-natural disturbance to to preserve and restore fish and their habitats (Granek the ideal, which is wilderness unaffected by humans et al., 2008). They are also ardent advocates of the (Arlinghaus and Schwab, 2011). While this perspective hidden fish biodiversity crises in many areas of the is counterproductive to effectively dealing with the world (Granek et al., 2008). Thus, to reconcile wilder- pressing environmental problems that the world faces ness-centred philosophies with contemporary recre- because it divorces humans and their needs from the ational fisheries mainly requires jettisoning the idea of place which they intend to preserve, it is nevertheless the angler or any recreational fisher as a non-natural a prominent one in some circles. When humans gen- disturbance and working toward the development of erally are seen as a largely destructive external force sustainable fisheries management strategies. to the ideal (i.e. human-free nature), the recreational Recreational fishing can be constructed as a natural fisher in particular will be seen as a destructive force predator-prey interaction between a human and a (i.e. a disturbance to nature). De Leeuw (2012) is key fish, with potential impacts on the biotic integrity of reading in this context. In this light, recreational fish- an exploited fish population or the aquatic ecosystem. ing and its practices such as stocking may be per- Nonetheless, if recreational fishing is believed to ceived as destroying valuable properties of wilderness impact the biotic integrity of a population, it might be such as native fish populations and the gene pool of judged as impermissible by Leopold (1970). This autochthonous species (Lorenzen et al., 2012). Some would call for improved management to contain or advocates for the biocentric perspective might even remove negative impacts in such a way that the eco- object to the mere presence of anglers at the waterside logical services provided by fish and aquatic ecosys- on the grounds that waterfowl or other wildlife might tems to society is sustainable (Carpenter et al., 2017). be disturbed and shorelines trampled on and littered Thus, in contrast to popular perceptions of some con- (Lewin et al., 2006). This objection is reflected in servation-focused stakeholders, wilderness-centred trends among some conservation biologists and con- philosophy can come to terms with recreational fish- servation-oriented non-governmental organizations to ing (Arlinghaus and Schwab, 2011). opt for policies that exclude recreational fishers from To conclude this section: recreational fishing and habitats and landscapes perceived to be particularly its management will see substantial and continued valuable in ecological terms. Note that here the ethical public support in societies and countries that empha- disapproval of recreational fishing is based not on the size anthropocentric world-views. The situation is less presumed impact of angling on an individual fish/ani- clear when cultural value shifts perspectives of a siz- mal but rather on the assumption that humans in able proportion of society toward pathocentric and general, and more specifically, recreational fishers, can biocentric worldviews (Inglehart, 1990; Schwartz, be a threat and an undesirable disturbance to wilder- 2014). Recreational fishing might then be seen as ness as indexed by impacts on habitats or endan- interfering with the welfare of individual fishes of gered species. high moral concern (pathocentric viewpoint) or with One can help to sort out this ethical clash by natural habitats and populations or threatened species breaking down the largely artificial barrier between (biocentric viewpoints). Often, these perspectives are humans and nature, or between culture and nature, correlated. There is, however, little cross-cultural stud- and look at recreational fisheries as coupled social- ies that have carefully elaborated if and how cultural ecological systems (Arlinghaus et al., 2017). It then value shifts actually affect recreational fishing or its becomes clear that recreational fishing can be rela- practices. It is more certain that biodiversity conserva- tively easily reconciled with the wilderness-centred tion concerns are now prevalent in many developed ethical perspective (Zwirn et al., 2005). Clearly, recre- and urbanized societies (Figure 1), and these concerns ational angling does, and necessarily will to some have substantially altered the perspectives on fish degree, impact natural processes, from harvesting, introductions and fish stocking (Rahel, 2016). This is 16 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

Table 1. Summary of the case studies in relation to various metrics emphasizing participation rates (Figure 2), trends, ethical per- spectives and a global assessment of support for the life-cycle of fisheries (Figure 1). Anthropocentrism Policies supporting or Economic Participation rate Public acceptance recreational biocentrism Pathocentrism Country/region development state and trend and trend fisheries evidence evidence Northern America Highly developed High, stable Very high, stable Yes Anthropocentric, Some, but no large / increasing increasing impact on biocentrism constraining fishing Central America Developing Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown and Caribbean (some countries) South America Developing Average, increasing Unknown Not widespread Anthropocentric, None some local biocentrism Northern Europe Highly developed Very high, stable Very high, stable Yes Mixed Some, increasing or decreasing (some countries) regulations/ debate in selected countries Central Europe Highly developed Low, stable High, but varied No, with Biocentrism Varied, strong in few exceptions selected countries Eastern Europe Largely developed Low, mixed Likely high, stable No, with Anthropocentric, None one exception emerging biocentrism Southern Europe Largely developed Average and High, stable No Anthropocentric, None likely stable some biocentrism Southern Africa Developing Unknown Ambivalent, stable No Anthropocentric None East Asia Developed Low, increasing Likely high No Anthropocentric, None or developing to stable some biocentrism South Asia Developing Likely Public acceptance No Anthropocentric None low, increasing is variable, trend is increasing Oceania Mainly High, declining High, stable Yes Anthropocentric, Some, mainly highly- increasing public developed biocentrism discussion, but limited regulatory actions South east, Central, Developing Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown and Western to developed Asia, Other Africa also a consequence of biocentric value shifts affecting pathocentrism and biocentrism have entered the pol- and driving conservation regulations as well as those icy calculus regarding fisheries. The final section will people that today enter fisheries and other university review the social standing of recreational fishing in programs to later become aquatic ecosystem or fish- various countries of the world. eries managers. In some countries, accordingly, recre- ational fishing is coming under increasing scrutiny for 5. Recreational fisheries across the world reasons of biodiversity and natural habitat conserva- tion, and regulations on recreational fishing mortality Most, if not all, industrialized countries now place and other tools are now commonplace across the great importance on maintaining and fostering bio- world. One visible trend, and a preferred policy by diversity and in this context, critically view activities conservationists, is an increasing reliance on protected that harm species or genetic diversity. Societies, how- area management where people demand or implement ever, differ more in their rigorous application of ani- regulations or even bans on access to fishers, includ- mal rights/liberation/welfare ideas toward recreational ing recreational fishers, to “conserve nature” from the fishing. The sections below are developed from a human disturbance (Arlinghaus, 2006b; Roberts et al., review of available information at regional and coun- 2017). Despite this clearly visible trend of biocentric try specific levels. This review focuses on information values and attitudes affecting recreational fisheries, related to participation in and the economic import- different societies vary starkly in the degree to which ance of recreational fishing, efforts to develop or REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 17 expand recreational fishing, and attitudes and perspec- Attitudes toward recreational fishing suggest that tives of recreational fishers and others toward this the activity represents a highly legitimate form of activity. The level of information available for each recreation amongst most people in this area (Duda region and country varies and, consequently, no infor- et al., 1995; Arlinghaus et al., 2012). The activity mation is provided for some large regions and coun- remains visible in public and political discourse and is tries such as Southeast Asia, the Middle East, much of regularly featured in the media. It therefore comes as Africa, and Russia. no surprise that about 90% of Americans approve of The summarized information from the detailed legal fishing and support using fish for food (Driscoll, reviews is provided in Table 1. The summary illus- 1995; Duda et al., 1995; Phillips and McCulloch, trates that fishing participation rates vary widely and 2005). Some variation in public support exists across in many cases are not known with certainty. In most states. In a study of public wildlife value orientations developing countries, recreational fishing is being in six western states (Alaska, North Dakota, South encouraged to nonresidents to develop fishing tourism Dakota, Idaho, Arizona, and Colorado), Manfredo markets, and little information is known about recre- et al. (2003; summarized in Arlinghaus et al., 2012) ational fishing among residents. Public acceptance of found that >96% of the public agreed that recre- recreational fishing is strong but varies depending on ational fishing for food is acceptable. Opinions, how- specific regions, people (e.g., anglers and non-anglers), ever, changed when the focus was on recreational and context (e.g., catch-and-release fishing and fishing fishing for sport, which includes competitive fishing for food and recreation). Anthropocentrism still domi- and fishing solely for fun. While in the less urbanized nates perspectives and discourse in most areas though states of Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Idaho about 20% of the public agreed that angling for biocentrism is increasingly part of highly-developed sport is cruel, slightly greater percentages (25-30%) countries. To date, pathocentrism views are in a were documented for the more urbanized states of minority or non-existent in relation to recreational Colorado and Arizona (Arlinghaus et al., 2012). These fishing. The summary here is consistent with the life results suggest that in at least some states in the US, a cycle of fisheries (Figure 1) though some excep- sizable portion of the public holds negative attitudes tions occur. toward recreational fishing on moral grounds if the activity is practiced “just for sport”. These perspectives 5.1. Northern America have not led to constraining regulations on animal welfare grounds, although the reported levels of crit- Following conventions of the United Nation Northern ical sentiment against specific forms of angling are America includes the highly developed countries of consistent with those reported in other post-industri- the United States and Canada, but not Mexico. Both alized countries including Germany where stringent countries have extensive recreational fisheries that are regulations on recreational fishing have been enacted very popular among residents. From the 2016 national (Arlinghaus et al., 2012). One possible reason is that survey, 35.8 million resident Americans over 16 years the basal cultural value mindset in the USA is about old participated in recreational fishing in the USA individualism and mastery and much less about egali- (14% participation rate) resulting in 459 million fish- tarianism, and it is the latter cultural value that is ing days and over $46 billion in expenditures (US conducive to enactment of strict pro-environmental DOI, 2018). In Canada in 2010, the estimated 3.2 mil- and pro-animal welfare policies (Schwartz, 2014). lion resident anglers fished for more than 40 million Similarly, in Canada, in a survey of the importance of days and contributed to over $2.5 billion spent by nature to Canadians (Federal, Provincial, and anglers on fishing in Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Territorial Governments of Canada, 2014), only 3% of Canada, 2012). Canadian adults identified ethical concerns such as Recreational fishing by nonresidents of Canada and not wanting to harm fish as a reason for their deci- the United States is important as it results in eco- sion not to participate in recreational fishing. nomic benefits accruing to mountain, southeast, Researchers note that angling contributes to fish northeast, and Laurentian Great Lakes US states population declines (Post et al., 2002; Coleman et al., (Ditton et al., 2002). In Canada, over 400,000 nonresi- 2004), and fisheries management consider these dents from primarily the USA significantly contribute impacts along with other conservation issues such as to provincial economies (Fisheries and Oceans introduction of non-indigenous fish species when Canada, 2012). managing aquatic ecosystems (Johnson et al., 2009). 18 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

Accordingly, there is active management of recre- southern part of the continent. Although there is an ational fisheries impacts, and biodiversity conservation extensive range and large number of species used for is now an important goal (Rahel, 2016). Catch-and- recreational fisheries throughout the continent, there release, both mandatory and voluntary, is permitted, is a lack of statistics with only few regional assess- and voluntary catch-and-release is actively promoted ments about the economic importance of recreational to encourage conservation-minded anglers to limit fisheries (Valbo-Jørgensen et al., 2008; Freire et al., their harvest of fish (Arlinghaus et al., 2007b). For 2016). For example, in Brazil around 370,000 angling some fisheries like largemouth bass (Micropterus sal- licenses were granted in 2014, but the total number of moides) in the USA, voluntary catch-and-release fish- anglers may be around 10 million (Freire et al., 2012). ing has resulted in virtually all caught fish being In South America, it has been estimated that recre- released (Myers et al., 2008), without evidence of ational fisheries activities could have generated reve- negative public reaction to this practice. The same nues between USD 1,186 and 1,689 million in 2015 holds for competitive fishing, which is actively pro- (Funge-Smith, 2018). For example, in Brazil, it is esti- moted and highly visible in the mass media in the mated that in 19 municipalities of S~ao Paulo revenues USA (Schramm et al., 1991). from recreational fisheries represented between USD 305 and 570 million in 2014 (Freire at al., 2016). In inland fisheries of Brazil, the benefits from recre- 5.3. Central America and The Caribbean ational fisheries are controlled by well-established The countries of Central America and The Caribbean businesses that often do not include the participation largely consist of developing countries. Information of local communities (Valbo-Jørgensen et al., 2008). about recreational fishing for these countries is scant In Argentina, there are least 3 million fishers (Baigun with the only information being available for nonresi- and Delfino, 2001). In some cases, revenues between dents (Bower et al., in press). For example, the almost USD 15 and 20 million per year were estimated in 87,000 tourist anglers in Panama in 2011 were esti- some areas of the Patagonia during the 1990s mated to have spent US $97 million on fishing in (Vigliano and Alonso, 2000). In northeastern Panama with an average trip duration of about 8days Argentina, dorado (Salminus spp.) and surubi (Southwick et al., 2013). Similar attempts to character- (Pseudoplatystoma ) are the focal species of recre- ize the importance of recreational fishing tourism ational fisheries (FAO, 2018). In Brazil and Venezuela, exist for Costa Rica, Belize, and Mexico. It is believed marlins (Makaira spp.) and sailfish (Istiophorus pla- that recreational fishing matters to governments and typterus) have been valuable recreational fishing people within these countries because recreational resources for a long time (Machado and Jaen, 1982; fishing promotes tourism and expenditures that Barroso, 2002; Freire et al., 2018), and they have impact local and regional economies. recently experienced protection by mandatory and voluntary catch-and-release regulations and practices. The economic value of recreational fisheries on bill- 5.4. South America fishes is larger than the value in the commercial sector The information base for recreational fisheries in (FAO, 2016). Even though recreational fisheries are South America is scarce (Bower et al., in press) and practiced in Colombia, few studies have been con- broad-spanning surveys about how the public views ducted (Alio, 2012). The same holds true for Ecuador, recreational fisheries are largely lacking. One reason where fishers target mainly marlins (Kajikia sp., for this gap in knowledge is that recreational fisheries Tetrapturus spp., and Makaira spp.), sailfish, wahoo have only recently become a relevant activity in this (Acanthocybium solandri), tuna (Thunnus spp.), and continent where subsistence and commercial fishing dolphinfish (Coryphaena spp.), and total catches from are more common. Recreational fisheries are now marine recreational fisheries may add to only 0.5-1.0% developed in marine and freshwater systems and of all marine catches (Alava et al., 2015). include both native and introduced fishes. The most Introductions of non-native salmonids to South important recreational fishing in marine environments America for recreational fishing purposes began in the occurs in Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, and early 1850s (MacCrimmon and Campbell, 1969; northern Argentina. Inland recreational fisheries are Pascual et al., 2007). Local governments (Macchi concentrated around both the large rivers systems et al., 2008; Arismendi et al., 2014) and illegal stock- (e.g., Amazon, Parana, Orinoco) and the cold-waters ing efforts continue to support this recreational fishery surrounding the Andes Mountains Range and the across the continent (Arismendi et al. 2019). In REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 19

Table 2. Participation and trends in recreational fishing in selected Nordic countries. Country Participation rate (year) Age groups Participant numbers Trend References Denmark 14% (2010) 16 – 74 years 530 000 Unknown Sparrevohn et at., 2011 Finland 28% (2016) Complete population 1 500 000 Decreasing, primarily for Natural Resources Institute teenagers and Finland, 2018 young adults Norway 42% (2017) 16 – 74 years Decreasing, primarily for SSB (Statistics Norway, 2017)1 teenagers and young adults Sweden 19% (2016) 16 – 80 years 1 400 000 Stable SCB (Statistics Sweden, 2016)2 1https://www.ssb.no/en. 2http://www.scb.se/en/. southern South America, the recreational fishery of management attention across much of South America. salmonids generates revenues for local communities Competitive fishing events are commonly promoted and in some cases international operators (e.g., in Venezuela (Machado and Jaen, 1982), Brazil (Freire Vigliano et al., 2000; Macchi et al., 2008; Arismendi et al., 2016) and Argentina (see, e.g., Dellacasa and and Nahuelhual, 2007;Nunez~ and Niklitschek, 2010). Braccini, 2016). Voluntary and mandatory catch-and- In many cases, local people feel connected to intro- release is widespread in Brazil (Freire et al., 2016). duced salmonids because they have been present in Even though there is no formal study on the accept- local rivers for over a century, and thus, stories about ance of recreational fisheries by the general public, them have already been passed down for generations some internal conflicts have been observed between (Arismendi et al., 2014; Aigo and Ladio, 2016). This fishers who practice catch-and-release and those that connection makes it difficult to discuss biodiversity are harvested-oriented, such as with spearfishing and issues associated with non-natives, and it is compli- introduced salmon in coastal systems. cated by salmonids providing subsistence fishing opportunities for local communities. In Argentina (Vigliano et al., 2000; Macchi et al., 2008) and Chile 5.5. Northern Europe (Arismendi and Nahuelhual, 2007;Nunez~ and The countries of Northern Europe consist of Niklitschek, 2010), recreational fisheries have grown Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, and regulations have been put in place to protect and regularly stock non-native salmonids (Shepard et al. Norway, and Sweden. The region in characterized by 2019). During the most recent decades, however, there social and economically highly-developed countries, has been a shift from promoting salmonid introduc- scoring high on international welfare and quality of tions to a more conscientious view of native ecosys- life scales. Unlike in more densely-populated tems and their conservation value, supporting a more European countries, the inhabitants of these countries biocentric view of the public and of legislators and have access to relatively rich aquatic and marine envi- researchers/managers. Currently, managers and policy ronments given the overall low population density makers are facing a dilemma of conflicting interests, coupled with a high availability of water and coastline. which implies maintaining self-sustaining trout popu- Fishing is very popular and participation rates range lations for recreational purposes while minimizing among the highest in the world, particularly in environmental impacts, but also upholding the socio- Norway and Finland (Figure 2). Between 14 and 42% economic benefit of recreational fisheries for local of residents reported that they participated in recre- communities. Similar issues associated with introduc- ational fishing at least once during the last 12 months tions and translocations are present in Brazil (Latini (Table 2). While most recreational fishing in these and Petrere, 2004; Bispo et al., 2016) for other species countries is conducted with rods and/or lines, all such as tucunare(Cichla spp.). countries also allow recreational fishing with nets and While biocentrism is beginning to affect recre- traps, at least in certain areas, for defined species, and ational fisheries in South America, pathocentrism and depending on local rights to fishing. The trend in par- the related animal liberation and rights debates are ticipation is generally slightly decreasing or stable basically absent from the public discourse across both (Table 2). While significant lower participation rates Brazil and Argentina. Recreational fisheries are grow- are reported for younger adults in several countries, ing without significant public opposition, but they are this is partly compensated for by an increase among still poorly developed and lack dedicated research and older people fishing (Odden, 2008). 20 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

There exist no general and systematic measurement harvest-oriented fishers seen in many areas of the of public attitudes toward recreational fishing for the world (Øian et al., 2017). region. Due to the high participation level, and based Finland: In Finland, Siev€anen and Neuvonen on some data from Finland, Norway, and Sweden, the (2011) estimated that as many as 88% of the Finns public is most likely, however, strongly in support of have fishing skills. The main debate concerning recre- the activity. In all Scandinavian countries, the ques- ational fishing in Finland has dealt with ethical issues, tion of fish pain and fish welfare is discussed at aca- especially voluntary catch-and-release practices, which demic levels and in selected agencies, and there have are acceptable to some recreational fishers and been debates on the appropriateness of using catch- unacceptable to many Finns (Salmi and Ratam€aki, and-release as a management tool in fish stock con- 2011). Mikkola and Yrjol€ €a(2003) conducted a survey servation (Olaussen, 2016; Ferter et al., in press). of 2,371 Finnish residents, of which 43% were anglers. There is also generally a high premium placed on bio- About 50% of all respondents, as well 50% of all non- diversity conservation, which affects discussions sur- angling recreational fishers (i.e., those employing gill rounding stocking or the escapes of fish from nets rather than rod-and-reel) included in the sample, aquaculture (Aas et al., 2018). believed that catch-and-release constitutes unnecessary Sweden: Kagervall (2014) reported on the attitudes harassment of fish, and 20% of all recreational fishers toward recreational fishing among a random sample responding to the survey thought that voluntary (N 1067) of the general population of Swedes catch-and-release of legally harvestable fish should be ¼ between 16 and 65 years of age. Attitudes were meas- forbidden (Mikkola and Yrjol€ €a, 2003). About half of ured toward: (i) recreational fishing in general; (ii) if all non-angling fishers thought that banning catch- the catch is used for consumption or if released; and and-release should be pursued. This negative image of (iii) if recreational fishing was conducted with gillnets. voluntary catch-and-release fishing probably reflects While strong general support existed for recreational the tradition of Finnish people to practice subsistence- based fishing. For example, voluntarily release of fishing, the support was greatest if the catch was uti- some fish is only occasionally practiced by 30% of lized and lowest if fish were caught with gillnets. anglers and only 4% of anglers release all the fish they Norway: A national non-governmental organization capture (i.e. they practice total catch-and-release) engaged in outdoor recreation conducts a poll among (Mikkola and Yrjol€ €a, 2003). a representative sample of Norwegians aged 15 years From the above data and summary, the citizens of and older every third year (Kantar/TNS, 2017). The Northern Europe have a strong, generally positive and initial polls included a question about general atti- encouraging view of recreational fishing. This view tudes of the public toward recreational fishing (Espen likely arises from the strong historic and cultural ties Farstad, Norwegian Hunting and Fishing Association, that people have with fisheries and the relatively personal communication). Because almost all respond- strong resource situation, with access to diverse mar- ents reported a positive attitude toward recreational ine and freshwater fisheries. The clearly dominating fishing, this question was replaced by a question about perspective is the utilitarian view coupled with conser- the attitude toward catch-and-release. Over the last vation concerns, where both food, economic income decade, a stable pattern exists where 50% of (most Nordic countries have active strategies that pro- Norwegians held a positive attitude toward the prac- mote tourism fishing), and other psychosocial benefits tice, while somewhat fewer were against it while 10% are recognized. The ethics of voluntary catch-and- of respondents had no opinion. Support for catch- release fishing, however, has been debated in Finland and-release fishing has increased compared to the pre- and only locally in Norway and Denmark. In parallel, vious decade with younger males having the most biodiversity conservation concerns are generally well positive attitudes toward catch-and-release. In fresh- developed and guiding management responses in rec- water and among specialized anglers, the practice of reational fisheries. catch-and-release has grown rapidly such as for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) angling during the last decade (Stensland et al., 2017). There is some evidence 5.6. Central Europe that the utility of some anglers could drop if a manda- The central European countries, which include tory catch-and-release was implemented for specific Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, salmon rivers (Olaussen, 2016). This result typifies the and the United Kingdom, are all highly-developed, usual tension among specialized anglers and more urbanized, and industrialized and as such offer high REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 21 population densities and in comparison with catching and releasing fish during recreational fish- Northern Europe, low angling participation rates ing”. Almost one-fifth of the German public (19%) (Arlinghaus et al., 2015). Those rates are generally agreed with the statement that “recreational fishing below 8% of the population in countries such as shall be abolished because of the cruelty to animals France, Germany, Austria and the UK. Recreational exerted by anglers”, and a sizable percentage (15%) fishing has a very long history in these areas, particu- indicated they would take part in a ballot initiative larly in the UK, and its social and economic import- banning recreational fishing. Also, 39% of those sur- ance is well documented based on repeated surveys veyed thought that animal welfare aspects of recre- conducted in all countries. ational fishing do not receive sufficient public Austria: Kohl (2000) surveyed 722 randomly attention, and 26% felt that there is a pressing need to selected non-anglers by telephone about their attitudes improve issues of animal welfare in Germany despite toward various aspects of recreational fishing. A recreational fishing being already heavily constrained majority (>50%) of respondents agreed that recre- and regulated for animal welfare reasons (Arlinghaus, ational fishing is a reasonable and healthy leisure 2007). Put differently, these values still indicate that activity that provides important contributions to the the absolute or relative majority of the German public conservation of aquatic ecosystems. About a fifth does not associate recreational fisheries with cruelty to (22%) of respondents, however, agreed with the state- animals and generally considered the activity as rea- ment that “recreational fishing constitutes cruelty to sonable and useful. animals”. Similarly, about 20% of all non-anglers sur- The 2008 study by Riepe and Arlinghaus (2014) veyed thought that recreational fishing disturbs the also showed interesting patterns about the perceived ecological balance and that recreational fishers do not morality of selected recreational fishing practices. care enough about nature and are only interested in Most people (61%) found recreational fishing with the abundant fish harvest. intention to eat fish morally acceptable (the corre- Germany: Germany is a particularly interesting case sponding figures in the USA are beyond 95%, because, as compared to all other nations, anti-angling Arlinghaus et al., 2012), but 10% found catch-and- regulations are probably the most pervasive and harvest fishing to be immoral. Most of the public was restrictive to recreational fishing (Aas et al., 2002). surprisingly aware of many practices associated with There are two studies (2002, 2008) that examined how recreational fishing that are critically discussed from a the German public felt about recreational fishing. In welfare perspective, such as live bait use, tournament 2002, 57% of respondents from a random sample of fishing, and voluntary catch-and-release. When asked 323 telephone-interviewed people agreed that recre- about the morality of each of these practices from a ational fishing is a reasonable leisure activity while fish welfare perspective, public perceptions varied 21% of respondents disagreed (Arlinghaus, 2004). In depending on the angling practice that was being con- 2008, the percentage of people agreeing that recre- sidered. While only about 20 to 30% of the public ational fishing is a reasonable activity was much lower regarded retention of fish in keep-nets, stocking of (35%) in a study conducted using in person interviews harvestable fish into a water body to be immediately of over 1000 randomly-selected German residents captured by anglers (i.e. put-and-take fishing), and (Riepe and Arlinghaus, 2014). Although the use of dif- voluntary catch-and-release of harvestable fish as ferent survey methods might explain the change in immoral, the respective figures were 57% for use of attitude, the change could also signal a decline in the live baitfish, 65% for non-harvest-oriented competitive social acceptability of recreational fisheries. In 2002, fishing events, and 87% for a killing process of fish by however, 26% of the responding public indicated that hypoxia rather than rapid kill (see Davie and recreational fishing should be constrained in its scope, Kopf, 2006). and 27% felt that recreational fishing is unnecessarily The public was also asked as part of the 2008 sur- cruel to animals (Arlinghaus, 2004). Figures from vey to evaluate various types of catch-and-release 2008 mirrored these findings (Riepe and Arlinghaus, practices. Twenty-one percent of those surveyed con- 2014). For example, 25% of respondents agreed with sidered selective harvest with voluntary catch-and- the statement that “catching fish as a pastime is release to be immoral, and 40% felt that total catch- cruel”, and 35% agreed with the statement that “fish and-release was unethical. These results suggest that are suffering unnecessarily due to recreational recreational fishing, along with some of its practices, anglers”. Similarly, 35% of respondents agreed that “it is critically viewed by a sizable fraction of German constitutes unnecessary cruelty to animals when society, but that this fraction is typically much less 22 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. than a majority. In general, most people in Germany freshwater-fisheries). In 2010, most people continued positively associate with recreational fishing and to view angling positively (results in brackets are from approve most of its practices or are indifferent, with 2005, which are provided for comparison). A total of some clear exceptions (e.g., competitive fishing, use of 74% (71%) agreed with the statement that “angling is live baitfish, death by hypoxia). Voluntary catch-and- an acceptable pastime”, while only 7% (8%) disagreed. release, which is a practice implicitly banned in Over one-half (51%, 53%) agreed with the statement Germany (Arlinghaus, 2007), is not viewed negatively that “anglers care for the environment” while 9% by most of the German public. This clearly indicates (14%) disagreed. A significant change existed between that mechanisms other than public perspectives must 2005 and 2010 regarding the statement “angling is a have led to the adoption of stringent fish wel- cruel pastime”. In 2010, fewer supported this state- fare policies. ment: 20% (24%) agreed while 52% (47%) disagreed, In terms of the accepted benefits of recreational and 26% (26%) neither agreed nor disagreed. This fishing, most Germans perceived fishing as providing change in attitude between 2005 and 2010 was statis- social and psychological benefits. Only one third of tically significant with angling being viewed as less Germans, however, accepted that angling produced cruel in 2010 than in 2005. Males were more likely to economic benefits (Riepe and Arlinghaus, 2014). hold positive views about angling than did females. Similarly, the views of the public were largely split on Young people (12-16 years old) also held positive the question on whether recreational angling posi- views about angling in general, although they were tively contributes to conservation. When asking for somewhat less positive than adults. Perceptions of the morally accepted reasons for fishing, ecological angling as an “OK thing to do” were more positive in reasons (e.g., fishing to reestablish an ecological bal- 2010 than 2005. ance) received greater support than fishing for food. Switzerland: A recent nationwide survey in When trading off nature conservation with maintain- Switzerland provided insights into the public percep- ing access to anglers, a majority would vote for nature tion of angling (Bieri et al., 2018). A large majority of protection (Riepe and Arlinghaus, 2014). This result people (about 75%) held a positive attitude toward clearly identifies a biocentric worldview trading off fishing, but 18% held a negative or very negative atti- conservation against human use of aquatic ecosystems tude. An overwhelming majority of the public per- for fishing in favor of conservation. ceived recreational anglers as “lovers of nature” and England and Wales: In England and Wales, public 75% agreed or strongly agreed that the fishing is con- attitudes toward recreational fishing have been regu- ducted in a fish friendly manner. Yet, 21% of the pub- larly monitored with randomly-administered tele- lic perceived fishing as cruelty to animals. phone surveys to several thousand people. Simpson Netherlands: Angling is conducted by about 8% of and Mawle (2005) compared surveys from three time the Dutch population and is thus lower than the glo- periods (2005, 2001, and 1997). They found that, bal average and declining in recent years (van der across all time periods, a majority of people viewed Hammen and Cheng, 2020). In 2017, a study was con- recreational fishing positively. For example, over the ducted that focused specifically on public opinion time periods between 71% and 75% of respondents about angling in the Netherlands (R. Verspui, Dutch agreed with the statement that “angling is an accept- Angler Association, personal communication). The able pastime”. About a majority (between 46 and public primarily associated angling with fish and tech- 54%) agreed with the statement that ‘anglers care for nical equipment, but consider it as a boring, but the environment”. There was less support for the view harmless, activity. Only 10% of the public were very that “angling is a cruel pastime” as about one quarter positive about angling, but this percentage was stable (24% to 27%) agreed while nearly half (47% to 52%) over the past 25 years (R. Verspui, Dutch Angler of the respondents disagreed with this statement. Association, personal communication). The percentage Research on the public perception of angling was of people that were decidedly negative about angling repeated in 2010 (Simpson and Mawle, 2010). The key substantially dropped from 72% in 1994 to 42% in results were overall large and growing public support 2017 implying that there was an increase in the per- of angling, which may result from the continued centage of people stating that they were indifferent to release of national policies by the government to sup- or unsure about the activity. port recreational fisheries (https://www.gov.uk/govern- The public in central Europe view recreational fish- ment/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy- eries positively. A sizable proportion of the public is freshwater-fisheries/2010-to-2015-government-policy- concerned with fishing based on fish welfare concerns, REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 23 particularly in Germany followed by Switzerland, and over the years 2000-2014 (Trella and Mickiewicz, to a much lesser degree in the England and Wales. 2016). In Poland, the average age of the angling popu- Only Germany and to a lesser degree Switzerland, lation has sharply increased. In the late 1970s, people however, have adopted strong regulations of recre- between 40-49 years of age represented 30.2% of ational fisheries based on welfare arguments. This anglers while in 2016 individuals 60 years and older adoption clearly indicates the importance of context- were the most populous group of anglers (34.7%). ual conditions for a given country, the particularities In the Czech Republic, recreational fishing is con- of rule-making, and the influence of lobby groups and sidered a very important leisure activity. Fishing has a particularly the wider policy support received by rec- long and rich tradition, and for many anglers it is reational fisheries will ultimately decide whether anti- considered a key social activity. In 2016, there were fishing perspectives gain stronger public support. It is 320,000 registered recreational anglers, representing apparent that Germany lacks public policies at the 3% of the Czech population. To date, three socio-eco- national level supporting recreational fisheries and nomic studies were conducted on trends in fisheries uniquely both strong conservation and fish welfare (in 2003, 2009, and 2017). The results from these concerns have influenced actual policies. There are no studies revealed that anglers are usually men older similar trends in the other central European countries than 40 years of age (60%), and most anglers (58%) for which data are available. have moderate or low economic status (The Czech and Moravian Fishing Union, 2003, 2009, 2017). In Eastern Europe, the two most important factors 5.7. Eastern Europe (i.e. the perception of angling by the public and the Eastern Europe consists of a variety of countries with behavior of anglers) were greatly affected by the com- different degrees of economic development, including munist regime and the revolution that brought the Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, regime down in 1989-1990 (Lyach and Remr, 2020). Poland, Romania, parts of Russia, Slovakia, and Before 1989 during the communist regime, angling Ukraine. Information about recreational fishing for was a social activity for masses. Fishing was a very most countries is lacking and the focus here is on popular activity due to the permanent shortage of Czech Republic and Poland where some information fresh food on the market, poverty of society, and exists. Recreational angling has, for some time, been because many other activities (like traveling to many considered one of the dominating forms of outdoor countries, including Western Europe) were not avail- recreation in both Poland and the Czech Republic able to the vast part of population (Lyach and Remr, (Czarkowski et al, 2018, Lyach and Cech, 2018; Lyach 2020). Most anglers specialized on intensive fish har- and Remr, 2020). Despite methodological difficulties vesting, and many anglers considered fishing to be a that arise when attempting to estimate the precise quasi-subsistence activity (Leopold and Bninska 1980; number of active anglers, angling participation has Lyach and Cech, 2018; Lyach and Remr, 2020). After substantially declined over the years 1979-2016 in the political change in 1989, the number of anglers Poland (Leopold and Bninska, 1980, Czarkowski et al., strongly decreased but the activity shifted from sub- 2018). The Polish Angling Association (PAA), which sistence toward recreation. After this decrease, partici- remains the largest consumptive user group of inland pation in recreational fishing has been increasing, and waters in Poland, boasted a count of over 1 million anglers, especially younger, are increasingly practicing memberships in the early 1980s; yet that number has release of caught fish (Lyach and Cech, 2018). One- since diminished to roughly 0.63 million in 2016 half of anglers practice catch-and-release, while only (Czarkowski et al., 2018). Precise data on the status of 28% of anglers kept the fish that they caught (Czech one of the two largest regional departments of the and Moravian Fishing Union, 2003, 2009, 2017). PAA (Katowice) shows that in the period 1996-2018 Many anglers believe that the catch-and-release strat- the member count has diminished from 58,000 to egy is the future of recreational fishing and suggest 43,000 (a decline of 26%, Czarkowski et al., 2018). elevated enforcement (Lyach and Cech, 2018; Lyach The lake commercial fisheries enterprises have also and Remr, 2019). The same trend is seen in Poland noted a decline in selling of the more expensive long- where voluntary catch-and-release is publicly accepted term permits for angling in favor of affordable short- and generally preferred by anglers, especially by term licenses in Poland (Trella, 2012). The reverse of younger people with over 70% of the angling popula- this trend has been observed for marine fisheries, tion reporting that they often or always release fish where the number of anglers has steadily increased caught by angling (Wolos et al., 2008; Czarkowski 24 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. et al., 2018). Following this trend, the first papers on The attitudes toward recreational fishing in south- C&R of selected fish species and fishing efficiency ern European countries have not been properly quan- using different hook types, including barbless hooks, tified. A randomly-administered telephone survey to appeared in Polish literature (Czarkowski and Kapusta several thousand households in Spain in 2017 gener- 2019a, b). ated some new insights into these attitudes toward recreational fisheries (Alos and Morales-Nin, 2018). Accordingly, a total of 41% of the Spanish general 5.8. Southern Europe public perceived recreational fishing as a good or very Information about participation rates in recreational good activity to be practised during leisure time. fishing in Southern European countries (i.e. Albania, Regarding possible conflicts between recreational fish- Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, ing for fish consumption and attitudes toward activ- Italy, Malta, Portugal, and Spain) is scarce and formal ities like catch-and-release, half of the Spanish reporting is largely absent. Based on fishing licenses, population indicated recreational fisheries for harvest participation rates in the marine recreational fisheries as a good or very good activity, while this percentage in the developed nations Spain, Italy, Greece, and increased to 60% when the objective of recreational Malta are between 0.6% and 2.7% (Hyder et al., 2018). fishing was for catch-and-release purposes (Alos and These rates are likely overly conservative given the Morales-Nin, 2018). Thus, there are very positive atti- license systems (e.g., usually marine recreational fish- tudes and a moral acceptance of activities like recre- eries involve boat licenses, where the number of recre- ational fisheries, and these positive attitudes increase ational fishers is not quantified). Local studies suggest when focusing on catch-and-release fishing. that the participation rate in marine recreational fish- The economic benefits of angling are poorly under- eries might be as high as 10% (Morales-Nin et al., stood by the Spanish public. Only 20% of the popula- 2005; Grau, 2008). While there is no formal reporting tion agreed or fully agreed with the idea that system regarding participation rates in freshwater rec- recreational fisheries produce a relevant number of reational fisheries, the number of licenses sold is even jobs and job benefits for society (Alos and Morales- greater than for marine recreational fisheries, which Nin, 2018). By contrast, the general public has the suggest that the actual participation rate could be opinion that commercial fisheries produce more jobs somewhere between 5 and 10% in countries such as and benefits although the number of recreational fish- Spain and Italy. A recent national telephone survey of ers can be orders of magnitude higher than commer- the general public in Spain suggested that the partici- cial fisheries and their expenditure much greater in pation rate in marine and freshwater angling is 9.7% some regions (e.g., Morales-Nin et al., 2015). based on people that fished at least once in the last Research in different southern European countries 12 months (Alos and Morales-Nin, 2018), a value has resulted in a list of ecological impacts from recre- similar to the average participation rates in industrial- ational fishing (Font and Lloret, 2014), especially ized countries (Arlinghaus et al., 2015). spearfishing (Coll et al., 2004). When the Spanish gen- A proper quantification of the economic impact of eral public was asked about their opinion whether rec- recreational fisheries in these countries is lacking. reational fisheries should be banned because it can Local studies, however, suggest that the economic over-exploit marine fish stocks, only 22% agreed or impact of marine recreational fisheries may be strong. strongly agreed suggesting that most of the Spanish For example, annual expenditures by resident recre- public does not view recreational fisheries as an eco- ational fishers were estimated to be 57 million Euro logically harmful activity. in 2010 in Mallorca, Balearic Islands, amounting to ca. 1% of the gross domestic product of the island 5.9. Africa and being three to four times larger than the eco- nomic impact of local commercial fisheries (Morales- There is very limited information available on recre- Nin et al., 2015). Spearfishing (as used somewhere ational fishing in Africa (Belhabib et al., 2016) except else in the text). is also economically and socially rele- for South Africa. Recreational angling participation vant in the southern European countries (Sbragaglia appears to be stable in South Africa, although partici- et al., 2016), although the participation rate is low at pation rates are considerably below international aver- about 4% of the total marine recreational fisheries in ages and the trends are uncertain given the lack of places such as Mallorca Island (Morales-Nin valid surveys (Figure 2). While there have been no et al., 2005). specific surveys, or other research on this topic in REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 25

Table 3. Economic output value of the recreational fishery in China, 2003-2016 (Unit: hundred million yuan). Year Total fishery output value Recreational fishery output value Recreational fishery growth rate (%) 2003 3323 54 2004 3796 76 4074 2005 4180 82 789 2006 4569 102 2439 2007 4956 154 5098 2008 5521 174 1299 2009 5937 216 2414 2010 6752 211 231 2011 7884 256À 2133 2012 9049 298 1641 2013 10105 366 2282 2014 10861 432 1803 2015 11329 489 1319 2016 12003 665 3599 Data source: modified from “China fishery statistics yearbook” (2003-2016); Output value: according to the current price statistics. southern Africa, the attitudes of the public toward considerations of recreational fishing in southern recreational angling appear to be diverse in this region Africa. South Africa, however, does have an “Animals (Barnes and Novelli, 2008; Britz et al 2015). To illus- Protection Act” and various enforcement bodies that trate this point, this section highlights some similar- actively implement the act through investigations and ities and differences in the public perceptions of prosecutions (Cox et al., 2011). One example of an recreational fishing in South Africa, Namibia, animal welfare concern related to recreational fisheries and Angola. was from the National Society for the Prevention of In South Africa, recreational angling is considered Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), who issued a press release to be a socially relevant activity that is encouraged as in 2010 advocating that “Fishermen should avoid a cost-effective, healthy outdoor activity. In Namibia, using live bait such as frogs because it is cruel and recreational angling is perceived to be one of the pri- contravenes the Animals Protection Act” (https:// mary pastimes and a relevant social and economic www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Stop-using-live- activity (see, e.g., Zeybrandt and Barnes, 2001). bait-SPCA-20101223, accessed 7 March 2018). They Angling is viewed favorably as a critical contributor to essentially drew attention to the cruelty of forcing the local economy of the coastal towns in this desert frogs into 500 ml plastic bottles before being sold as region (Kirchner and Stage, 2005; Barnes and bait at popular recreational fishing venues. This press Novelli, 2008). article was met with resistance from recreational In terms of conservation, the southern African anglers and the general public. public is generally not well educated on issues around aquatic environments. Any sentiment around conser- 5.10. East Asia vation is normally focused on terrestrial conservation issues, with for example, rhinoceros poaching or lion East Asia consists of a mix of developed and develop- hunting dominating the public concern. Aquatic con- ing countries and regions including China, Hong servation issues, except for abalone poaching in South Kong, Macao, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Africa, are seldom reported in mainstream media. Japan, and Taiwan. Information on recreational fish- Despite large conservation issues surrounding recre- eries in this region is highly variable and the focus ational fishing, which include the targeting of many below is on China and Japan. iconic and threatened endemic species in marine China: Recreational fisheries are mainly organized waters and the relocation of invasive fishes in fresh- as events in small multi-purpose pond fisheries based water environments, it remains low priority in the on fee fishing (Shen, 2008; Yang et al., 2017). These public discourse around conservation in south- are much more abundant in China than in western ern Africa. countries where put-and-take type fisheries using Besides aquatic conservation, there is also a lack of commercial operators are probably the form of fish- public education and awareness on the ethical consid- eries which most closely resembles recreational fish- erations around recreational angling. This is most eries of China (Shen, 2008). Chinese recreational relevant in Angola and Namibia, where there is no fisheries are an industrial form of recreational fisheries animal welfare legislation (Cox et al., 2011) and few creating a leisure entertainment experience, linking organizations are dedicated to reduce animal cruelty. tourism, cultural heritage, science popularization, and Little public debate has occurred on the ethical restaurants. It realizes the integration and 26 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. development of the primary, secondary, and tertiary general public seems to view recreational fishing industries to provide products and services to satisfy and inland fishery cooperatives positively the leisure needs of people. In particular, the recre- (Nakamura, 2019). ational fisheries here are divided into recreational fish- ing based on released fishes from aquaculture, 5.11. South Asia recreational fishing and sightseeing, aquarium watch- ing and education, and the historical culture and fish- The countries in South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, ing experience related to fisheries (Yang et al., 2017). Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri In recent years, the recreational fishery in China Lanka) are characterized as developing economies. has developed rapidly as evidenced by the increasing Data availability for recreational fisheries activities for total value of recreational fishing (Table 3). Early esti- these countries is poor and formal reporting is largely mates suggested 90 million anglers, which represents absent (Welcomme, 2011). Participation in recre- 7% of the population (Shen, 2008), but more recent ational fishing, however, is increasing in the region estimates indicate that about 220 million Chinese peo- (e.g., the Maldives, FAO, 2009; Bangladesh, FAO, ple fish for leisure (China Society for Fisheries 2018). 2010a; India, Gupta et al., 2016) and interest in devel- In 2011, the output value of the national recreational oping tourism-based recreational fisheries is also fee fishery was 25.6 billion yuan, and reached 66.5 bil- growing (e.g., in the Maldives, FAO, 2009; Nepal, lion yuan in 2016, which increased by nearly three Gurung and Sah, 2017). Indeed, Welcomme et al. times. The percentage of total output value of the rec- (2010) referred to growth of recreational fisheries in reational fishery economy increased from 3.2% in the inland waters of emerging economies as 2011 to 5.5% in 2016. In 2016, there were 200 million “explosive” due to its high economic potential. people employed in the recreational fishery, among Quantifying and comparing recreational fishing which, the fishing population was nearly 100 million activity are difficult in South Asia. Recreational fish- (Yang et al., 2017). eries activities in this region, like elsewhere, are The acceleration of industrialization has led to an diverse in terms of habitats, gears, and target species increase in demand for recreational fishing. groups, but recreational fishing activities also com- Development will continue to grow rapidly in the monly blend into other endeavors such as subsistence next decade as experts predict that over the next and small-scale fishing activities, and traditional com- 20 years, the tourism and leisure markets in China munity harvests. The discussion of recreational fishing will reach more than 8 billion people. No information activities here is limited to those using rod and reel. exists on how the public views recreational fishing The earliest known reference to recreational fishing in China. activity in South Asia is found in the Manasollos a Japan: Recreational fishing is a very popular out- treaty of India, written in 1127 AD (Hora, 1951, cited door activity. Based on the White Paper on Leisure in by Gupta et al., 2015a). Despite this long history, the Japan (Japan Productivity Center 2017), recreational degree to which recreational fishing activity is fishing was ranked as the 10th most popular outdoor embedded in South Asian culture is poor. activit with 6.9 million people (6.9% of Japanese aged Recreational fishing does not constitute a reported between 15 and 79 years) participating in recreational portion of national income in any South Asian coun- fishing. The participation rates were 10.9% and 3.0% tries, and national rates of participation, while for men and women, respectively. In addition, recre- unknown, are not expected to be high relative to other ational angling ranked first for men in the potential regions. For example, in Pakistan an estimated 900 demand (i.e. would prefer to conduct) among all participants landed approximately 130 t of fish across sports, although the rank was outside of the top ten all recreational fishing activities in 2002, and partici- sports for women. Recreational fishing, therefore, is pation is estimated to have increased to 1000 partici- very popular and preferable activity, especially pants operating 120 to 150 licensed boats by 2009 for men. (Khan, 2006). This example illustrates that where rec- Japanese people love to eat fresh whole fish, shell- reational fishing activity occurs, it is of limited but fish, and lobster (Altintzoglou et al., 2016). Thus, har- increasing importance (Bangladesh, FAO, 2010a). vest-oriented fishing is a very-highly accepted practice Due to the low visibility of recreational fishing as a by almost all Japanese people. According to a recent distinct sector in South Asia, public recognition of the internet survey, 35.2% anglers enjoy recreational fish- activity on a large scale is minimal. In some areas, ing in freshwater region (Nakamura, 2020). Also the recreational fishing is viewed as an activity for the REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 27 wealthy (e.g., in Bangladesh, FAO, 2010a). This per- subsistence fishing, small-scale coastal commercial ception is changing rapidly in India as more local fishing, or offshore commercial fishing for tuna businesses are established (e.g., tourism operations, (Ansell et al., 1996; Gillett and Tauati, 2018). There gear vendors, Gupta et al., 2015a) and tackle costs, are some important exceptions though where dedi- which were previously prohibitively high, decrease cated recreational fishing tourism is an important or (this is also the case in Bhutan, Rajbanshi and Csavas, potentially important economic contributor 1982). Anglers active in 25 Indian states perceive rec- (Whitelaw, 2003; Wood et al., 2013; Allen, 2014). reational fishing as being of high conservation import- Examples of this include charter fishing operations ance and exhibit strong willingness to contribute to that target bonefish (Albula vulpes) in countries such conservation activities (Gupta et al., 2015b). as the Cook Islands and New Caledonia (Allen, 2014), Overfishing, pollution, and hydropower develop- gamefishing for billfishes in many Central and ment are commonly described as threats to inland Western Pacific countries and territories (Whitelaw, biodiversity across the region (Petr, 2003; Everard and 2003), and those that target Papuan black bass Kataria, 2011; see Malik et al., 2014 for reference to (Lutjanus goldiei) and Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) in heavy metal accumulation in reservoir fishes). Papua New Guinea (Sheaves et al., 2016). Additional sources of conflict may be unique to South Most discussion in this section focuses on Australia Asia, or unique to developing countries. In particular, where recreational fishing is a key way that many peo- conflicts are generated by sand mining activities ple experience the aquatic environment. It is consid- (Bower et al., 2017), by the prevalence of destructive ered a socially relevant activity in Australia as fishing gears such as poison or dynamite (Rajbanshi evidenced by the large number of participants and and Csavas, 1982; Bower et al., 2017), and profuse inclusion in state fisheries legislation of objectives spe- stocking of native and non-native hatchery fish across cific related to recreational fishing (McPhee, 2008). the region (in Bhutan, Rajbanshi and Csavas, 1982; in There are also national level policies devoted to recre- Afghanistan, Petr, 1999; in India, Sehgal, 1999; in ational fisheries that exemplify the high standing of Pakistan, Khan et al., 2011). Whether via introduc- angling in society. This includes a national recre- tions or culture of native species, many South Asian ational fishing industry development strategy sup- recreational fisheries are culture-based. There may be ported by the Australian government (RFAC, 2011). opportunities to promote conservation of native fresh- The last national recreational fishing survey under- water fishes by stocking, fostering angler interest in taken in 2000/01 identified that 3.36 million people fishing for native species and harvesting invasive spe- (19.5% of the population at the time) participated in cies. Indeed, angler interest in mahseer (Tor spp.) in recreational fishing annually for an estimated 23.2 India led to the formal identification of the humpback million fishing trips (Henry and Lyle, 2003). mahseer as Tor remadevii and its subsequent listing In terms of legislative recognition, there is an by the International Union for the Conservation of objective to enhance the recreational fishing experi- Nature as ‘critically endangered’ (Pinder et al., 2018a, ence and to promote quality recreational fishing 2018b). Finally, conflict among socio-economic classes opportunities in the Australian state of New South of fishers is expected to increase in South Asia as rec- Wales (McPhee, 2008). It is further evidenced by gov- reational fishing activity increases. Decreasing access ernment investment in recreational fisheries manage- for subsistence fishers is possible as recreational fish- ment, marketing recreational fishing as part of ing activity increases, particularly if subsistence activ- tourism experiences, infrastructure (e.g., boat ramps ities continue to be viewed as poaching by and fish cleaning facilities), and fisheries research recreational fishers (Bower et al., 2017). (NSW DPI, 2016). Much of this government invest- ment originates from consolidated revenue, although some is recovered from recreational fishing license 5.12. Oceania fees and other specific levies. Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Island coun- Despite being recognized as a socially relevant tries and territories represent an economically, cultur- activity, recreational fishing participation rates in ally, and biophysically diverse region. In terms of Australia have fallen, particularly in urban areas recreational fishing, its importance is more significant (McPhee, 2017). Increasing population in Australia in the highly-developed countries of Australia and has, however, stabilized the total number of recre- New Zealand (Figure 2). In most Pacific Island coun- ational fishing participants through periods surveyed. tries and territories, fishing is largely focused on In the Australian state of Victoria 46 million AUD is 28 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. being invested over five years in a program called economic development before eventually stabilizing or “Target One Million”, which aims through various declining. The review showed, in agreement with the initiatives to increase the number of recreational fish- life-cycle metaphor, that in poorer countries, recre- ing participants to one million in 2020 from the esti- ational fishing is currently not a relevant issue at the mated 719,000 in 2009 (Ernst and Young, 2009). societal level and is often considered sport for a few While no quantitative information exists on the elite members of society or for wealthy tourists (e.g., moral acceptability of recreational fishing in Australia, several countries of South Asia, South Africa, Central it is likely that those who fish consider it mor- America and Caribbean). By contrast, in economies in ally acceptable. transition (e.g., many countries in South America, Catch-and-release fishing is becoming an increasing China, India, Angola) interest in recreational fishing dilemma in fisheries management. It is potentially an is increasing, but data quality to support this assertion example of where goals, activities, and attitudes is poor. Finally, in highly-developed and economic- related to sustainability and animal welfare are not ally-wealthy countries of the western world, data qual- aligned. Provided the fish survive release, the sustain- ity on recreational fisheries is better, yet relative ability benefits of releasing rather than killing a fish to participation rates in fishing have tended to stabilize consume are self-evident; however, the debate of or decline with notable exceptions such as the USA or whether this practice is ethically appropriate is a the Czech Republic where relative participation rates “values-based” proposition. The scientific focus on appear to be increasing after a period of decline. animal welfare and recreational fishing continues to Overall, the present review supports the proposition grow in Australia (Walker et al., 2014; Wadiwel, that participation in recreational angling across the 2019). There is a national animal welfare strategy for globe is related to societal-level developments affecting recreational competition and charter fishing in resources, time, and socialization into fishing. Australia which, in collaboration with the recreational Moreover, culture and the way that fish is historically fishing sector, has developed practical approaches for situated within society appear to be major drivers addressing relevant animal welfare issues (Hardy- affecting interest in fishing as well as the public per- Smith, 2014). Although not yet formally studied, there ception of critical fishing practices. The latter state- are emerging conflicts between groups of recreational ment is less well supported by data and clearly is an anglers that practice catch and release and those that area for more cross-cultural research. retain fish to consume. The life-cycle of fisheries also suggests that the An emerging conservation concern in Australia view of the public and correspondingly the institu- that potentially involves and impacts recreational fish- tions (e.g., rule systems) developed by organizations ers is associated with biosecurity. A recent outbreak of predictably changes from a focus on anthropocentric white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) in farmed prawns moral perspectives to biocentric ones that broadly occurred. The WSSV was present in imported focus on maintaining or restoring wilderness and con- uncooked prawns that were sold for human consump- servation or restoring natural biodiversity. This tion and anglers introduced them into the wild by change can be complemented by pathocentric ethical using infected, uncooked prawns for bait (Diggles, viewpoints emphasizing the well-being of individual 2017). The detection of the WSSV in the wild necessi- fish and other animal and disregarding recreational tated closures to recreational fishing for crustaceans fishing on moral grounds (Figure 1). The review is and marine worms to help prevent the further spread consistent with a shift from anthropocentrism to of the disease. The introduction and spread of the more biocentric viewpoints as societies develop eco- WSSV has focused attention on recreational fishing nomically in relation to recreational fisheries (Table activities as a potential vector for aquatic diseases, 1). This is for example exemplified by the reliance of which affect aquatic animal health and provides an recreational fisheries on introduced fishes, which is example of the increasing importance of biocen- prevalent in less developed nations, but increasingly tric values. considered an ecological issue in more developed nations. As another marker, a shift from anthropocen- trism to biocentrism with economic development is 6. Conclusions indicated by a more rigorous implementation of man- This review provides general support for the life-cycle agement and regulatory schemes designed to reduce of fisheries (Figure 1, Table 1) that hypothesizes that unwanted ecological impacts of recreational fishing interest in recreational fishing rises rapidly with activities in more developed nations and the desire to REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 29 rather manage fisheries for some indicator of ecosys- minority felt negatively about recreational fisheries, tem health or integrity than predominantly for maxi- with many individuals simply being indifferent. It is mized angler well-being or other social objectives also important to make a distinction between accept- (FAO, 2012; Rahel, 2016; Aas et al., 2018). ance and support. And, there is ample variation In contrast to what the life-cycle of fisheries pro- among countries. For example, in the USA over 90% poses, the global review revealed that pathocentric consider fishing for food morally acceptable, while the worldviews have not strongly materialized and have corresponding figures is only 60% in Germany, but in not led to regulations of recreational fisheries or some both cases the majority express a favorable view about of its practices on fish welfare grounds, with the not- recreational fishing. Thus, overall, there are no identi- able exceptions in selected countries such as Germany fiable developments that strongly threaten the favor- or Switzerland (Table 1). Fish welfare is rarely an able view of the global publics toward recreational issue at all in poorer countries or developing nations. fisheries. The tension among biocentric conservation By contrast, although a fish welfare discourse occurs and more anthropocentric fisheries management, in almost all developed countries, this does not mean nevertheless, is likely to stay or become stronger, as the recreational activity is threatened or that welfare- agencies increasingly regulate recreational fisheries for oriented regulations similar to Germany and ecological reasons in many areas of the world. Switzerland will be widely implemented. Research is The review also revealed several research needs (see needed to understand how the respective roles of: (i) Holder et al., in press for a full list). First, national specific contextual conditions in a given country (e.g., level surveys of both recreational fishing participation how are recreational fisheries organized and repre- and the public view about the activity are scattered sented in the policy arena); (ii) the social embedding and not standardized. This standardization begins and social-political support of recreational fisheries with definitions of what is a recreational fisher and (indexed for example by the presence of national-level continues with the lack of thorough trend data with policies for the development of recreational fisheries); exceptions of the UK, Norway, USA, and Canada. and (iii) the presence of pro-fish welfare activism in a Standard approaches to sample anglers and general given country put countries on different paths that publics and measure support for recreational fishing either encourage or discourage fish welfare regulation. and specific practices such as voluntary catch-and- The final outcomes also seem largely independent of release need to be developed. Second, although the the actual public perception whether recreational fish- analysis supports the life-cycle of fisheries, ample vari- ing just “for fun” is cruel or not. For example, while ation persisted that supports a more complicated public surveys in central European countries and even model where broader economic and urbanization in the USA have revealed that in the more urbanized trends interact with a range of cultural conditions in states about a quarter of the public views angling for affecting how many people fish, how the public views sport as cruel, strong constraints on critical angling recreational fisheries, and which type of regulations practices have only materialized in Germany and are implemented with regards to recreational fisheries. Switzerland (Table 1). Better understanding the social, Sorting this question out using cross-national com- parative studies is a major research need. Finally, political, and legal conditions that either favor or pre- major structural changes are occurring in many soci- vent fish welfare-related regulations from becoming eties related to immigration and alteration of ethnic established is a key area for future research. It is also and cultural grouping, and little is known how these important to study whether discourses surrounding might affect future recreational fishing participation practices such as catch-and-release are fundamentally and behavior, and the view of the public toward fish- about animal liberation or rights or simply a reflection ing. Clearly, also global pandemics such as the of a conflict between harvest-oriented fishing styles COVID-19 crisis that frees time resources or other- and those that emphasize the conservation contribu- wise change the incentives to fish recreationally might tion or non-consumptive aspects of catch-and-release affect recreational fishing, which constitutes an emerg- (Øian et al., 2017). ing research area. The review has revealed that recreational fisheries are generally seen as an acceptable pastime activity, at least for countries where survey data are available. Acknowledgements This statement needs further evidence. It is not the RA thanks Kate Bush for excellent music that helped him case that in each survey that most respondents felt write and compile this paper over several lone nights in positive about recreational fisheries. Rather, only a Berlin at home. We thank Philipp Czapla for help with 30 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL. format and the reference formatting and many researchers Pitcher TJ, Hollingworth C, editors. Recreational fish- around the world for answering to our requests for infor- eries: ecological, economic and social evaluations. Oxford mation. RA received funding from the European Union (UK): Blackwell Science. p. 95–106. through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, and Adams CE, Thomas JK, Jr., Knowles WR. 1993. Explaining the State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) differences in angling rates in the United States. (Boddenhecht-grant MV-I.18-LM-004, B 730117000069) Fisheries. 18(4):11–17. doi:10.1577/1548- and the German Federal Ministry of Education and 8446(1993)018<0011:EDIARI>2.0.CO;2 Research (Grants Aquatag 01LC1826E and marEEshift Aigo J, Ladio A. 2016. Traditional Mapuche ecological 033W046A). Part of the work on the Chinese case was con- knowledge in Patagonia, Argentina: fishes and other liv- ducted while Z-J Yang was a visiting scholar at the ing beings inhabiting continental waters, as a reflection Department of Plant and Environmental Protection of processes of change. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 12(1):56. Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Z-J Yang is grate- doi:10.1186/s13002-016-0130-y ful for the support and guidance of Professor John Hu dur- Aksakov ST. 1997. Notes on fishing. Evanston (IL): ing his visit in Hawaii. Z-J Yang was supported by the Northwestern University Press (first publ. 1847) Fishery Cultural Heritage Protection and Development Alava JJ, Lindop A, Jacquet J. 2015. Marine fisheries catch Research Strategy, Important Agricultural Cultural Heritage reconstructions for continental Ecuador: 1950-2010. Protection and Development Strategy of China. We thank Working paper 2015-34, University of British Columbia reviewers for supportive and constructive feedback. Any Fisheries Centre, Vancouver, Canada. 1–25. remaining errors are our own. Alio JJ. 2012. Recreational fishery component of the Caribbean large marine ecosystem, large pelagic fisheries case study: southern Caribbean area (Venezuela with ORCID notes from Colombia). CRFM Res Pap Collect. 7:1–26. Allen MS. 2014. The historical role of bonefishes (Albula Robert Arlinghaus http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2861-527X spp.) in Polynesian fisheries. Hawaiian Arch. 51–72. Øystein Aas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0688-4049 Alos J, Morales-Nin B. 2017. Magnitud social de la pesca Ivan Arismendi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8774-9350 recreativa en Espana.~ Paper presented at I Simposio Katia M. F. Freire http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-3532 Internacional sobre Pesca Marıtima Recreativa Vigo Len M. Hunt http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8588-636X (Espana),~ 14–15 septiembre 2018 Jun-ichi Tsuboi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7615-6341 Altintzoglou T, Heide M, Wien AH, Honkanen P. 2016. Traditional Sushi for modern consumers: a comparison References between Sushi consumption behavior in Japan and Norway. J Food Prod Mark. 22(6):717–732. doi:10.1080/ Aas Ø. 1995. Constraints on sportfishing and effect of man- 10454446.2015.1121434 agement actions to increase participation rates in fishing. Ansell AD, Gibson RN, Barnes M, Press UCL. 1996. Coastal N Am J Fish Manag. 15(3):631–638. doi:10.1577/1548- fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Oceanogr. Mar Biol. 34: 8675(1995)015<0631:COSAEO>2.3.CO;2 395–531. Aas Ø. 1996. Recreational fishing in Norway from 1970 to Aprahamian MW, Hickley P, Shields BA, Mawle GW. 2010. 1993: trends and geographical variation. Fish Examining changes in participation in recreational fish- Manag Ecol. 3(2):107–118. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.1996. eries in England and Wales. Fish Manag Ecol. 17(2): tb00135.x 93–105. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00667.x Aas Ø. 2002. The next chapter: multicultural and cross-dis- Arismendi I, Nahuelhual L. 2007. Non-native salmon and ciplinary progress in evaluating recreational fisheries. In: trout recreational fishing in Lake Llanquihue, southern Pitcher TJ, Hollingworth C, editors. Recreational fish- Chile: economic benefits and management implications. eries: ecological, economic and social evaluations. Oxford Rev Fish Sci. 15(4):311–325. doi:10.1080/ (UK): Blackwell Science. p. 252–263. 10641260701484655 Aas Ø, Cucherousset J, Fleming IA, Wolter C, Hojesj€ o€ J, Arismendi I, Penaluna BE, Dunham JB, Garcıa de Leaniz C, Buoro M, Santoul F, Johnsson JI, Hindar K, Arlinghaus Soto D, Fleming I, Gomez-Uchida D, Gajardo G, Vargas R. 2018. Salmonid stocking in five North Atlantic juris- P, Leon-Mu noz~ J. 2014. Differential invasion success of dictions: identifying drivers and barriers to policy change. salmonids in southern Chile: patterns and hypotheses. Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 28(6):1451–1464. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 24(3):919–941. doi:10.1007/ doi:10.1002/aqc.2984 s11160-014-9351-0 Aas Ø, Ditton RB. 1998. Human dimensions perspective on Arismendi I, Penaluna BE, Gomez-Uchida Prinzio DD, recreational fisheries management: implications for Rodrıguez-Olarte D, Carvajal-Vallejos FM, Mojica JI, Europe. In: Hickley P, Tompkins H, editors. Recreational Mazzoni R, Cussac V, Maldonado M, et al. 2019. Trout fisheries: social, economic and management aspects. and Char of South America. In: Kershner J, Williams J, Oxford (UK): Blackwell Science. p. 153–164. Gresswell R, Lobon-Cervia J, editors. Trout and Char of Aas Ø, Skurdal J. 1996. Fishing by residents and non-resi- the World. Bethesda (MD): American Fisheries Society. p dents in a rural district in Norway: subsistence and 279–311. sport-conflict or coexistence?. Nord J Freshw Res. 72: Arlinghaus R. 2004. Recreational fisheries in Germany – a 45–51. social and economic analysis. Berichte des IGB, Heft 18. Aas Ø, Thailing CE, Ditton RB. 2002. Controversy over Berlin: Leibniz-Institut fur€ Gew€asserokologie€ und catch-and-release recreational fishing in Europe. In: Binnenfischerei (IGB) im Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V. REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 31

Arlinghaus R. 2006a. Understanding recreational angling industrialized world. Fish Manag Ecol. 22(1):45–55. doi: participation in Germany: preparing for demographic 10.1111/fme.12075 change. Hum Dimens Wildl. 11:1–12. Baigun C, Delfino R. 2001. Consideraciones y criterios para Arlinghaus R. 2006b. Overcoming human obstacles to con- la evaluacion de poblaciones y manejo de pesquerıas de servation of recreational fishery resources with emphasis pejerrey en lagunas pampasicas. In: Grosman F, editor. on central Europe. Environ Conserv. 33(1):46–59. doi:10. Fundamentos biologicos, economicos y sociales para una 1017/S0376892906002700 correcta gestion del recurso pejerrey. Azul (Argentina): Arlinghaus R. 2007. Voluntary catch-and-release can gener- Astyanax. p. 132–145. ate conflict within the recreational angling community: a Barnes J, Novelli M. 2008. Trophy hunting and recreational qualitative case study of specialised carp, Cyprinus carpio, angling in Namibia: an economic, social and environ- angling in Germany. Fish Manag Ecol. 14(2):161–171. mental comparison. In: Lovelock, B, editor. Tourism and doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00537.x the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, Shooting and Arlinghaus R, Abbott JK, Fenichel EP, Carpenter SR, Hunt Sport Fishing. London (UK): Routledge. p. 155–168. LM, Alos J, Klefoth T, Cooke SJ, Hilborn R, Jensen OP, Barroso H. 2002. Tempos da pesca. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): et al. 2019. Opinion: Governing the recreational dimen- Ediouro. sion of global fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 116(12): Bate R. 2001. Saving our streams: the role of the anglers’ 5209–5213. doi:10.1073/pnas.1902796116 conservation association in protecting English and Welsh Arlinghaus R, Alos J, Beardmore B, Daedlow K, Dorow M, rivers. London (UK): Institute of Economic Affairs. Fujitani M, Huhn€ D, Haider W, Hunt LM, Johnson BM, Belhabib D, Campredon P, Lazar N, Sumaila UR, Baye BC, et al. 2017. Understanding and managing freshwater rec- Kane EA, Pauly D. 2016. Best for pleasure, not for busi- reational fisheries as complex adaptive social-ecological ness: evaluating recreational marine fisheries in West systems. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 25(1):1–41. doi:10.1080/ Africa using unconventional sources of data. Palgrave 23308249.2016.1209160 Commun. 2(1):15050. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2015.50 Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Cowx IG. 2010. Providing context Bieri U, Kocher JP, Frind A, Tschope€ S, Herzog N, Bohn D, to the global code of practice for recreational fisheries. Wattenhofer K. 2018. Schlussbericht – Angler- und Fish Manage Ecol. 17(2):146–156. doi:10.1111/j.1365- Bevolkerungsbefragung€ Fischerei. Bern (Switzerland): 2400.2009.00696.x Schweizer Fischereiverband SFV Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Lyman J, Policansky D, Schwab A, Bispo MC, Freire KMF, Silva MC. 2016. Reconstruc¸~ao da Suski C, Sutton SG, Thorstad EB. 2007a. Understanding estatıstica pesqueira continental do estado de Sergipe/ the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fish- Reconstruction of inland catch statistics for the state of ing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from Sergipe. Acta Fish Aquat Resour. 4:11–39. historical, ethical, social, and biological perspectives. Rev Bower SD, Aas Ø, Arlinghaus R, Beard TD, Cowx IG, Fish Sci. 15(1-2):75–167. doi:10.1080/10641260601149432 Danlychuk AJ, Freire KMF, Potts WM, Sutton SG, Cooke Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Schwab A, Cowx IG. 2007b. Fish SJ. in press. Knowledge gaps and management priorities welfare: a challenge of the feelings-based approach, with for recreational fisheries in the developing world. Rev implications for recreational fishing. Fish Fisheries. 8(1): Fish Sci Aquacult. 57–71. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00233.x Bower SD, Raghavan R, Mahesh N, Danylchuk AJ, and Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Schwab A, Cowx IG. 2009. Cooke SJ. 2017. Inter-sectoral fisheries governance issues Contrasting pragmatic and suffering-centred approaches and solutions on the Cauvery River, India. In: Song AM, to fish welfare in recreational angling. J Fish Biol. 75(10): Bower SD, Onyango P, Cooke SJ, Chuenpagdee R, edi- 2448–2463. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02466.x tors. Inter-sectoral governance of inland fisheries. NL, Arlinghaus R, Johnson BM, Wolter C. 2008. The past, pre- Canada: TBTI Publication Series, St John’s. p. 97–110. sent and future role of limnology in freshwater fisheries Braithwaite V. 2010. Do fish feel pain? Oxford (UK): science. Internat Rev Hydrobiol. 93(4-5):541–549. doi:10. Oxford Unity Press. 1002/iroh.200711047 Britz PJ, Hara M, Tapela B, Rouhani Q. 2015. Scoping study Arlinghaus R, Mehner T, Cowx IG. 2002. Reconciling trad- on the development and sustainable utilisation of inland itional inland fisheries management and sustainability in fisheries in South Africa. Volume 1. WRC Report No. industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish 615/1/15. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. http:// Fisheries. 3(4):261–316. doi:10.1046/j.1467-2979.2002.00102.x wrcwebsite.azurewebsites.net/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/ Arlinghaus R, Schwab A, 2011. Five ethical challenges to TT%20615-1.pdf. recreational fishing: what they are and what they mean. Brownscombe, JW, SD. Bower, W. Bowden, L. Nowell, JD. In: Beard TD, Arlinghaus R, Sutton SG, editors. The Midwood, N. Johnson and S.J. Cooke. 2014. Canadian angler in the environment: social, economic, biological, recreational fisheries: 35 years of social, biological, and and ethical dimensions. Bethesda, Maryland: American economic dynamics from a national survey. Fisheries 39: Fisheries Society, Symposium 75. p. 219–234. 251–260. Arlinghaus R, Schwab A, Riepe C, Teel T. 2012. A primer Brownscombe JW, Danylchuk AJ, Chapman JM, Gutowsky on anti-angling philosophy and its relevance for recre- LF, Cooke SJ. 2017. Best practices for catch-and-release ational fisheries in urbanized societies. Fisheries 37(4): recreational fisheries–angling tools and tactics. Fish. Res. 153–164. doi:10.1080/03632415.2012.666472 186:693–705. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2016.04.018 Arlinghaus R, Tillner R, Bork M. 2015. Explaining partici- Bruskotter JT, Fulton DC. 2008. Minnesota anglers’ fish- pation rates in recreational fishing across the eries-related value orientations and their stewardship of 32 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

fish resources. Hum. Dimens. Wildl.13(4):207–221. doi: Dabrowska K, Haider W, Hunt LM. 2014. Examining the 10.1080/10871200802023227 impact of fisheries resources and quality on licence sales. J Burkett EM, Winkler RL. 2019. Recreational fishing partici- Outdoor Recr Tour.5-6:58–67. doi:10.1016/j.jort.2014.03.005 pation trends in Upper Great Lakes states: an age-period- Daedlow K, Beard TD, Jr., Arlinghaus R. 2011. A property cohort analysis. Hum Dim Wildl. 24(1):95–97. doi:10. rights-based view on management of inland recreational fish- 1080/10871209.2018.1526352 eries: contrasting common and public fishing rights regimes Butler EC, Childs A-R, Saayman A, Potts WM. 2020. Can fishing in Germany and the United States. In: Beard TD, Arlinghaus tourism contribute to conservation and sustainability via eco- R, Sutton SG, editors. The Angler in the Environment: Social, tourism? A case study of the fishery for giant African Economic, Biological, and Ethical Dimensions. Bethesda, Threadfin Polydactylus quadrifilis on the Kwanza Estuary. Maryland: Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 75. pp. 13–38. Angola. Sustainability.12(10):4221. doi:10.3390/su12104221 Danylchuk AJ, Danylchuk SC, Kosiarski A, Cooke SJ, Carpenter SR, Brock WA, Hansen GJ, Hansen JF, Hennessy Huskey B. 2018. Keepemwet Fishing—An emerging social JM, Isermann DA, Pedersen EJ, Perales KM, Rypel AL, brand for disseminating best practices for catch-and- Sass GG, et al. 2017. Defining a safe operating space for release in recreational fisheries. Fish Res. 205:52–56. doi: inland recreational fisheries. Fish. 18(6):1150–1160. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2018.04.005 10.1111/faf.12230 Davie PS, Kopf RK. 2006. Physiology, behaviour and welfare Catella AC. 2006. Turismo de pesca no Pantanal Sul: desafios e of fish during recreational fishing and after release. N Z oportunidades. In: Rotta MA, Luna HSE, Weis WA, editors. Vet J. 54(4):161–172. doi:10.1080/00480169.2006.36690 Ecoturismo no Pantanal. Corumba, Brazil: Embrapa. p. 56–69. de Leeuw AD1996. Contemplating the interests of fish: the China Society of Fisheries. 2018. The development report of angler’s challenge. Environ Ethics. 18(4):373–390. doi:10. China’s recreational fishery. China Fishery 12:20–30. 5840/enviroethics19961844 Coleman FC, Figueira WF, Ueland JS, Crowder LB. 2004. de Leeuw AD. 2012. Can nature conservation justify sports The impact of United States recreational fisheries on fishing?. Environ Ethics. 34:159–175. marine fish populations. Science 305(5692):1958–1960. Dellacasa RF, Braccini JM. 2016. Adapting to social, eco- doi:10.1126/science.1100397 nomic and ecological dynamics: changes in Argentina’s Coll J, Linde M, Garcia-Rubies A, Riera F, Grau AM. 2004. most important marine angling tournament. Fish Manag Spear fishing in the Balearic Islands (west central Ecol. 23(3-4):330–333. doi:10.1111/fme.12158 Mediterranean): species affected and catch evolution dur- Diggles BK. 2017. Field observations and assessment of the ing the period 1975-2001. Fish Res. 70(1):97–111. doi:10. response to an outbreak of White Spot Disease (WSD) in 1016/j.fishres.2004.05.004 Black Tiger Prawns (Penaeus monodon) farmed on the Cooke SJ, Sneddon LU. 2007. Animal welfare perspectives Logan River in November 2016. Fish. Res. Dev. Corp:46. on recreational angling. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 104(3-4): Ditton RB. 2004. Human dimensions of fisheries. In: 176–198. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.002 Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Bruyere BL, Field DR, Brown PJ, Cooke SJ, Twardek WM, Lennox RJ, Zolderdo AJ, Bower SD, editors. Society and natural resources: a summary of Gutowsky LF, Danylchuk AJ, Arlinghaus R, Beard D. 2018. knowledge. Prepared for the 10th International The nexus of fun and nutrition: recreational fishing is also Symposium on Society and Resource Management . about food. Fish Fish. 19(2):201–224. doi:10.1111/faf.12246 Jefferson (MO): Modern Litho. p. 199–208. Cowx IG, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ. 2010. Harmonizing rec- Ditton RB, Holland SM, Anderson DK. 2002. Recreational reational fisheries and conservation objectives for aquatic fishing as tourism. Fisheries. 27(3):17–24. doi:10.1577/ biodiversity in inland waters. J Fish Biol. 76(9): 1548-8446(2002)027<0017:RFAT>2.0.CO;2 2194–2215. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02686.x Driscoll JW. 1995. Attitudes toward animals: species ratings. Cox J, Mapitse NJ, Mtei BJ, Bastiaensen P. 2011. Animal Soc Animals. 3(2):139–150. doi:10.1163/156853095X00125 welfare in OIE member countries & territories in the Driver BL, Cooksey RW. 1977. Preferred psychological out- SADC Region – summaries of baseline country assess- comes of recreational fishing. In: Barnhart RA, Roelofs ments. Paris, France. World Organisation for Animal TD, editors. Catch-and-release fishing as a management Health (OIE) 12, rue de Prony, 75017. tool: a national sport fishing symposium. Bethesda, Crawford DW, Jackson EL, Godbey G. 1991. A hierarchical Maryland: Humboldt State University. p. 27–40. model of leisure constraints. Leis Sci. 13(4):309–320. doi: Driver BL, Knopf RC. 1976. Temporary escape: one product 10.1080/01490409109513147 of sport fisheries management. Fisheries. 1:2–29. Czarkowski TK, Kapusta A. 2019a. Catch-and-release ice Duda MD, Bissell SJ, Young KC. 1995. Factors related to fishing with a mormyshka for roach (Rutilus rutilus) and hunting and fishing participation in the United States European perch (Perca fluviatilis). Croatian J Fisheries. Phase V: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and 77(4):235–242. doi:10.2478/cjf-2019-0017 Wildlife Service. Czarkowski TK, Kapusta A. 2019b. The impact of angling Edwards SF. 1989. Forecasts of in-state participation in marine experience on the efficiency of float fishing using differ- recreational fishing. Trans Am Fish Soc. 118(5):564–572. ent hook types. Fisheries Aquat Life. 27(1):41–46. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1989)118<0564:FOIPIM>2.3.CO;2 Czarkowski TK, Wołos A, Kapusta A, Mickiewicz KK. 2018. Ernst and Young 2009. Economic study of recreational fish- wedkarza. weRdkarstwie na przestrzeni ostatnich 40 lat: ing in Victoria. Melbourne (Australia): VRFish. połowy, opinie, preferencje oraz aspekty socjoekono- Evans JC. 2005. With respect for nature: living as part of the nat- miczne wspołczesnego weRdkarza In: Mickiewicz M, ural world. New York: State University of New York Press Wołos A, editors. Działalnosc podmiotow rybackich w Everard M, Kataria G. 2011. Recreational angling markets 2017 roku. Olsztyn, Poland: Wyd. IRS. pp. 99–121. to advance the conservation of a reach of the Western REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 33

Ramganga River. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. Freire KMF, Machado ML, Crepaldi D. 2012. Overview of 21(1):101–108. doi:10.1002/aqc.1159 inland recreational fisheries in Brazil. Fisheries. 37(11): FAO. 2009. Fishery and aquaculture country profiles. 484–494. doi:10.1080/03632415.2012.731867 Maldives. Country profile fact sheets. In: FAO Fisheries Freire KMF, Tubino RA, Monteiro-Neto C, Andrade- and Aquaculture Department, Rome. Available from Tubino MF, Belruss CG, Tomas ARG, Tutui SLS, Castro http://www.fao.org/fishery/. PMG, Maruyama LS, Catella AC, et al. 2016. Brazilian FAO. 2010a. Fishery and aquaculture country profiles. recreational fisheries: current status, challenges and future Bangladesh. Country profile fact sheets. In: FAO direction. Fish Manag Ecol. 23(3-4):276–290. doi:10.1111/ Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome. Available fme.12171 from http://www.fao.org/fishery/. Freudenberg P, Arlinghaus R. 2009. Benefits and constraints FAO. 2016. The value of billfish resources to both commer- of outdoor recreation for people with physical disabilities: cial and recreational sectors in the Caribbean, by Brad inferences from recreational fishing. Leis Sci. 32(1):55–71. Gentner. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. doi:10.1080/01490400903430889 Funge-Smith SJ. 2018. Review of the state of world fishery 1125, Bridgetown, Barbados resources: inland fisheries. FAO Fisheries and FAO. 2018. Perfiles sobre la pesca y la acuicultura por Aquaculture Circular No. C942. Rev.3, Rome. 1–397. paıses. Available from http://www.fao.org/fishery/country- Ghilarov AM. 2000. Ecosystem functioning and the intrinsic profiles/search/es. value of biodiversity. Oikos. 90(2):408–412. doi:10.1034/j. FAO. 2010b. State of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture 1600-0706.2000.900222.x FAO, Rome Gillett R, Tauati MI. 2018. Fisheries of the Pacific Islands: FAO. 2012. Technical guidelines for responsible fisheries: regional and national information. FAO Fisheries and recreational fisheries. FAO, Rome Aquaculture Technical Paper (625), 1–400. Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada. Goodspeed CE. 1939. Angling in America – its early history 2014. 2012 Canadian nature survey: awareness, participa- and literature. Devon (England): The Flyfisher’s Classic tion, and expenditures in nature-based recreation, conser- Library, Bovey Tracey vation, and subsistence activities. Ottawa (Ontario): Gordon HS. 1954. The economic theory of a common- Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. property resource: the fishery. J Political Econ. 62(2): Fedler AJ, Ditton RB. 1994. Understanding angler motiva- 124–142. doi:10.1086/257497 tions in fisheries management. Fisheries. 19(4):6–13. doi: Granek EF, Madin EMP, Brown MA, Figueira W, Cameron 10.1577/1548-8446(1994)019<0006:UAMIFM>2.0.CO;2 DS, Hogan Z, Kristianson G, De Villiers P, Williams JE, Fedler AJ, Ditton RB. 2001. Dropping out and dropping in: Post J, et al. 2008. Engaging recreational fishers in man- a study of factors for changing recreational fishing par- agement and conservation: global case studies. Conserv ticipation. N Am J Fish Manage. 21(2):283–292. doi:10. Biol. 22(5):1125–1134. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008. 1577/1548-8675(2001)021<0283:DOADIA>2.0.CO;2 00977.x Fenichel EP, Abbott JK, Huang B. 2013. Modelling angler Grau AM. 2008. Recreational maritime fishing in the behaviour as a part of the management system: synthesiz- Balearic Islands: tradition and future. In: Basurco B, edi- ing a multi-disciplinary literature. Fish Fish. 14(2): tor. The Mediterranean fisheries sector. A reference pub- 137–157. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00456.x lication for the VII Meeting of Ministers of Agriculture Ferter, K., Cooke, SJ, Humborstad O-B, Nilsson, J. & and Fisheries of CIHEAM member countries. Zagagoza, Arlinghaus, R. (in press) Fish welfare in recreational fish- Spain: CIHEAM/FAO/GFCM. p. 97–105. ing. In: T. S. Kristiansen et al. (eds.), The Welfare of Gray PA, Duwors E, Villeneuve M, Boyd S, Legg D. 2003. Fish, Animal Welfare 20, Springer Nature Switzerland The socioeconomic significance of nature-based recre- AG 2020. ation in Canada. Environ Monit Assess. 86(1-2):129–147. Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012. Survey of recreational doi:10.1023/a:1024010819749 Gupta N, Bower SD, Cooke SJ, Danylchuk AJ, Raghavan R. fishing in Canada 2010. Ottawa (Ontario): Fisheries and 2016. Practices and attitudes of Indian catch-and-release Oceans Canada. anglers: identifying opportunities for advancing the man- Floyd MF, Lee I. 2002. Who buys fishing and hunting agement of recreational fisheries. J Threat Taxa. 8(4): licenses in Texas? Results from a statewide household 8659–8665. doi:10.11609/jott.2410.8.4.8659-8665 – survey. Hum Dimens Wildl. 7(2):91 106. doi:10.1080/ Gupta N, Bower SD, Raghavan R, Danylchuk AJ, Cooke SJ. 10871200290089364 2015a. Status of recreational fisheries in India: develop- Foltz RC. 2003. Worldviews, religion and the environment ment, issues, and opportunities. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. – a global anthology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson 23(3):291–301. doi:10.1080/23308249.2015.1052366 Learning. Gupta N, Raghavan R, Sivakumar K, Mathur V, Pinder AC. Font T, Lloret J. 2014. Biological and ecological impacts 2015b. Assessing recreational fisheries in an emerging derived from recreational fishing in Mediterranean economy: knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of catch- coastal areas. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 22(1):73–85. doi:10. and-release anglers in India. Fish. Res. 165:79–84. doi:10. 1080/10641262.2013.823907 1016/j.fishres.2015.01.004 Freire KMF, Sumaila UR, Pauly D, Adelino G. 2018. The Gurung TB, Sah I. 2017. Capture fishery of Koshi Tappu of offshore recreational fisheries of northeastern Brazil. Saptakoshi River, Nepal: way forward for sustainable LAJAR. 46(4):765–778. doi:10.3856/vol46-issue4-fulltext- management. In: Song AM, Bower SD, Onyango P, 14 Cooke SJ, Chuenpagdee R, editors. Inter-sectoral 34 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

governance of inland fisheries. NL (Canada): TBTI analysis of recreational fishing values. Mar Resour Econ. Publication Series, St John’s. p. 146–156. 21(1):1–32. doi:10.1086/mre.21.1.42629492 Hardy-Smith P. 2014. The Australian Animal Welfare Kagervall A. 2014. On the Conditions for Developing Strategy (AAWS) - Practical implementation of Welfare Hunting and Fishing Tourism in Sweden. Doctoral Overarching Principles within the recreational fishing Dissertation. Umeå, SLU: Faculty of Forest Science. sector. FRDC Project No. 2012/508. Kantar/TNS 2017. Natur- og miljøbaromteret 2017. Harrison HL, Kochalski S, Arlinghaus R, Aas Ø. 2018. Undersøkelse levert til Norsk Friluftsliv. Nature’s little helpers?: a benefits approach to voluntary Key B. 2015. Fish do not feel pain and its implications for cultivation of hatchery fish to support wild Atlantic sal- understanding phenomenal consciousness. Biol Philos. mon (Salmo salar) populations in Norway, Wales, and 30(2):149–165. doi:10.1007/s10539-014-9469-4 Germany. Fish Res. 204:348–360. doi:10.1016/j.fishres. Khan WM. 2006. Country Review: Pakistan. In: Young 2018.02.022 C. de, editor. Review of the state of world marine capture Heberlein TA, Ericsson G, Wollscheid K-U. 2002. fisheries management: Indian Ocean. FAO Fisheries Correlates of hunting participation in Europe and North Technical Paper No. 488, Rome, p. 281–296. America. Z Jagdwiss. 48(S1):320–326. doi:10.1007/ Khan AM, Ali Z, Shelly SY, Ahmad Z, Mirza MR. 2011. BF02192424 Aliens; a catastrophe for native fresh water fish diversity Heberlein TA, Thomson E. 1997. The effects of hunter-edu- in Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci. 21:435–440. cation requirements on hunting participation and recruit- Kirchner CH, Stage J. 2005. An economic comparison of ment in the United States. Hum Dim Wildl. 2(1):19–31. the commercial and recreational line fisheries in doi:10.1080/10871209709359084 Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper 71. https:// Henry GW, Lyle JM. 2003. The national recreational and efdinitiative.org/sites/default/files/an20economic20com- indigenous fishing survey. Final Report to the Fisheries parison20of20the20commercial20and20recreational20line- Research & Development Corporation and the Fisheries fisheries20in20namibia20-20stage_0.pdf. Action Program. Project No. 1999/158. NSW Fisheries Kohl F. 2000. Soziale und okonomische€ Bedeutung der Final Report Series No. 48. Angelfischerei in Osterreich.€ Wien, Osterreich:€ Herd A. 1999. The treatyse of fyshinge with an angle. Osterreichs€ Kuratorium fur€ Fischerei. Ellesmere (Canada): The Medlar Press. Kraus R. 2008. Recreation and leisure in modern society. Holder PE, Jeanson AL, Lennox RL, Brownscombe JW, New York: Jones & Bertlett. Arlinghaus R, Danylchuk AJ, Bower SD, Hyder K, Hunt Larkin PA. 1977. An epitaph for the concept of maximum LM, Fenichel EP, Venturelli, et al. 2020. Preparing for a sustained yield. Trans Am Fish Soc. 106(1):1–11. doi:10. changing future in recreational fisheries: 100 research 1577/1548-8659(1977)106<1:AEFTCO>2.0.CO;2 questions for global consideration emerging from a hori- Latini AO, Petrere M, Jr. 2004. Reduction of a native fish zon scan. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 30: 137–151. fauna by alien species: an example from Brazilian fresh- Hunt LM. 2005. Choice models and recreational fishing site water tropical lakes. Fish Manag Ecol. 11(2):71–79. doi: choice: insights and future opportunities. Hum Dim 10.1046/j.1365-2400.2003.00372.x Wildl. 10(3):153–172. doi:10.1080/10871200591003409 Lee JJ, Scott D, Floyd MF, Edwards MB. 2016. Social strati- Hunt LM, Bannister AE, Drake DAR, Fera SA, Johnson TB. fication in fishing participation in the United States. J 2017. Do fish drive recreational fishing license sales? N Leis Res. 48:245–263. Am J Fish Manage. 37(1):122–132. doi:10.1080/02755947. Leopold A. 1970. A sand county almanac. With other essays 2016.1245224 on conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Hunt L, Sutton SG, Arlinghaus R. 2013. Illustrating the crit- Books (first publ. 1949). ical role of human dimensions research for understand- Leopold M, Bninska M. 1980. Angling, recreation, commer- ing and managing recreational fisheries within a social- cial fisheries and problems of water resources allocation. ecological system framework. Fish Manag Ecol. 20(2-3): In: Grover JH, editor. Proceedings of Technical 111–124. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2012.00870.x Consultation on Allocation of Fishery Resources. Vichy, Hyder K, Weltersbach MS, Armstrong M, Ferter K, Alabama: Auburn University. p. 212–221. Townhill B, Ahvonen A, Arlinghaus R, Baikov A, Lewin WC, Arlinghaus R, Mehner T. 2006. Documented Bellanger M, Birzaks J, et al. 2018. Recreational sea fish- and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: ing in Europe in a global context - participation rates, Insights for management and conservation. Rev Fish Sci. fishing effort, expenditure, and implications for monitor- 14(4):305–367. doi:10.1080/10641260600886455 ing and assessment. Fish Fish. 19(2):225–243. doi:10. Loomis DK, Ditton RB. 1988. Technique for projecting the 1111/faf.12251 future growth and distribution of marine recreational Inglehart R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial soci- fishing demand. N Am J Fish Manag. 8(2):259–263. doi: ety. Princeton (New Jersey): Princeton University Press. 10.1577/1548-8675(1988)008<0259:TFPTFG>2.3.CO;2 Japan Productivity Center 2017. White Paper on Leisure Lorenzen K, Beveridge MCM, Mangel M. 2012. Cultured 2017. Tokyo (Japan): Japan Productivity Center (In fish: integrative biology and management of domestica- Japanese). tion and interactions with wild fish. Biol Rev Camb Johnson BM, Arlinghaus R, Martinez PJ. 2009. Are we Philos Soc. 87(3):639–660. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011. doing all we can to stem the tide of illegal fish stocking?. 00215.x Fisheries 34(8):389–394. doi:10.1577/1548-8446-34.8.389 Louv R. 2009. Last Child in the Woods Saving Our Johnston RJ, Ranson MH, Besedin EY, Helm EC. 2006. Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. London: Atlantic What determines willingness to pay per fish? A meta- Books. REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 35

Lyach R, Cech M. 2018. A new trend in Central European Morales-Nin B, Moranta J, Garcia C, Tugores MP, Grau recreational fishing: more fishing visits but lower yield AM, Riera F, Cerda M. 2005. The recreational fishery off and catch. Fish Res. 201:131–137. doi:10.1016/j.fishres. Majorca Island (western Mediterranean): some implica- 2018.01.020 tions for coastal resource management. ICES J Mar Sci. Lyach R, Remr J. 2019. The effect of a large-scale fishing 62(4):727–739. doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.022 restriction on angling harvest: a case study of grayling Motta FS, Mendonc¸a JT, Moro PS. 2016. Collaborative Thymallus thymallus in the Czech Republic. Aquat Living assessment of recreational fishing in a subtropical estuar- Resour. 32:11. doi:10.1051/alr/2019010 ine system: a case study with fishing guides from south- Lyach R, Remr J. 2020. Does harvest of the European gray- eastern Brazil. Fish Manag Ecol. 23(3-4):291–302. doi:10. ling, Thymallus thymallus (Actinopterygii: 1111/fme.12172 Salmoniformes: Salmonidae), change over time with dif- Muller NZ. 2009. Using hedonic property models to value ferent intensity of fish stocking and fishing effort?. Acta public water bodies: An analysis of specification issues. Ichthyol Piscat. 50(1):53–62. doi:10.3750/AIEP/02643 Water Resour Res. 45 (1):W01401. doi:10.1029/ Macchi PJ, Vigliano PH, Pascual MA, Alonso MF, Denegri 2008WR007281 MA, Milano D, Garcıa Asorey DM, and Lippolt GE. Murdock SH, Backman K, Ditton RB, Nazrul Hoque M, 2008. Historical policy goals for fish management in Ellis D. 1992. Implications of future demographic change Northern Continental Patagonia, Argentina: a structuring for participation in fishing in Texas. N Am J Fish Manag. force of actual fish assemblages? In: Nielsen J, Dodson J, 12(3):548–558. doi:10.1577/1548-8675(1992)012<0548: Friedland K, Hamon T, Hughes N, Musick J, Verspoor E, IOFDCF>2.3.CO;2 editors. Reconciling fisheries with conservation: the chal- Murdock DK, Loomis DK, Ditton RB, Hoque MN. 1996. lenge of managing aquatic ecosystems: proceedings of the The implications of demographic change for recreational Fourth World Fisheries Conference. Bethesda, Maryland: fisheries management in the United States. Hum Dimens American Fisheries Society, Symposium 49. p. 331–348. Wildl. 1(4):14–37. doi:10.1080/10871209609359076 MacCrimmon HR, Campbell S. 1969. World distribution of Myers R, Taylor J, Allen M, Bonvechio TF. 2008. Temporal brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. J Fish Res Bd Can. trends in voluntary release of Largemouth Bass. N Am J 26(7):1699–1725. doi:10.1139/f69-159 Fish Manag. 28(2):428–433. doi:10.1577/M06-265.1 Machado GM, Jaen R. 1982. General overview of sport fish- Nakamura T. 2019. Public awareness and recognition of ing in Venezuela. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Japan’s inland fishery cooperatives. Aquacult Sci. 67: Fisheries Institute (USA). 265–269. Malik RN, Hashmi MZ, Huma Y. 2014. Heavy metal accu- Nakamura T. 2020. Numbers of potential recreational mulation in edible fish species from Rawal Lake anglers for the seas, inland waters, and inland fish species Reservoir, Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 21(2): of Japan. NSUGAF. 86(3):214–220. doi:10.2331/suisan.19- 1188–1196. doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1992-3 00034 Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Henry KL. 2009. Linking society National Bureau of Statistics, PRC. 2003-2016. China fishery and environment: multilevel model of shifting wildlife statistics yearbook. Beijing (China): China Statistics Press. value orientations in the western United States. Soc Sci Natural Resources Institute Finland 2018. Available from Q. 90(2):407–427. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00624.x Manfredo MJ. 2008. Who cares about wildlife? New York: http://stat.luke.fi/en/recreational-fishing. Springer New York. NSW DPI. 2016. Recreational Fishing Trusts Investment Manfredo MJ, Driver BL, Tarrant MA. 1996. Measuring Plan 2015-2018. Available from http://www.forestrycorpo- leisure motivation: a meta-analysis of the recreation ration.com.au/?a=565207. experience preference scales. J Leis Res. 28(3):188–213. Nunez~ D, Niklitschek M. 2010. Caracterizacion de la pesca doi:10.1080/00222216.1996.11949770 recreativa en la Patagonia chilena. Una encuesta a turistas Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Bright AD. 2003. Why are public de larga distancia en la region de Aysen. Estudios y values toward wildlife changing?. Hum Dimens Wildl. Perspectivas en Turismo. 19:83–104. 8(4):287–306. doi:10.1080/716100425 Odden A. 2008. Hva skjer med norsk friluftsliv? En studie McPhee DP. 2017. Urban recreational fisheries in the av utviklingstrekk i norsk friluftsliv 1970-2004. Australian coastal zone: the sustainability challenge. Trondheim, Norway: Doctoral Dissertation. Norwegian Sustainability. 9(3):422–434. doi:10.3390/su9030422 University of Technology NTNU, Geografisk Institutt. McPhee DP. 2008. Fisheries management in Australia. Øian H, Aas Ø, Skår M, Andersen O, Stensland S. 2017. Annandale (Australia): Federation Press. Rhetoric and hegemony in consumptive wildlife tourism: Mike A, Cowx IG. 1996. A preliminary appraisal of the con- polarizing sustainability discourses among angling tour- tribution of recreational fishing to the fisheries sector in ism stakeholders. J Sustain Tour. 25(11):1547–1562. doi: north-west Trinidad. Fish Manag Ecol. 3(3):219–228. 10.1080/09669582.2017.1291650 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.1996.tb00149.x Olaussen JO. 2016. Catch-and-release and angler utility: evi- Mikkola J, Yrjol€ €a R. 2003. Suomalainen vapaa-ajankalastaja dence from an Atlantic salmon recreational fishery. Fish ja - kalastus vuosituhannen vaihtuessa. Helsinki: Edita Manag Ecol. 23(3-4):253–263. doi:10.1111/fme.12167 Prima Oy. Parkkila K, Arlinghaus R, Artell J, Gentner B, Haider W, Morales-Nin B, Cardona-Pons F, Maynou F, Grau AM. Aas Ø, Barton D, Roth E, Sipponen M. 2010. 2015. How relevant are recreational fisheries? Motivation Methodologies for assessing socio-economic benefits of and activity of resident and tourist anglers in Majorca. European inland recreational fisheries. EIFAC Occasional Fish Res.164:45–49. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2014.10.010 Paper No. 46, FAO, Ankara. 112. 36 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

Pascual MA, Cussac V, Dyer B, Soto D, Vigliano P, Available online: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/ Ortubay S, Macchi P. 2007. Freshwater fishes of recreational. Patagonia in the 21st century after a hundred years of Regan T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley (Los human settlement, species introductions, and environ- Angeles): University of California Press. mental change. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 10(2): Riepe C, Arlinghaus R. 2014. Einstellungen der Bevolkerung€ 212–227. doi:10.1080/14634980701351361 in Deutschland zum Tierschutz in der Angelfischerei. Pergams OR, Zaradic PA. 2006. Is love of nature in the US Berichte des IGB, Heft 27. Berlin: Leibniz-Institut fur€ becoming love of electronic media?. J Environ Manag. Gew€asserokologie€ und Binnenfischerei (IGB) im 80(4):387–393. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.001 Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V. Petr T. 2003. Mountain fisheries in developing countries. Roberts CM, O’Leary BC, McCauley DJ, Cury PM, Duarte Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United CM, Lubchenco J, Pauly D, Saenz-Arroyo A, Sumaila Nations, FAO. UR, Wilson RW, et al. 2017. Marine reserves can mitigate Petr T. 1999. Coldwater fish and fisheries in Afghanistan. and promote adaptation to climate change. Proc Natl Fish and fisheries at higher altitudes. Asia. FAO Fisheries Acad Sci USA. 114(24):6167–6175., doi:10.1073/pnas. Technical Paper 385:138–148. 1701262114 Phillips CJC, McCulloch S. 2005. Student attitudes on ani- Robison KK, Ridenour D. 2012. Wither the love of hunting? mal sentience and use of animals in society. J Biol Educ. Explaining the decline of a major form of rural recreation 40(1):17–24. doi:10.1080/00219266.2005.9656004 as a consequence of the rise of virtual entertainment and Pinder AC, Katwate U, Dahanakur N, Harrison A. Tor urbanism. Hum Dimens Wildl. 17(6):418–436. doi:10. remadevii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 1080/10871209.2012.680174 (2018-2) 2018b. Rose JD, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Diggles BK, Sawynok W, Pinder AC, Manimekalan A, Knight JDM, Krishnankutty P, Stevens ED, Wynne CDL. 2014. Can fish really feel pain? Britton JR, Philip S, Dahanukar N, Raghavan R. 2018a. Fish Fish. 15(1):97–133. doi:10.1111/faf.12010 Resolving the taxonomic enigma of the iconic game fish, Salmi P, Ratam€aki O, 2011. Fishing culture, animal policy, the hump-backed mahseer from the Western Ghats bio- and new governance: a case study of voluntary catch- diversity hotspot, India. PloS One. 13(6):e0199328. doi: and-release fishing in Finland. In: Beard TD, Arlinghaus 10.1371/journal.pone.0199328 R, Sutton SG, editors. The angler in the environment: Pitcher TJ, Hollingworth CE. 2002. Fishing for fun: where’s social, economic, biological, and ethical dimensions. the catch? In: Pitcher TJ. and CE. Hollingworth, editors. Bethesda (Maryland): American Fisheries Society, Recreational fisheries: Ecological, economic and social Symposium 75. p. 235–249. evaluation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. p. 1–16. Sandøe P, Christiansen SB. 2008. Ethics of animal use. Pope KL, Pegg MA, Cole NW, Siddons SF, Fedele AD, Oxford (UK): Blackwell Publishing, Harmon BS, Ruskamp RL, Turner DR, Uerling CC. 2016. Sbragaglia V, Pla OS, Gordoa A, Hernandez SP, Elias LC, Fishing for ecosystem services. J Environ Manage. 183(Pt Pulido M, Ruiz RT, Giroud V. 2016. The Barcelona 2):408–417. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.024 agreement: a manifesto towards the spearfishing of the Post JR, Sullivan M, Cox S, Lester NP, Walters CJ, future. Sci Mar. 80(3):423–426. doi:10.3989/scimar.04504. Parkinson E. A, Paul A. J, Jackson L, Shuter B. J. 2002. 01A Canada’s recreational fishery: the invisible collapse?. SCB (Statistics Sweden). 2016. Available from http://www. Fisheries. 27(1):6–17. doi:10.1577/1548-8446(2002) statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__LE__ 027<0006:CRF>2.0.CO;2 LE0101__LE0101F/LE0101F32/?rxid=c03c2548-f3ea-469c- Potts WM, Childs AR, Sauer WHH, Duarte ADC. 2009. 9f41-d9fb21881930. Characteristics and economic contribution of a develop- Schramm HL, Jr., Armstrong ML, Funicelli NA, Green DM, ing recreational fishery in southern Angola. Fish Manag Lee DP, Manns RE, Jr., Taubert BD, Waters SJ. 1991. Ecol. 16(1):14–20. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00617.x The status of competitive sport fishing in North America. Poudyal NC, Bowker JM, Green GT, Hodges DG. 2011. Fisheries. 16(3):4–12. doi:10.1577/1548- Modelling the impact of changes in land use and socio- 8446(1991)016<0004:TSOCSF>2.0.CO;2 cultural patterns from urbanization on recreational fish- Schwartz SH. 2014. National culture as value orientations: ing. In: Turunen E, Koskinen A, editors. Urbanization Consequences of value differences and cultural distance. and the Global Environment. Hauppauge (New York): In: Ginsburgh VA, Throsby D, editors. Handbook of the Nova Science Publishers. p. 1–18. economics of art and culture. Vol. 2. Amsterdam Rahel FJ. 2016. Changing philosophies of fisheries manage- (Netherlands): Elsevier. p. 547–586. ment as illustrated by the history of fishing regulations in Sehgal KL. 1999. Coldwater fish and fisheries in the Wyoming. Fisheries. 41(1):38–48. doi:10.1080/03632415. Western Ghats, India. Fish and fisheries at higher alti- 2015.1116444 tudes: Asia. 385:103. Rajbanshi KG, Csavas I. 1982. Bhutan aquaculture develop- Shaw SM, Bonen A, McCabe JF. 1991. Do more constraints ment in Bhutan - a report prepared for the establishment mean less leisure? Examining the relationship between of fish seed production centre project. FAO FI: DP/ constraints and participation. J Leis Res. 23(4):286–300. BHU80/007, Field Doc, 1, 46. doi:10.1080/00222216.1991.11969861 Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee 2011. Sheaves M, Baker R, McLeod I, Abrantes K, Wani J, Barnett Recreational Fishing in Australia-2011 and Beyond: a A. 2016. The conservation status of N iugini black bass: a national industry development strategy. Department of world-renowned sport fish with an uncertain future. Fish Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia. Manag Ecol. 23(3-4):243–252. doi:10.1111/fme.12153 REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 37

Shen J. 2008. Current status and challenges facing recre- The Czech and Moravian Fishing Union. 2009. Socio-eco- ational fishing in the People’s Republic of China. In: Aas nomic study of recreational fishing in the Czech Republic Ø., editor. Global challenges in recreational fisheries. in 2008. Brno (Czech Republic): Mendel University. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. p. 18–21. The Czech and Moravian Fishing Union. 2017. Socio-eco- Shepard BB, Arismendi I, Bruno D, Caudron A, Dedual M, nomic study of recreational fishing in the Czech Republic Draper M, Hogan Z, Impson D, Penaluna B, Vermillion in 2016. Brno (Czech Republic): Mendel University. D, et al. 2019. Global Perspectives on the Management of Thunberg EM, Fulcher CM. 2006. Testing the stability of Trout and Char. In: Kershner J, Williams J, Gresswell R, recreational fishing participation probabilities. N Am J Lobon-Cervia J, editors. Trout and Char of the World. Fish Manag. 26(3):636–644. doi:10.1577/M05-122.1 Bethesda (MD): American Fisheries Society. p 605–644. Trella M. 2012. Tendencje sprzedazy_ zezwolen weRdkarskich Siev€anen T, Neuvonen M. 2011. Luonnon virkistysk€aytto€ w jeziorowych gospodarstwach rybackich w latach 1998- 2010: Kuinka suomalaiset ulkoilevat? Metlan tyoraportteja€ 2011. In: Mickiewicz M, editor. Zrownowa zone_ korzysta- 212 nie z zasobow rybackich na tle ich stanu w 2011 roku. Simpson D, Mawle GW. 2005. Public attitudes to angling Olsztyn, Poland: Wyd. IRS. p. 65–75. 2005. Bristol (UK): R&D Technical Report W2-060, Trella M, Mickiewicz M. 2016. Recreational fisheries pres- Environment Agency. sure in the Polish waters of the Vistula Lagoon and con- Simpson D, Mawle GW. 2010. Public attitudes to angling siderations of its potential impact on the development of Bristol (UK): Environment Agency. regional tourism. Arch Pol Fish. 24(4):231–242. doi:10. Singer P. 1990. Animal liberation. New York: Avon Book 1515/aopf-2016-0020 Inc. Tufts BL, Holden J, DeMille M. 2015. Benefits arising from Smith CL. 1986. The life cycle of fisheries. Fisheries. 11(4): sustainable use of North America’s fishery resources: eco- 20–25. doi:10.1577/1548-8446(1986)011<0020:TLCOF>2. nomic and conservation impacts of recreational angling. 0.CO;2 Int. J. Environ. Stud. 72(5):850–868. doi:10.1080/ Sneddon L.U. 2006. Ethics and welfare: pain perception in 00207233.2015.1022987 fish. B Eur Assoc Fish Pat. 26:6–10. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2018. National sur- Sneddon LU, Elwood RW, Adamo SA, Leach MC. 2014. vey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation Defining and assessing animal pain. Anim Behav. 97: (FHWAR): 2016. Virginia (USA): U.S. Department of the 201–212. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007 Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Sofranko AJ, Nolan MF. 1972. Early life experiences and Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau. adult sports participation. J Leis Res. 4(1):6–18. doi:10. Valbo-Jørgensen J, Soto D, Gumy A. 2008. La pesca contin- 1080/00222216.1972.11970052 ental en America Latina: su contribucion economica y Southwick Associates 2012. Sportfishing in America: an eco- social e instrumentos normativos asociados. COPESCAL nomic force for conservation. Report to the American Documento Ocasional No. 11, FAO, Rome. Sportfishing Association (ASA) under a U.S. Fish and Van der Hammen T, Chen C. 2020. Participation rate and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Sport Fish Restoration grant demographic profile in recreational angling in The (F12AP00137, VA M-26-R). Netherlands between 2009 and 2017. Fish Res. 229: Southwick R, Nelson R, Lachman R, Dreyfus J. 2013. 105592. Sportfishing in Panama: size, economic impacts and mar- Vigliano PH, Alonso M. 2000. Potencial economico de la ket potential. Fort Lauderdale (FL): The Billfish pesca recreacional en la Argentina: una forma de pesca Foundation. artesanal poco conocida y su posible impacto en econo- Sparrevohn CR, Storr-Paulsen M, Nielsen J. 2011. Eel, seatr- mıas regionales de paıses no desarrollados. Gayana. 64(1): out and cod catches in Danish recreational fishing. 109–114. Survey design and 2010 catches in the Danish waters. Vigliano PH, Lippolt G, Denegri A, Alonso M, Macchi P, DTU Aqua Report No. 240-2011. Dye CO. 2000. The human factors of the sport and recre- SSB (Statistics Norway). 2017. Available from https://www. ational fishery of San Carlos de Bariloche, Rio Negro, ssb.no/kultur-og-fritid/statistikker/fritid/hvert-3-aar. Argentina. Fish Res. 49(2):141–153. doi:10.1016/S0165- Stensland S, Aas Ø, Mehmetoglu M. 2017. Understanding 7836(00)00200-9 constraints and facilitators to salmon angling participa- Volpato GL. 2009. Challenges in assessing fish welfare. tion: insights from structural equation modeling. Hum ILAR J. 50(4):329–337. doi:10.1093/ilar.50.4.329 Dimens Wildl. 22(1):1–17. doi:10.1080/10871209.2016. Wadiwel D. 2019. ‘Fishing for Fun’: the politics of 1199073 recreational fishing. ASJ. 8(2):202–228. doi:10.14453/asj. Sutton SG. 2007. Constraints on recreational fishing partici- v8i2.13 pation in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries. 32(2):73–83. Walker M, Diez-Leon M, Mason G. 2014. Animal welfare doi:10.1577/1548-8446(2007)32[73:CORFPI]2.0.CO;2 science: recent publication trends and future research pri- Sutton SG, Dew K, Higgs J. 2009. Why do people drop out orities. Int J Comp Psychol. 27:80–100. of recreational fishing? A study of lapsed fishers from Walsh RG, John KH, McKean JR, Hof JG. 1989. Comparing Queensland, Australia Fisheries. 34(9):443–452. doi:10. long-run forecasts of demand for fish and wildlife recre- 1577/1548-8446-34.9.443 ation. Leis Sci. 11(4):337–351. doi:10.1080/ The Czech and Moravian Fishing Union. 2003. Socio-eco- 01490408909512231 nomic study of recreational fishing in the Czech Republic Walton I. 1995. The compleat angler. New Jersey: The Ecco in 2002. Brno (Czech Republic): Mendel University. Press. 38 R. ARLINGHAUS ET AL.

Webster J. 2005. Animal welfare: limping towards Eden. coastal livelihoods in the Pacific. Mar Pol. 42:305–314. Oxford (UK): Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.005 Weithman AS. 1999. Socioeconomic benefits of fisheries pp. World Bank 2012. Hidden harvest: the global contribution 193–213. In: Kohler CC, Hubert WA, editors Inland of capture fisheries. Washington: Report No. 66469- Fisheries Management in North America, 2nd edn. GLB, International Bank for Reconstruction and Bethesda (Maryland): American Fisheries Society. Development. Welcomme RL. 2011. An overview of global catch statistics Wurbel€ H. 2007. Biologische Grundlagen zum ethischen for inland fish. ICES J Mar Sci. 68(8):1751–1756. doi:10. Tierschutz. In: Interdisziplin€are Arbeitsgemeinschaft. 1093/icesjms/fsr035 Tierethik Heidelberg, editors. Biologische Grundlagen Welcomme RL, Cowx IG, Coates D, Bene C, Funge-Smith zum ethischen Tierschutz. Erlangen (Germany): Harald S, Halls A, Lorenzen K. 2010. Inland capture fisheries. Fischer Verlag. p. 11–30. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365(1554): Yang ZJ, Chen Y, Wang D, Liu LT, Liu C, Hughes RM, Liu 2881–2896. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0168 Y. 2017. Responsible recreational fisheries: a Chinese per- Whitelaw W. 2003. Recreational billfish catches and gamef- ishing facilities of Pacific Island nations in the Western spective. Fisheries. 42(6):303–307. doi:10.1080/03632415. and Central Pacific Ocean. Mar Freshwater Res. 54(4): 2017.1324703 463–471. doi:10.1071/MF01260 Zeybrandt F, Barnes JL. 2001. Economic characteristics of Wolos A, Mioduszewska H, Schramm HL, Jr. 2008. Socio- demand in Namibia’s marine recreational shore fishery. economic analysis of competitive fishing in Poland. In: Afr J Mar Sci. 23(1):145–156. doi:10.2989/02577610178 Aas Ø, editor. Global challenges in recreational fishing. 4528908 Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 249–254. Zwirn M, Pinsky M, Rahr G. 2005. Angling ecotourism: Wood AL, Butler JR, Sheaves M, Wani J. 2013. Sport fish- issues, guidelines and experience from Kamchatka. J eries: Opportunities and challenges for diversifying Ecotour. 4(1):16–31. doi:10.1080/14724040508668435