Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of a Fish Stocking Program in a Culture-Based Recreational Fishery

Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fisheries Research

j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres

Full length article

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a ﬁsh stocking program in a culture-based recreational ﬁshery

a,b,∗ c d a b

Taylor L. Hunt , Helen Scarborough , Khageswor Giri , John W. Douglas , Paul Jones

Fisheries Management and Science Branch, Fisheries Victoria, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, PO Box 114,

Queenscliff, Victoria, 3225, Australia

Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University, PO Box

423, Warrnambool, Victoria, 3280, Australia

Department of Economics, Deakin Business School, Deakin University, PO Box 423, Warrnambool, Victoria, 3280, Australia

Biometrics Unit, Agriculture Research Division, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, 32 Lincoln Square North, Parkville,

Victoria, 3053, Australia

a r a

t i b s

c t

l e i n f o r a c t

Article history: Fish stocking is commonly used to enhance, create and maintain recreational ﬁsheries that typically

Received 5 February 2016

generate signiﬁcant economic activity. As ﬁsh stocking can be highly popular with stakeholders and is

Received in revised form 31 August 2016

often a large economic investment, it should be evaluated to ensure it provides adequate return and is an

Accepted 4 September 2016

effective use of ﬁsheries management funds. In this study we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a ﬁsh

Handled by: Chennai Guest Editor

stocking program for non-native salmonid species of brown trout, rainbow trout and Chinook salmon at

Available online 11 September 2016

Lake Purrumbete, south-western Victoria, Australia. As Lake Purrumbete has no natural recruitment of

these stocked species, it is described as a culture-based or put-grow-and-take recreational ﬁshery. The

Keywords:

Economic average annual cost of the stocking program between 2007 and 2014 was estimated at $86,646 (2014

Social $AUD) per year including aquaculture production and transport of ﬁsh to release. A stratiﬁed random

Cost-beneﬁt angler creel survey between December 2013 and 2014 was used to estimate visitation to the stocked

Fishing ﬁshery at 5447 ﬁshing days, with average observed angler expenditure of $72 per person per day and the

Put-grow-take fishery percentage of anglers satisfied with their fishing experience at 76%. The observed economic expenditure

Travel cost

(market value) associated with the stocking program was estimated to be $351,741 with a 1:4 cost-beneﬁt

ratio return on stocking investment. The additional willingness to pay, or non-market recreational value of

the stocked ﬁshery, was estimated using the travel cost method to be an additional $84 − $291 per person

per day with a 1:5 to 1:16 cost-beneﬁt ratio return on stocking investment. This study demonstrates that

ﬁsh stocking can provide a substantial return on investment, yielding signiﬁcant economic and social

beneﬁts, and we recommend evaluations be conducted independently for stocking programs to assist in

the responsible management of resources, maximise our understanding and subsequent beneﬁts.

1. Introduction Cowx et al., 2010). For recreational ﬁsheries to best provide these

beneﬁts, ﬁsheries managers require an understanding of angler

Recreational fishing can have multiple benefits, co-benefits and behaviour and fisheries management tools (Arlinghaus et al., 2013;

effects on the socioecological system. It has been demonstrated Cooke et al., 2014). Studies that evaluate the cost-effectiveness of

to be culturally significant and a generator of considerable social, fisheries management tools are essential for optimising fisheries

ecological and economic values (Arlinghaus et al., 2002, 2015; management outcomes and understanding the beneﬁts derived

from recreational ﬁshing.

Fish stocking is a ﬁsheries management tool that particu-

larly requires cost-effectiveness evaluation, due to its common

∗

Corresponding author at: Fisheries Management and Science Branch, Fisheries

application and heavy investment both economically and socially.

Victoria, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, PO

Economic investment is seen in the large sums of often pub-

Box 114, Queenscliff, Victoria, 3225, Australia.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.L. Hunt), lic money used to annually stock billions of ﬁsh worldwide

[email protected] (H. Scarborough), (Welcomme and Bartley, 1998; Halverson, 2008; Lorenzen, 2014).

[email protected] (K. Giri), [email protected]

In some cases, stocking programs are reported to constitute the

(J.W. Douglas), [email protected] (P. Jones).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ﬁshres.2016.09.003

T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477 469

majority of ﬁsheries management expenditure over other man- Laurensen et al., 2012). Since at least 1879, non-native salmonid

agement tools (Epifanio 2000). Social investment is seen in the species such as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Chinook

incredible popularity of ﬁsh stocking with key stakeholders and salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), brown trout (Salmo trutta) and

the belief that stocking fish is a ‘fix all’ or panacea of fisheries man- Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) have been annually stocked into Lake

agement (Hilborn, 1999; Hasler et al., 2011; Van Poorten et al., Purrumbete creating a popular and productive recreational ﬁsh-

2011). The considerable investment in ﬁsh stocking requires stock- ery (Barnham 1997; Department of Primary Industries, 2008; Hunt

ing practices to be evaluated to ensure they provide acceptable et al., 2014). As there is no known natural reproduction of salmonid

return on investment of ﬁsheries management funding. species in the ﬁshery, Lake Purrumbete is described as a culture-

Key papers on responsible ﬁsh stocking highlight the need based or put-grow-and-take recreational ﬁshery (Hunt et al., 2014).

for stocking programs to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. Cowx

(1994) and Welcomme and Bartley (1998) stated that the economic 2.2. Stocking costs

inﬂuence of stocking programs must be evaluated to justify expen-

diture. Lorenzen et al. (2010) provided an update to the responsible Whilst ﬁsh stocked into Lake Purrumbete are usually derived

approach to stock enhancement ﬁrst published by Blankenship from the Victorian State Government owned Snobs Creek hatchery,

and Leber (1995) and included the additional element to assess due to the difﬁculty in estimating the cost of assets such as land,

both the economic and social beneﬁts and expenditure of enhance- water, buildings, facilities and machinery (Johnson et al., 1995),

ment to decide whether stocking programs should commence or cost of ﬁsh production was determined by gaining purchase price

continue, and how they should be operated. The need to evalu- quotes from 16 local commercial salmonid hatchery producers who

ate cost-effectiveness of fish stocking has also been advocated in commonly supply fish for stocking in Victoria. All monetary figures

government stocking policies (Leber et al., 2005). Economic ben- referred to from hereafter are in 2014 Australian dollars (AUD),

eﬁts can be deﬁned in terms of market and non-market values, assuming a constant 3% annual price increase over the time period.

however considering satisfaction is the ultimate product of the Quotes were obtained to encompass the four different species of

recreational ﬁshing experience (Holland and Ditton 1992; Miko salmonids stocked and the variety of sizes at release. These price

et al., 1995; Arlinghaus 2006), it is important that ﬁsh stocking is quotes were assumed to cover costs of facilities, electricity, feeding,

also assessed for social beneﬁts in angler satisfaction. Despite the disease treatment, staff labour time and return on equity. Cost of

generally accepted requirement for cost-effectiveness evaluation transport to release was calculated by adding distance travelled,

of ﬁsh stocking and the long history of recreational ﬁsh stocking overnight stay accommodation, staff hours, meals and expense

worldwide, examples of rigorous evaluations are rare in the liter- expenditure. As the stocked salmonid species in Lake Purrumbete

ature. Such knowledge could inform whether ﬁsh stocking is an can have variable longevity in the ﬁshery of up to seven years (T.

economically and socially effective ﬁsheries management tool. Hunt unpublished data) and thus the beneﬁts of stocking can per-

The travel cost method is a well-established technique that sist over this time, to compare the total annual costs with beneﬁts

enables the estimation of the value of non-market-related goods of stocking, the average cost of stocking per year was calculated

such as ﬁshing (Bateman 1993; Pollock et al., 1994). It is based on for seven years between 2007 and 2014 leading up to the 2013/14

the premise that the costs incurred in visiting a site reﬂect the utility angler creel survey.

or expected satisfaction gained from visiting the site, allowing the

recreational value of the site to be measured in dollars as a proxy 2.3. Angler creel survey

for utility (Whitten and Bennett 2002; Perloff et al., 2014). Increas-

ingly, this method is being used to estimate the recreational value of Recreational angling expenditure data were collected from an

ﬁsheries (Shrestha et al., 2002; Ezzy et al., 2012; Pascoe et al., 2014), access point (on-site) creel survey, whereby anglers were inter-

including stocked inland ﬁsheries (Rolfe and Prayaga 2007; Lothrop cepted and interviewed as they embarked or returned from their

et al., 2014). Providing the value of the recreational ﬁshing experi- ﬁshing trip at Lake Purrumbete. Considering Lake Purrumbete has

ence can be attributed to stocking, the travel cost method may also just one major access point (southern boat ramp), a standard access

provide a potentially useful alternative method to determine the point creel survey was applied with survey days stratiﬁed using

beneﬁts of stocking and assist with assessing it’s cost-effectiveness. a two stage stratiﬁed random sampling strategy (Robson, 1991;

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness Malvestuto, 1996). Data of ninety-one survey days were collected

of a ﬁsh stocking program in a culture-based recreational ﬁsh- between 1 December 2013 and 30 November 2014, equating to

ery for non-native salmonid species of brown trout, rainbow trout approximately 25% coverage of the one year (365 days) sampling

and Chinook salmon at Lake Purrumbete, south-western Victoria, frame. Days were primary sampling units (PSUs) and were strat-

Australia. We deﬁned a ‘cost-effective’ stocking program as one iﬁed into weekdays and weekend/public holidays. Days within a

having the combined or individual beneﬁts from the stocking pro- strata were selected randomly with equal probability and with-

gram, exceed the costs required to operate the stocking program. out replacement (same day cannot be selected twice for sampling).

Thus to address our objective, we compared the costs of stocking in Morning and afternoon interview sessions (shifts) within a day

hatchery production and transport to release, with both the market were secondary sampling units (SSUs). Only one shift (either morn-

and non-market beneﬁts of the stocking program, measured using ing or afternoon) was selected randomly within a day. Strata effort

the travel cost method and an angler creel survey. This study will proportions (sampling intensity within strata) were determined

be of use to fisheries managers and fishers in guiding effective use based on local knowledge interviews with two fisheries compliance

of funds to enhance recreational ﬁshing, given limited resources. staff, two regular anglers of Lake Purrumbete and the owners of the

local caravan park and tackle store. Each interviewee was asked

what they believed was the recreational ﬁshing effort distribution

2. Material and methods between weekdays and weekends/public holidays, morning and

afternoon. The interviews found that effort was considerably more

2.1. Study system on weekends than weekdays, which is consistent with effort pro-

portions found in other recreational ﬁshing studies (Hoenig et al.,

Lake Purrumbete is a freshwater lake located in south-western 1989; Pollock et al., 1994). Thus in order to improve the precision

Victoria, Australia (Timms, 1976; Fig. 1). It is one of a series of highly of the total effort estimates, our weekend strata was sampled more

productive volcanic maar lakes in the area (Ollier and Joyce 1964; frequently (70% of the sampling days were allocated for weekend

470 T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477

Fig. 1. Location, surface area and volume of Lake Purrumbete, south-eastern Australia.

Table 1

Strata effort distribution per day type between 1 December 2013 and 30 November 2014.

Day type Estimated proportional effort Number of days surveyed Total possible days during period Percentage coverage

Weekday 0.3 35 250 14

Weekend/public holiday 0.7 56 115 49

Total 1 91 365 25

T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477 471

Table 2

and this was estimated in stratiﬁed sampling as y¯ st :

Selection probability of time of day (shift), secondary sampling unit, with in a day.

Time of day Deﬁnition Selection probability

y¯ st = Why¯ h

Morning An hour after sunrise until 0.5

h=1

midway through light hours

Afternoon Midway through light hours 0.5

The variance without ﬁnite population correction factors was:

until an hour after sunset L s2 Var y = W 2 h (¯ st ) h nh

h=1

strata and 30% of sampling days were allocated to weekday strata,

Table 1). Furthermore our local knowledge interviews indicated

The population total was

more uniform distribution of ﬁshing effort within a day, therefore Y = Ny

ˆst ¯ st

within a strata, we sampled AM and PM shifts with equal intensity

(Table 2).

and the variance of the estimator was

During interviews, respondents were asked a limited number

of questions so that the survey could be administered in a face- Var Yˆst = N Var (y¯ st )

to-face setting without generating complexity or fatigue issues.

where

The questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to complete

L = number of strata, 2

and only one angler per group was interviewed to answer ques-

Nh = total number of units in stratum h (N1 = 250 and N2 = 115)

tions relating to the whole group’s trip, including expenses (shared

and individual). This approach was applied to maximise the num-

= Nh, total population size (N = 365)

ber of survey responses and enable other anglers in each party to

h=1

carry on ﬁshing preparation or packing up duties. To maximise the

nh = number of units in stratum h (n1 = 35 and n2 = 56)

completion of the survey, questions relating to ﬁshing effort, the

W Nh

= W W

h N stratum weight ( 1 = 250/365 and 2 = 115/365)

number of anglers in the group and start and ﬁnish times were pri-

¯h = the population mean for stratum h

oritised and asked ﬁrst (highlighted in the survey questionnaire,

appendix), followed by catch and method information, trip cost

¯ h = yhi /nh is the sample mean for stratum h

and angler demographics, avidity and satisfaction. To reduce the

i=1

potential impact of leader bias, the angler selected to be inter-

y th

hi = the value obtained in i unit for each stratum h

viewed was randomly chosen based on the ﬁrst angler of the group

= variance of stratum h.

that the interviewer came in contact with. To address the problem h

Yˆ = Ny = N W y + W y =

with shared expenses that arise in multi-purpose (such as camp- It can be seen that st ¯ st ( 1 ¯ 1 2 ¯ 2) N N

N 1 2

y + y

ing or water skiing) or destination (other sites) trips, the survey N ¯ 1 N ¯ 2 is the sum of the estimated totals in each

also asked anglers to apportion their group’s expenditure related stratum

to ﬁshing at Lake Purrumbete. In all, data were collected from each As Lake Purrumbete also contains non-stocked recreational

visitor group on variables including: catch, species targeting, num- species; redfin (Perca fluviatilus) and short-finned eel (Anguilla aus-

ber of people in the group who were actively ﬁshing, time the group tralis), that are targeted by recreational ﬁshers, the estimate of

started and finished fishing or estimated finished fishing, place of fishing trips and days at Lake Purrumbete derived from stocking

residence (postcode), age bracket, occupational status, angler type, was corrected by reducing the participation estimates by the per-

number of trips they make to Lake Purrumbete in a year, whether centage of anglers targeting these non-stocked species.

ﬁshing at Lake Purrumbete was their sole purpose for their trip, To ensure the satisfaction and value of anglers targeting stocked

other sites visited during this trip and expenditure estimate of car species at Lake Purrumbete could be attributed to the stocking

fuel, boat fuel, ﬁshing bait, tackle, equipment, food and drink and program, we corrected economic and recreational value estimates

accommodation for this trip. by the percentage of anglers whose reasoning in regards to their

Data were also collected from each group in regards to the satis- angling satisfaction could be conﬁrmed as catch related (and thus

faction with their ﬁshing experience at Lake Purrumbete. It is well associated with stocking). We deﬁned catch-related responses as

known that angler satisfaction is highly complex and can be related those associated with ﬁshery results and expectations (e.g. low

to catch and non-catch dimensions (Arlinghaus, 2006; Beardmore catch-rates, high quality of ﬁsh, number of ﬁsh stocked etc.),

et al., 2015), however, the length of our questionnaire limited the whereas non-catch related responses were deﬁned as those un-

number of questions we could include in regards to satisfaction. associated with ﬁshery results and expectations (e.g. facilities,

As a consequence, we asked each group 1) their satisfaction with access, weather, aesthetics etc.).

their ﬁshing experience on that trip to Lake Purrumbete and 2) the

reasoning for their answer. 2.4. Economic expenditure

Total ﬁshing trips to Lake Purrumbete and their catch was cal-

culated using standard formula for stratiﬁed random sampling. The The economic expenditure (market value) of the Lake Purrum-

half day (shift) effort, number of ﬁshing trips, were expanded into bete ﬁshery associated with stocking was estimated by summing

daily effort by dividing 0.5, the selection probability for AM or PM the observed average angler expenditure and ﬁxed expenditure per

shifts within a day (Pollock 1994, pp 233). The total catch and person per day (determined directly from creel survey responses),

ﬁshing trips to Lake Purrumbete were then calculated using the and multiplying by the estimate of total ﬁshing days at Lake

following formulae for stratiﬁed random sampling. The population Purrumbete associated with stocked species and catch-related sat-

mean for the stratiﬁed population was: isfaction. Average angler expenditure per person per day was

determined via correcting group trip cost by the number of anglers

in the group, the number of planned ﬁshing days on the trip and

Y¯ = WhY¯h

the percentage of cost stated to be associated with ﬁshing at Lake

1 Purrumbete. Average ﬁxed expenditure per person per day resul-

tant from ﬁshing at Lake Purrumbete (such as boat maintenance

472 T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477

Table 3

and registration, club fees and licensing and clothing for ﬁshing)

Trout producers average prices per species and size of ﬁsh in 2015.

was based on the estimate provided in Ernst and Young (2015) of

$53.34 per person per trip and then divided by average trip duration Species Weight Producers Price ($/kg) Price ($/ﬁsh)

(days) determined from the creel survey responses. Rainbow 30–50g 5 18.90 $0.57–0.95

trout 50–90g 2 20.00 $1.00–1.80

130–200g 2 15.25 $1.98–3.05

Chinook salmon <100g 1 35.00 <$3.50

2.5. Recreational value

Brown <100g 2 21.50 <$2.15

trout >100g 4 14.63 >$1.46

The recreational (non-market) value of the stocking program Atlantic <100g 1 35.00 <$3.50

>100g 1 30.00 >$3.00

was derived by estimating consumer surplus using the travel cost salmon

method and multiplying by the estimate of total ﬁshing days

to Lake Purrumbete, associated with stocked species and catch-

related satisfaction. For the travel cost method, demand curves Lake Purrumbete associated with stocked species and catch-related

were estimated using the methods of Bateman (1993) and Pollock satisfaction, the recreational value of stocking was estimated.

et al. (1994). The zonal travel cost method was applied rather than

the individual travel cost method in the present study as visita-

2.6. Cost-effectiveness

tion rates were expected to be relatively low (Rolfe and Prayaga,

2007). Respondents of the angler creel survey were allocated into

To determine the cost beneﬁt ratio on expenditure return, the

50 km zones surrounding the site by entering the respondents’

market beneﬁts arising from recreational ﬁshing associated with

postcode into Google maps from Lake Purrumbete and calculating

stocking at Lake Purrumbete were divided by the costs incurred in

shortest driving distance in kilometres. The population statistics

stocking the ﬁshery. To determine the cost beneﬁt ratio on non-

from each of the zones was sourced from the Australian Bureau of

market recreational value return, the non-market beneﬁts arising

Statistics (2015a,b), manually plotted using the ASGS drawing tool

from recreational ﬁshing associated with stocking at Lake Purrum-

(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015a,b) and Microsoft Powerpoint

bete were divided by the costs incurred in stocking the ﬁshery.

to calculate the population per 50 km zone from Lake Purrumbete.

Total visits per zone was calculated by summing the stated total

3. Results

number of trips made in the last twelve months to Lake Purrum-

bete for all anglers allocated to that zone. As some anglers were

3.1. Stocking costs

interviewed more than once over the study period, to ensure their

previous trips were not double counted, any angler who stated

The price of ﬁsh for stocking ranged between $0.57 and greater

they had been interviewed before was omitted from the total visit

than $3.50 per ﬁsh, depending on the species and size at release

per zone calculation. To calculate the visit rate per zone (V/N), the

(Table 3). Average annual cost of ﬁsh production for stocking

total visits per zone was divided by the total zone population and

between 2007 and 2014 was $64,890, and when combined with

multiplied by 1000.

average annual cost of transport of ﬁsh at $21,756 (Table 4), the

When estimating non-market recreational value, inclusion of

average total cost of stocking Lake Purrumbete ranged between

the opportunity cost of time spent travelling to and from ﬁshing

$56,702 and $103,647, with an average of $86,646 per year.

and hunting sites is debated in the literature (Whitten and Bennett

2002). Travelling to and from ﬁshing sites such as Lake Purrum-

bete incurs an opportunity cost of time because even if the travel 3.2. Angler creel survey

is enjoyable to the ﬁsher and considered part of the experience,

it results in forgoing income or participating in alternative activi- A total of 720 angler groups were observed ﬁshing at Lake

ties. As a result, the literature includes examples that range from Purrumbete over the 91 angler creel survey days. 616 angler groups

exclusion of opportunity cost of time such as in a study of ﬁsh- (equating to 1112 individual anglers) of 622 groups approached

ing at stocked freshwater impoundments in Northern Australia by for the interview were interviewed, with six groups refusing to be

Rolfe and Prayaga (2007), to inclusion of full opportunity cost of interviewed resulting in a refusal rate of 1% and response rate of

time such as in a study of ﬁshing for blueﬁn tuna in southwest 99%. Ninety-eight groups were observed but unable to be inter-

Australia by Ezzy et al. (2012). Bateman (1993) suggests that where viewed due to the interviewer being busy with other groups or

time expenditure is thought to be important, a sensitivity analysis groups still boat ﬁshing at the conclusion of the creel survey shifts.

should be conducted using a range of proportional values up to As a result, our coverage rate among anglers ﬁshing during survey

the full wage rate. In this study, we suspected time travelling to days was 85.6% (616/720). Groups of one or two anglers encom-

and from Lake Purrumbete may be a cost (negative) on the ﬁshing passed over 86% of the group size distribution (Fig. 2).

experience and a potential loss of income or opportunity to partici- The estimated total number of angler ﬁshing trips and days com-

pate in other recreational activities (including ﬁshing at sites other pleted during the one year sampling frame at Lake Purrumbete

than Lake Purrumbete). As a result, we followed the recommenda- was 3628 ± 291 (SE) and 6315 ± 531 (SE) respectively. Of the angler

tion of Bateman (1993) and generated demand curves including the days, 2273 ± 333 were during weekdays and 4042 ± 414 were dur-

opportunity cost of time at values of zero, 0.5 and the full wage rate. ing weekends and public holidays (Table 5). The relative error

The zonal opportunity cost of time was determined by multiplying estimate (standard error/total estimate) was 8.41% for total ﬁsh-

the average non-managerial (all methods of pay setting) wage rate ing days and 14.63% and 10.24% for weekdays and weekend/public

of $35.30 per hour (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015a,b) by the holidays respectively (Table 5).

average travel time respondents stated per zone. Several functional The species target preference by visiting groups was dominated

forms of the demand curves were ﬁtted including linear, log linear, by stocked salmonid species (86.26%), with 13.74% of anglers pre-

quadratic and exponential. ferring to target non-stocked species including redﬁn (13.58%) and

To determine the average consumer surplus per person per day, shortﬁnned eel (0.17%). Based on these target preferences, the esti-

the three demand curves were integrated between the average visit mated total number of angler ﬁshing trips and days completed for

rate (over the 50 km zones) and zero visits. By multiplying the aver- stocked species at Lake Purrumbete was 3129 and 5447 respec-

age consumer surplus values by the estimate of total ﬁshing days at tively.

T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477 473

Table 4

Itemised cost of stocking including ﬁsh production and transport per year between 2007 and 2014. Costs are represented in 2014 Australian dollars (AUD), assuming a

constant 3% price change over the time period and accounting for differing sizes and thus prices of ﬁsh.

Cost/Year 2007 Cost ($) 2008 Cost 2009 Cost 2010 Cost 2011 Cost 2012 Cost 2013 Cost 2014 Cost

Rainbow trout 20,000 16,248 0 0 20,000 26,621 25,000 42,069 15,000 14,823 30,000 43,428 8300 7594 10,000 13,186

Chinook salmon 2500 8824 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 66,941 25,000 64,011

Brown trout 10,806 44,749 25,000 47,616 25,000 39,642 25,000 36,755 15,000 20,078 0 0 0 0 5000 4300

Atlantic salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7845 22,238 0 0 0 0 0 0

Liberation trips 11 2029 5.5 985 9.5 1652 10 1688 11 1721 5.5 875 10.5 1622 10 1500

Distance (km) 8470 17,709 4235 8597 7315 14,416 7700 14,733 8085 15,019 4235 7638 8085 14,157 7700 13,090

Staff time (hours) 132 8343 66 4177 114 7269 120 7563 126 7986 66 4761 126 8955 120 7560

Total ﬁsh cost $ 69,822 $ 47,616 $ 66,262 $ 78,824 $ 57,139 $ 43,428 $ 74,535 $ 81,497

Total transport cost $ 28,081 $ 13,758 $ 23,337 $ 23,985 $ 24,726 $ 13,275 $ 24,734 $ 22,150

Total cost $ 97,903 $ 61,375 $ 89,599 $ 102,808 $ 81,865 $ 56,702 $ 99,269 $ 103,647

Liberation trips incur a cost of $150 per overnight trip encompassing accommodation, meals and expenses. Some trips are only counted as 0.5 as ﬁsh onboard are also

destined to be stocked at nearby Lake Bullen Merri.

Liberation trucks incur a cost of $1.70 per kilometre travelled to cover fuel and maintenance. The return distance from Snobs Creek ﬁsh hatchery to Lake Purrumbete is 770kms.

The return trip time from Snobs Creek ﬁsh hatchery to Lake Purrumbete is 12 h. Hourly staff time was based on mid-point Victorian Public Service grade 3 rates.

Fig. 2. Percentage distribution of group size from angler creel survey interviews (n = 616).

Table 5

Estimated ﬁshing days, standard error (SE) and relative error estimate of SE (%) between 1 December 2013 and 30 November 2014 at Lake Purrumbete.

Day type Estimated Fishing Days Estimated Standard Error Relative Error Estimate (%)

Weekday 2272.62 332.59 14.63

Weekend/public holiday 4042.16 414.06 10.24

Total 6314.78 531.10 8.41

The purpose of the trip for visiting groups, was predominantly 3.3. Economic expenditure

comprised of groups whose sole purpose of their trip was to ﬁsh

at Lake Purrumbete (89.3%) as opposed to alternative sites. The Of the 616 interviews conducted, 212 groups were interviewed

remaining 10.7% of respondents said ﬁshing at Lake Purrumbete for their total trip economic and demographic information. The

was not the sole purpose of their trip as they were also ﬁshing two observed average expenditure per person per day from the creel

nearby lakes; Lake Bullen Merri and Lake Elingamite on their trip. survey responses was $50.46, with vehicle fuel and accommodation

Over one third of angler trips occurred on weekdays and 81% of being the highest expenses (Table 6). Average ﬁxed expenditure per

anglers reported that they were employed (75%) or self-employed person per day from ﬁshing at Lake Purrumbete was $21.77. The

(6%), suggesting that travelling to ﬁsh at Lake Purrumbete could be estimated economic expenditure (market value) over the one year

at the expense of earning an income for some ﬁshers. sampling period at Lake Purrumbete associated with stocking was

Of those who were asked of their satisfaction with their ﬁshing $351,740.60 ± $29,582.72 (SE).

experience at Lake Purrumbete on the day of the interview, 75.9%

of respondents stated they were satisﬁed, with 20.0% unsatisﬁed

and 4.1% unsure. Of the respondents who targeted stocked ﬁsh and 3.4. Recreational value

provided a reason for being satisﬁed or unsatisﬁed (n = 66), 89.4%

could be deﬁned as catch-related and 10.6% non-catch related. Typ- Groups were found to travel up to 300 km one-way to visit Lake

ical catch-related reasons included ‘catching quality ﬁsh’ or ‘no ﬁsh Purrumbete. The local zone of up to 50 km from Lake Purrumbete

today’, whereas non-catch related reasons included ‘good facilities’ had the most visits and the highest visit rate, however a

and ‘nice lake’. large number of visitors also travelled from the 101–150 km and

151–200 km zones which comprise of larger population centres of

474 T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477

Table 6

Average and maximum observed expenditure per person per day ﬁshing at Lake Purrumbete.

Category Average expenditure Maximum ($) Number of respondents associating an

per person per day ($) expenditure to the category (other than zero)

with ﬁshing at Lake Purrumbete

Fuel for motor vehicle 20.44 100.00 207

Fuel for boat 5.18 25.00 187

Tackle 2.34 50.00 42

Bait 2.43 35.00 80

Other equipment 0.05 10.00 1

Accommodation 18.39 160.00 138

Food and drink 1.64 75.00 35

Total 50.46 230.00

Table 7

Local population data from 2014 per 50 km zone distance from Lake Purrumbete with relative visit rate derived from creel survey responses.

Zone Distance from Lake Number of Statistical Total zone population Total visits Relative visit rate

Purrumbete (km) Area 2 divisions (V/N)

1 0–50 5 33190 354 10.666

2 51–100 5 51220 65 1.269

3 101–150 36 421673 316 0.749

4 151–200 121 1809550 245 0.135

5 201–250 172 2656861 121 0.045

6 251–300 26 305324 30 0.098

Geelong and Melbourne (Table 7). The average visit rate over the cost of time at the 0.5 of the wage rate and 1:16 or 1636% including

six 50 km zones was 2.16 per 1000 population per year. the opportunity cost of time at the full wage rate (Table 10).

Logically, groups that travelled from further away incurred

greater costs when visiting Lake Purrumbete. For visitors from the

local zone (0–50 km), vehicle costs were higher than other forms 4. Discussion

of expenditure (likely as they did not require accommodation and

may have brought food and drink from home), whereas for all other The present study contributes a valuable case study to inform

zones, other forms of expenditure was higher than vehicle costs our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of ﬁsh stocking. Whilst

(Table 8). Including the opportunity cost of time resulted in costs there are studies demonstrating the considerable economic value

increasing substantially for the furthest distance groups travelled of recreational ﬁsheries (Rolfe and Prayaga, 2007; Ezzy et al., 2012;

to Lake Purrumbete. Hutt et al., 2013; Ernst and Young, 2015), rarely are these data

In ﬁtting our demand curves, we found the exponential func- used to evaluate the return on investment of ﬁsheries management

tion form to be most suitable. Although the R values were similar tools such as ﬁsh stocking. The few studies that economically eval-

for the quadratic and exponential functional forms, the exponen- uate ﬁsh stocking programs provide diverse results ranging from

tial was considered the most appropriate for our demand curves those that report stocking to be highly cost effective, to those that

as the quadratic encompassed some negative cost values which report stocking to be economically inefﬁcient (Rutledge et al., 1990;

were an artefact of the curves (Table 9). The exponential (asymp- Johnson et al., 1995; Welcomme and Bartley, 1998; Brown and

totic regression) generation function accounted for 92%, 94% and Day, 2002; Aphrahamian et al., 2003; Patrick et al., 2006). Our ﬁnd-

94% of the variation in the cost excluding time (Fig. 3A), 0.5 cost of ings are comparable to two recent studies that are also essentially

time (Fig. 3B) and total cost including time (Fig. 3C) demand curves culture-based ﬁsheries with minimal natural recruitment. Taylor

respectively. (2017) conducted a bioeconomic modelling assessment of prawn

Our sensitivity analysis yielded estimates of consumer surplus stocking in eastern Australia and reported a likely 1:5 cost-beneﬁt

of $84.45 per person per day excluding the opportunity cost of time, ratio return on stocking investment. Similarly, an assessment of a

$181.71 including the opportunity cost of time at the 0.5 of the recreational striped bass ﬁshery in Alabama USA by Lothrop et al.

wage rate and $291.09 per person per day including the oppor- (2014) found a 1:9 cost-beneﬁt ratio return on stocking investment

tunity cost of time at the full wage rate (Table 10). Consequently, and consumer surplus estimates of $77 (USD) per angler visit. Our

the estimated recreational (non-market) value over the one year ﬁndings add to the limited, yet growing body of work, suggest-

sampling period at Lake Purrumbete associated with stocking was ing that when applied appropriately, ﬁsh stocking can provide a

$411,248.70 $34,587.58 (SE) excluding the opportunity cost of substantial return on investment of ﬁsheries management funds;

time, $914,099.56 $76,879.25 (SE) including the opportunity cost yielding signiﬁcant economic beneﬁts in market activity and social

of time at the 0.5 of the wage rate and $1,417,526.18 $119,219.34 beneﬁts in satisfaction.

(SE) including the opportunity cost of time at the full wage rate Our approach to evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a ﬁsh stock-

(Table 10). ing program had both advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, our

ﬁsh stocking evaluation accounted for both the economic and social

beneﬁts associated with ﬁsh stocking by including the non-market

3.5. Cost-effectiveness recreational value, rather than just the market expenditure based

breakeven cost of each caught ﬁsh. Measuring the market value

The overall economic expenditure (market value) cost-benefit of each caught fish, cost to produce each stocked fish and num-

ratio return on stocking investment was found to be 1:4 or 406%. ber required to survive until capture in order to ‘break even’, is a

The recreational (non-market) value cost-beneﬁt ratio return on commonly applied method for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of

stocking investment was found to be 1:5 or 475% excluding the ﬁsh stocking, without including the total beneﬁts of the stocked

opportunity cost of time, 1:11 or 1055% including the opportunity ﬁshery (Loomis and Fix 1999; Brown and Day, 2002; Aphrahamian

T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477 475

Table 8

Average expenditure excluding and including time per zone from Lake Purrumbete.

Zone Vehicle fuel cost per Other expenditure per Cost excluding time Average travel time Opportunity cost of Total cost

person per day person per day ($) ($) (hours) time (100%) ($)

1 13.78 11.84 25.62 0.81 28.59 54.21

2 11.88 16.08 27.96 1.77 62.48 90.44

3 18.05 27.28 45.33 3.34 117.90 163.23

4 23.64 34.00 57.64 4.57 161.32 218.96

5 24.67 48.25 72.92 5.64 199.09 272.01

6 27.97 40.35 68.32 5.79 204.39 272.71

Table 9

P-values and model ﬁt for cost excluding time (CET), 0.5 cost of time (H) and total cost of time (TC) against relative visit rate (VR).

Function form (Y,X) Cost excluding time (CET) 0.5 cost of time (H) Total cost of time (TC)

2 2 2

R F-statistic P-value R F-statistic P-value R F-statistic P-value

* * *

Linear 0.31 3.28 0.15 0.41 4.50 0.1 0.43 4.80 0.09

** ** **

Quadratic 0.93 35.71 <0.01 0.94 45.56 <0.01 0.94 46.90 <0.01

* * *

Log-linear 0.39 4.24 0.11 0.59 8.09 0.05 0.64 9.75 0.04

** ** **

Exponential 0.92 30.03 0.01 0.94 38.95 <0.01 0.94 40.34 <0.01

Degrees of freedom 1,4.

Degrees of freedom 2,3.

et al., 2003). As satisfaction and economic activity are key benefits ticipate in fishing at Lake Purrumbete, thus the benefits measured

derived from recreational ﬁshing (Arlinghaus et al., 2002), by mea- could be directly attributable from stocking rather than other ﬁsh-

suring both the recreational value to the individual and the market ery attributes.

value to the economy, we estimated the total value of the ﬁshery Whilst the travel cost method used in this study is well regarded

associated with stocking. Furthermore, as catch-rates and survival and has its advantages, it does have its disadvantages (such as the

of stocked fish can be temporally inconsistent in fisheries, measur- possible underestimation of values for those living near the fish-

ing only market based breakeven cost of each caught ﬁsh may not ery) and there are alternative approaches that could be considered

be a good long-term measure of the value of a stocked ﬁshery. By for evaluations of stocking recreational ﬁsheries. The travel cost

including both the recreational value to the individual and the mar- method approach we adopted enables the recreational value of

ket value to the economy, we not only account for the full beneﬁts, the site to be measured in dollars as a proxy for utility (Whitten

but we also have greater conﬁdence that they will continue into and Bennett, 2002; Perloff et al., 2014), providing an indication of

the near future. overall ﬁsher satisfaction through the revealed preferences of ﬁsh-

Secondly, our approach to measuring satisfaction or utility to ermen. Its application in this study provides a valuable baseline of

recreational ﬁshers, whilst limited, used a two-pronged comple- recreational value of a ﬁsh stocking program for future evaluations

mentary approach. Measuring angler satisfaction is highly complex to compare. We acknowledge that a limitation of the travel cost

(Arlinghaus 2006; Beardmore et al., 2015) and the length of our method is the inability to gain understanding of the contribution

questionnaire limited the number of questions we could include in of different aspects of the ﬁshing experience to ﬁsher satisfaction.

regards to satisfaction. However by asking ﬁshers of their satisfac- The application of a random utility or choice model would be use-

tion, we measured their stated preference, and by using the travel ful to provide this opportunity in future. Furthermore, whilst not

cost method to estimate consumer surplus, we also measured their possible in this study due to the uniqueness of Lake Purrumbete,

revealed preference. The combination of methods means we can difference-in-difference approaches could be applied in other sit-

cross check parameters and ultimately have greater conﬁdence in uations, where visitor rates and expenditures are assessed across

our estimate of recreational value. suitable replicate stocked and unstocked lakes.

Thirdly, our analysis ensured we only measured beneﬁts of the It should also be noted that our study has two limitations that

ﬁshery directly attributable from stocking rather than the ﬁshery would be worthwhile considering in future cost-effectiveness eval-

itself. Lake Purrumbete is a well-known popular and productive uations of ﬁsh stocking. Firstly, the Lake Purrumbete salmonid

culture-based recreational ﬁshery (Cadwallader and Eden, 1981, ﬁshery has undergone many years of research, monitoring and

1982; Hunt et al., 2014), therefore we suspected the vast majority of adaptive management (Hunt et al., 2014), and the costs associated

participating ﬁshers would be motivated to visit Lake Purrumbete with this work have not been factored into our analyses. Incorpo-

because of ﬁsh stocking. However, it is known that many ﬁshers ration of these additional costs is beyond the scope of this current

derive value from the ﬁshing experience from factors unrelated to study due to the assumptions required to estimate these costs over

catching ﬁsh and thus stocking, such as spending time with friends several years. Secondly, our positive cost-beneﬁt ratios alone do not

and family (Arlinghaus, 2006). Consequently, we only included ﬁsh- indicate there are no better uses for these funds, just that the funds

ers in our analysis who were targeting stocked fish and whose have a positive benefit in this case. For Lake Purrumbete as a fish-

satisfaction was catch-related. By doing so, our approach took into ery, there aren’t likely alternative recreational ﬁshing uses for the

account the actual effect of stocking to motivate anglers to par- money that could provide the same level of beneﬁts, due to the lake

Table 10

Sensitivity analysis estimates of consumer surplus, total recreational value and cost-beneﬁt ratio of ﬁsh stocking at Lake Purrumbete.

Opportunity cost of time Consumer surplus ($/person/day) Total recreational value Cost:beneﬁt ratio

Excluded (0) 84.45 $411,248.70 ± $34,587.58 (SE) 1:5

Half the wage rate (0.5) 187.71 $914,099.56 ± $76,879.25 (SE) 1:11

Full wage rate (1.0) 291.09 $1,417,526.18 ± $119,219.34 (SE) 1:16

476 T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477

X 2 X

Fig. 3. Estimated demand curves: A) excluding opportunity cost of time, Y = 24.79 + 48.35 × 0.222 , R = 0.92, B) including 0.5 opportunity cost of time, Y = 38.4 + 138.0 × 0.294 ,

2 X 2

R = 0.94 and C) including 1.0 opportunity cost of time, Y = 52.0+ 227.9 × 0.309 , R = 0.94.

being a land-locked culture-based ﬁshery with no natural repro- Lake Purrumbete resulted in smaller caught ﬁsh due to density

duction of stocked species. However within a state-based ﬁsheries related competition and unsatisﬁed anglers. Thirdly, Lake Purrum-

management framework, funds could alternatively be used to stock bete is a culture-based or put-grow-and-take recreational ﬁshery

other waters or apply other ﬁsheries management actions such where no wild reproducing population of stocked species exists.

as habitat enhancement, improving public access, policy reﬁne- In stock enhancement situations where hatchery reared ﬁsh are

ment/development, enforcement and education etc. Future studies stocked into extant wild populations, careful consideration needs

should consider evaluating the cost-beneﬁt value of other manage- to be given to conservation objectives for preserving wild ﬁsh and

ment tools alongside stocking (e.g. economic extension of Rogers trade-offs with socioeconomic objectives (Camp et al., 2013, 2014).

et al., 2010) and include the costs of research, monitoring and adap- Until further studies are conducted on the cost-effectiveness of

tive management in their calculations. other stocking programs and meta analyses can assess for trends,

Finally, the unique nature of the Lake Purrumbete ﬁshery sug- evaluations should be conducted independently for each stocking

gest that the beneﬁts determined in this study should not be program to maximise our understanding and subsequent beneﬁts.

assumed to occur from stocking programs in other ﬁsheries. Firstly,

recreational ﬁshing values have been shown to vary between

locations (Rolfe and Prayaga, 2007), Lake Purrumbete is highly pro- Acknowledgements

ductive (Ollier and Joyce 1964; Laurensen et al., 2012) and has

supported a popular salmonid ﬁshery for many years, including The authors are grateful to Rob Hems, Dave Ritchie, Glen Place,

a reputation of being a trophy ﬁshery (Butcher 1947; Cadwallader Bob Liddle, Gary Cronin and members of the Lake Purrumbete and

and Eden 1981, 1982). This may increase the likelihood that stock- Camperdown Angling Clubs for providing advice on the question-

ing Lake Purrumbete is more cost effective than stocking programs naire; Scott Gray for conducting the angler creel survey interviews,

in other less productive and popular waters. Secondly, the Lake Pieta Lindburg for assistance with data entry, Ewan McLean, Neil

Purrumbete salmonid ﬁshery has undergone many years of mon- Hyatt and Eleanor Li for assisting with stocking cost data, Daniel

itoring and adaptive management (Hunt et al., 2014), which has Spring for helpful comments regarding economic analysis; Anne

resulted in relatively reﬁned stocking strategies that likely result Wallis, Brett Ingram and Laurie Laurenson for helpful comments

in favourable economic and social beneﬁts from the investment. during early discussions regarding the study and Anthony Forster,

Increasing the investment and numbers of stocked ﬁsh at Lake Allison Webb for constructive comments on the manuscript. The

Purrumbete is highly unlikely to result in a linear increase in long authors are also particularly grateful to Ed Camp and an anony-

term beneﬁts, indeed Eddy (1997) reported increased stocking at mous reviewer for their considerable detailed comments that

substantially improved the manuscript. Collection of creel survey

T.L. Hunt et al. / Fisheries Research 186 (2017) 468–477 477

data for this study was funded by the Victorian Government to Ernst, Young, 2015. Economic study of recreational ﬁshing in Victoria Report to

Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body, Melbourne.

improve recreational ﬁshing in Victoria, Australia, through rev-

Ezzy, E., Scarborough, H., Wallis, A., 2012. Recreational value of southern blueﬁn

enue from recreational ﬁshing licences. This study was conducted

tuna ﬁshing. Econ. Pap. 31 (2), 150–159.

under the Deakin University Faculty of Science, Engineering and Halverson, M.A., 2008. Stocking trends: a quantitative review of governmental ﬁsh

stocking in the United States, 1931–2004. Fisheries 33 (2), 69–75.

Built Environment Human Ethics Advisory Group permit number

Hasler, C.T., Colotelo, A.H., Rapp, T., Jamieson, E., Bellehumeur, K., Arlinghaus, R.,

STEC-50-2013-HUNT.

Cooke, S.J., 2011. Opinions of Fisheries Researchers, managers and Anglers

towards recreational ﬁshing issues: an exploratory analysis for North America.

Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 75, 1–24.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Hilborn, R., 1999. Confessions of a reformed hatchery basher. Fisheries 24 (5),

30–31.

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, Hoenig, J.M., Martin, F.B., Heywood, C.M., 1989. Model-based sampling methods

for effort and catch estimation. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 6, 181–189.

in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ﬁshres.2016.09.

003. Holland, S.M., Ditton, R.B., 1992. Fishing trip satisfaction: a typology of angler. N.

Am. J. Fish. Manag. 12 (1), 28–33.

Hunt, T.L., Giri, K., Brown, P., Ingram, B.A., Jones, P.L., Laurenson, L.J.B., Wallis, A.M.,

References 2014. Consequences of ﬁsh stocking density in a recreational ﬁshery. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71, 1554–1560.

Hutt, C.P., Hunt, K.M., Steffen, S.F., Grado, S.C., Miranda, L.E., 2013. Economic values

Aphrahamian, M.W., Martin Smith, K., McGinnity, P., McKelvey, S., Taylor, J., 2003.

and regional economic impacts of recreational ﬁsheries in Mississippi

Restocking of salmonids-opportunities and limitations. Fish. Res. 62, 211–227.

reservoirs. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 33, 44–55.

Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T., Cowx, I.G., 2002. Reconciling traditional inland ﬁsheries

Johnson, D.M., Behnke, R.J., Harpman, D.A., Walsh, R.G., 1995. Economic beneﬁts

management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on

and costs of stocking catchable rainbow trout: a synthesis of economic analysis

Europe. Fish. 3 (4), 261–316.

in Colorado. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 15, 26–32.

Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Potts, W., 2013. Towards resilient recreational ﬁsheries

Laurensen, L.J.B., French, R.P., Jones, P.L., Ierodiaconou, D., Gray, S.C., Versace, V.L.,

on a global scale through understanding of ﬁsh and ﬁsher behaviour. Fish.

Rattray, A., Brown, S., Monk, J., 2012. Aspects of the biology of Galaxias

Manag. Ecol. 20, 91–98.

maculatus. J. Fish. Biol. 81, 1085–1100.

Arlinghaus, R., Tillner, R., Bork, M., 2015. Explaining participation rates in

Leber, K.M., Cantrell, R.N., Leung, P.S., 2005. Optimizing cost-Effectiveness of size at

recreational ﬁshing across industrialised countries. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 22 (1),

release in stock enhancement programs. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 25 (4), 45–55.

1596–1608.

Arlinghaus, R., 2006. On the apparently striking disconnect between motivation

Lorenzen, K., Leber, K.M., Blankenship, L.M., 2010. Responsible approach to marine

and satisfaction in recreational ﬁshing: the case of catch orientation of German

stock enhancement: an update. Rev. Fish. Sci. 18 (2), 189–210.

anglers. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 26, 592–605.

Lorenzen, K., 2014. Understanding and managing enhancements: why ﬁsheries

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015a. ASGS Boundaries Online, http://betaworks.

scientists should care. J. Fish. Biol. 85, 1807–1829.

abs.gov.au/betaworks/betaworks.nsf/projects/ASGSBoundariesOnline/frame.

Lothrop, R.L., Hanson, T.R., Sammons, S.M., Hite, D., Maceina, M.J., 2014. Economic

htm. (accessed 30.05.15).

impact of a recreational striped bass ﬁshery. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 34 (2),

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015b. Employee Earnings and Hours. ABS,

301–310.

Australia (May 2014).

Malvestuto, S.P., 1996. In: Murphy, B.R., Willis, D.W. (Eds.), Sampling the

Barnham, C., 1997. Fisheries Information Report No. 2: Summary of Immediately

Recreational Fishery. Fisheries Techniques. , 2nd edition. American Fisheries

Available Records of Non-Indigenous and Indigenous Fish Stockings in

Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 591–623.

Victorian Public Waters 1871–1996. Freshwater Fish Management Branch,

Miko, D.A., Schramm, H.L., Arey, S.D., Dennis, J.A., Mathews, N.E., 1995.

Fisheries Division, Victoria.

Determination of stocking densities for satisfactory put-and-take rainbow

Bateman, I., 1993. Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques:

trout ﬁsheries. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 15, 823–829.

revealed preference methods. In: Turner, K. (Ed.), Sustainable Environmental

Ollier, C.D., Joyce, E.B., 1964. Volcanic physiography of the western plains of

Economics and Management Principles and Practice. Belhaven Press, London,

Victoria. Proc. R. Soc. Vic. 77 (2).

pp. 192–233.

Pascoe, S., Doshi, A., Dell, Q., Tonks, M., Kenyon, R., 2014. Economic value of

Beardmore, B., Hunt, L.M., Haider, W., Dorow, M., Arlinghaus, R., 2015. Effectively

recreational ﬁshing in Moreton Bay and the potential impact of the marine

managing angler satisfaction in recreational ﬁsheries requires understanding

park rezoning. Tourism Manag. 41, 53–63.

the ﬁsh species and the anglers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72 (4), 500–513.

Patrick, W.S., Bin, O., Schwabe, K.A., Schuhmann, P.W., 2006. Hatchery programs,

Blankenship, L.M., Leber, K.M., 1995. A responsible approach to marine stock

stock enhancement, and cost effectiveness: a case study of the Albemarle

enhancement. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 15, 167–175.

Sound/Roanoke River stocking program 1981–1996. Mar. Policy 30 (4),

Brown, C., Day, R., 2002. The future of stock enhancement: lessons for hatchery

299–307.

practice from conservation biology. Fish. 3, 79–94.

Perloff, J.M., Smith, R., Smith, D.K., 2014. Microeconomics. Frenchs Forest, NSW

Butcher, A.B., 1947. Quinnat salmon in Victorian inland waters. In: Fisheries

Pearson Australia.

Pamphlet No. 4. Fisheries and Game Department, Victoria.

Pollock, K.H., Jones, C.M., Brown, T.L., 1994. Angler Survey Methods and Their

Cadwallader, P.L., Eden, A.K., 1981. Food and growth of hatchery-produced chinook

Applications in Fisheries Management, 25. American Fisheries Society Special

salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum), in landlocked Lake

Publication, Bethesda, Maryland.

Purrumbete Victoria, Australia. J. Fish. Biol. 18, 321–330.

Robson, D.S., 1991. The roving creel survey. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 12 (12), 19–24.

Cadwallader, P., Eden, A.K., 1982. Observations on the food of rainbow trout Salmo

Rogers, M.W., Allen, M.S., Brown, P., Hunt, T., Fulton, W., Ingram, B.A., 2010. A

gairdneri Richardson, in Lake Purrumbete Victoria. Bull. Aust. Soc. Limnol. 8,

simulation model to explore the relative value of stock enhancement versus

17–21.

harvest regulations for ﬁshery sustainability. Ecol. Model. 221, 919–926.

Camp, E.V., Lorenzen, K., Ahrens, R.N.M., Barbieri, L., Leber, K.M., 2013. Potentials

Rolfe, J., Prayaga, P., 2007. Estimating values for recreational ﬁshing at freshwater

and limitations of stock enhancement in marine recreational ﬁsheries systems:

dams in Queensland. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 51, 157–174.

an integrative review of ﬂorida’s red drum enhancemen. Rev. Fish. Sci. 21

Rutledge, W., Rimmer, M., Russell, J., Garrett, R., Barlow, C., 1990. Cost beneﬁt of

(3–4), 388–402.

hatchery-reared barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), in Queensland. Aquac.

Camp, E.V., Lorenzen, K., Ahrens, R.N.M., Allen, M.S., 2014. Stock enhancement to

Fish. Manag. 21 (4), 443–448.

address multiple recreational ﬁsheries objectives: an integrated model applied

Shrestha, R.K., Seidl, A.F., Moraes, A.S., 2002. Value of recreational ﬁshing in the

to red drum Sciaenops ocellatus in Florida. J. Fish. Biol. 85 (6), 1868–1889.

Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecol. Econ.

Cooke, S.J., Arlinghaus, R., Bartley, D.M., Beard, T.D., Cowx, I.G., Essington, T.E.,

42 (1–2), 289–299.

Jensen, O.P., Lynch, A., Taylor, W.W., Watson, R., 2014. Where the waters meet:

Taylor, M.D., 2017. Preliminary evaluation of the costs and beneﬁts of prawn

sharing ideas and experiences between inland and marine realms to promote

stocking to enhance recreational ﬁsheries in recruitment limited estuaries.

sustainable ﬁsheries management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71 (10), 1593–1601.

Fish. Res. 186, 478–487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ﬁshres.2016.05.030.

Cowx, I.G., Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., 2010. Harmonizing recreational ﬁsheries and

Timms, B.V., 1976. A comparative study of the limnology of three maar lakes in

conservation objectives for aquatic biodiversity in inland waters. J. Fish. Biol.

western victoria I. physiography and physicochemical features. Aust. J. Mar.

76, 2194–2215.

Freshw. Res. 27, 35–60.

Cowx, I.G., 1994. Stocking strategies. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 1, 15–30.

Van Poorten, B.T., Arlinghaus, R., Daedlow, K., Haertel-Borer, S.S., 2011.

Department of Primary Industries, 2008. Corangamite Fishery Management Plan.

Social-ecological interactions, management panaceas, and the future of wild

Fisheries Victoria Management Report Series No. 59. Department of Primary

ﬁsh populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 108, 12554–12559.

Industries, Melbourne.

Welcomme, R.L., Bartley, D.M., 1998. Current approaches to the enhancement of

Eddy, S., November 1997. Report on Creel Surveys Lake Purrumbete, Lake

ﬁsheries. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 5, 351–382.

Murdeduke and Lake Bullen Merri 1 December 1995–30. In: Fisheries

Whitten, S.M., Bennett, J.W., 2002. A travel cost study of duck hunting in the upper

Management Report–No. 62. Colac, Victorian Fisheries. Department of Natural

south east of south Australia. Aust. Geogr. 33 (2), 207–221.

Resources and Environment, pp. 1998.