by
A.L.W. Tuomi
Director, Recreational Fisheries Branch
Fisheries and Marine Service Environment Canada
Ottawa, Canada
There is as yet no centrally coordinated basis for the international exchange of information related to the management and performance of sport fisheries. Reasons for this are outlined. The importance and the advantages to be gained from the exchange of such information are discussed together with a brief outline of existing activities in this respect. Possible courses of action are touched on regarding the development and dissemination of sport fisheries information at the international level.
Il n'existe pas de centre coordonné d'échange international d'informations sur l'aménagement et le fonctionnement de la pêche sportive. On donne les raisons de cet état de choses. Il est discuté de l'importance et des avantages que présenterait l'échange de telles informations et l'on signale brièvement les arrangements existant en la matière. On mentionne succinctement les possibilités d'élaboration et de diffusion d'informations sur la pêche sportive au niveau international.
The problem addressed in this paper is simple to describe. When one goes beyond scientific and administrative information on the management and development of fish and fisheries, per se, there is no international focal point, or any internationally recognized system of information accumulation and dissemination respecting sport fishing.
As might be expected, this problem has its roots at the national level: in most instances, there is no information compiled on angler numbers, participation, or especially on the value of output either as marketed or imputed.
To some extent, both levels of this problem have been identified. For instance, at the Hague Consultation in 1972, the need for such data is variously touched on in recommendations number 1, 2, 4 and particularly number 3. Recommendation 11 in fact set the stage for this Consultation (see pp. 8–10).
In this paper, a brief examination is made of the reasons why such information is not available, the importance of the development of such data are discussed, the present status of present endeavours are reviewed and recommendations are made for consideration of this Consultation.
There is no one simple or single reason why information on sport fisheries is not available at the international level. The following however merit mention.
Conceptual issues of at least two kinds exist. For those who see management of sport fisheries essentially in terms of fish produced and caught (i.e., supply management), the problem cited here may range from non-existent (i.e., where adequate biological data are available) to not important (i.e., where the sport fish catch is either so small in relation to other catch, or where stocks are so large or incapable of management that such data are not seen as needed). The related issue is that of definition. Some see information needs in terms of reference centres focussing on scientific research material. Others see statistics on production and consumption as the priority need. Finally, a smaller number see the need for information development and dissemination related to the management function per se. In short, the “problem” is variously perceived, i.e., in terms of research so-called fisheries “intelligence” or statistics, or on the concepts and practices relating to overall management (of fishing rather than fish).
The range in the role which sport fisheries can play within any one country can present a problem. If supply of all outdoor recreation opportunity is limited, and population pressures and needs are great, opportunity for sport fishing can be funded and provided as a desired form of social welfare service. Conversely, where virgin wilderness opportunities have neither been exhausted nor destroyed (or costs by way of income transfer are not identified in terms of their incidence) the abundance of the supply of such opportunity can preclude sport fishing being either recognized or treated as an economic good; i.e., it is a “free good” which, while it may satisfy demands, tends to be profligately used and abused without too much thought of the consequences.
Where sport fisheries are treated as common property to which free access is provided, the sport fisheries managers are left with no direct means to clearly determine either the value of output or the competively determined effective demand of consumers (i.e., anglers). In essence, fisheries agencies have no management “handles” respecting what either is or should be “produced”.
In some instances where nominal entry to common property sport fisheries prevail, the sport catch of fish which are primarily taken commercially may be so small that the sport fishery can be treated as an “incidental” cost of commercial fisheries. Thus, paradoxical situations can occur where neither sport fishery costs or value of output are quantified or reported on with the result that commercial fishery conservation costs are inflated accordingly and made to look considerably worse in relation to output because of the absence of any data on the value flow from sport fishing.
Keeping in mind that the data in question relate to research, statistics and management, there are a number of reasons that can be cited why such information - and its dissemination - are important.
Sport fishing is the major resource-based form of outdoor recreation in many countries.
Sport fishing is in many countries a major source for tourism income, as well as a very important component of the tourism “image”.
Research information, statistics and management knowledge and guidance are needed to establish and use the value of sport fishing to justify the protection of all fisheries and related environmental resources.
The value of sport fishing is rising and, as a result, many commercial fishing developments can only be justified on the basis of the high-value component arising from sport fishery demand.
Organized sport fishermen are the oldest, the best organized and the most effective environmental advocates that can be found in many countries. Actions by fisheries agencies that ensure that their need for information and knowledge is satisfied can very well hold the key to many of the mounting problems with respect to all fisheries and the environmentally-related aspects of quality-of-life.
Considering the popularity and the esteem that sport fishing is held in throughout most of the world, it is remarkable how little there is to report on in this field.
In this respect, recent developments in commercial fisheries information retrieval and dissemination provide a lead. Because of their long-established nature, there are in most countries many centres where scientific, technical and industrial information are accumulated and available on commercial fisheries. In many instances, some related sport fisheries data are also collected and available at these centres particularly in relation to supply management of competitively sought-for species. Through processes most of you are aware of, the Fishery Resources Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has recently taken the lead in the development of an Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System (ASFIS). The progress thus made possible and the obvious benefits from enlarging the scope of ASFIS to cover all fisheries use makes present consideration of sport fisheries needs in this field most opportune.
It must be reported that some progress has been made toward the development of standardized sport fisheries statistics on what might be called a “regionally” compatible basis.
It is understood that as a result of the Hague Consultation some basic statistics have been developed in at least one country which were designed to be compatible and in keeping with then-perceived EIFAC needs. Increasing consultation has been going on in the last few years between Canada and the United States in respect to the commonly oriented, yet differingly developed, approaches toward the development of national statistics in these two countries.
Arising from the joint consideration and cooperation of all sport fisheries agencies in Canada, an information “item” clearing house service was established a few years ago. Thanks to participation and interest by EIFAC and United States agencies, this information clearing house service has been serving an embryo function in an international capacity. Its expansion is possible but some agreement on goals, means and inputs would be desirable.
As this Consultation attests, the stage is now set for a better definition of what should be done in the whole field of information development, organization, retrieval and dissemination.
There is little reason to question either the need, importance or the benefits that could be derived from agreement on what can and should be done with respect to sport fisheries information at the international level.
In some way, either this Consultation or a committee should determine how this matter is to be dealt with.
It is hoped that the distinction will continue to be kept in mind between the differing purposes involved and the kinds of data needed within the respective fields of research, “intelligence” and management. Equally, that a conceptual framework can be developed that will permit the needs of all agencies to be systematically ascertained and taken into account in the formulation of the means for cooperative input in a common cause.
