Flawed paper blames anglers

Banning IGFA all-tackle angling records won't save endangered fish stocks

The International Game Fishing Association (IGFA) has hit back at a widely circulated paper titled "Trophy fishing for species threatened with extinction: a way forward building on a history of conservation" that makes claims that the IGFA is responsible for stressing fish populations by rewarding anglers who target “trophy fish” with world records.

The paper was widely circulated and created misperceptions about IGFA’s World Record Program and how it impacts imperilled species on a global scale. In response, IGFA submitted a rejoinder to the Marine Policy online journal, where the paper was originally published, that identifies some of the flaws in the authors’ abstract conclusions.

RECORDS PREDATE FISH STATUS

Jason Schratwieser, the IGFA Conservation Director, says the authors Shiffman et al. assert that IGFA records are threatening imperilled fish populations. Yet 88 per cent of the species identified by the authors were first listed as threatened within the last 20 years and, during this time, IGFA received a total of 15 All-Tackle record applications for these species.

The low number of records placed within the appropriate context of total global landings for these species does not support the hypothesis that IGFA All-Tackle records have a disproportionately negative impact on imperilled species, as the authors suggest, but rather a disproportionately low impact.

Shiffman et al. assert that IGFA is responsible for stressing fish populations by rewarding anglers who target “trophy fish” for IGFA world records. They further contend that maintaining fishing records encourages anglers to target large, fecund individuals, some of which are listed as Threatened with extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

However the authors’ lack of understanding of IGFA fishing records and incomplete analysis of IUCN and IGFA data results in a flawed interpretation of IGFA records’ impacts on threatened species.

The authors’ statement that the criterion of weighing fish necessitates transporting fish to an official land-based weigh station for weighing and, as such, “effectively precludes catch and release for trophy fishing” is incorrect.

MORE RECORD FISH RELEASED

IGFA record requirements do state that fish may not be weighed on boats at sea or other bodies of water. What the authors were apparently unaware of, however, is that it is perfectly acceptable for anglers to weigh their catch using personal hand scales at or near the site of catch, as long as it is not done on a vessel.

While this is not amenable to large pelagic species such as billfish, tunas and some sharks, it does indeed result in a large proportion of IGFA records being released. In the last five years that IGFA has been recording release fate of all record category catches, 30 per cent of weight submissions have been released alive.

Shiffman et al.’s analysis of the 2011 IGFA World Record Game Fishes book reported that of the 1222 IGFA All-Tackle records listed, 85 species (6.95 per cent) were evaluated as Threatened by the IUCN. What the authors failed to include in their analysis was when these species were first listed as Threatened by the IUCN and how many IGFA records have been submitted since that time.

An investigation of the IUCN website revealed that 75 of the 85 species were first listed as Threatened within the last 20 years, yet only 15 All-Tackle record applications were submitted to IGFA during that time period.

LESS THAN ONE FISH PER YEAR

With a total of 15 All- Tackle records for threatened species submitted for IGFA certification in the last 20 years, Shiffman et al. display an unfamiliarity with the basic principles of population dynamics in fishes as well as a limited grasp of the relative impacts of record fishing vs commercial fishing efforts for many of these threatened species.

For example, according to the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) total landings from 1991 to 2011 for southern bluefin tuna, which are listed as critically endangered, totalled 293,695 metric tons.

The only southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) that was submitted for an IGFA All-Tackle record during the same time period weighed 167.5 kg and represents 0.00005 per cent of the total catch recorded by the CCSBT.

Similarly, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) landings data for mako sharks (Isurus spp.) during the same time period totalled 1264 metric tons and the only mako shark All-Tackle record submitted during this time weighed 533.84 kg, representing 0.04 per cent of the estimated global catch.

These examples give little credence to the authors’ declaration that IGFA records have a disproportional impact on fish populations especially when viewed from the perspective of global fisheries.

INDEFENSIBLE ATTACK

In summary, Shiffman et al.'s assertion that IGFA records are creating a disproportional negative impact on threatened fish populations is essentially indefensible.

Can and does recreational fishing impact fish populations? Absolutely.

However their conclusion that a cessation of IGFA All-Tackle records for IUCN threatened species would “result in an instantaneous reduction of fishing pressure on the most fecund members of these at-risk species, and would promote the recovery of their populations” lacks biological credibility when:

>> IGFA All-Tackle record submissions for these species are a rare events and;

>> Commercial landings for many of these species are orders of magnitude higher than trophy fishing efforts.

Meantime, IGFA and its affiliates are also introducing length-based records with minimum permissible lengths to further encourage the catch and release of trophy fish.

Read the latest Boatsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at the Boatsales Network's mobile site. Or download the App for smartphone and tablet.

Flawed paper blames anglers

Tags