1

Reconsidering the role of fishers in recreational fisheries management:

The case of the blue cod fishery in Marlborough, New Zealand

Alyssa Thomas, Victoria University of WellingtonSupervisors: Taciano Milfont (VUW) and Michael Gavin

(Colorado State)

2

Presentation OutlineLiterature backgroundStudy aimsSite informationMethodsResults & DiscussionManagement Implications

3

BackgroundGrowing recognition that social and ecological aspects

of fisheries management are linked (Berkes, 2010)Fisher participation in the management process can

positively influence awareness and compliance (Jentoft & McCay, 1995)

Fisher attitudes towards and awareness of regulations also shown to influence compliance (Page et al. 2004; Pierce & Tomcko, 1998)

But attitude and knowledge further influenced by demographic variables (Page & Radomski, 2006; Schill & Kline, 1995)

From http://www.fish.govt.nz

4

Study AimsAs part of a larger research project: 1) Assess fisher knowledge of the new blue cod regulations

2) Evaluate fishers’ views on the new blue cod regulations

3) Explore the influence of demographic factors such as region of residence, age and local fishing experience on the main variables considered

Lack of research on social dimensions of current management strategy

5

Marlborough Sounds Blue CodFishery

• Popular holiday spot• Intense recreational

fishing pressure•~60% decline in blue cod

between 1995/1996 and 20074 year ban on blue cod fishing

implemented October 2008

6

Current Management StrategyReopened in April 2011

1. Slot limit: 30-35cm2. Daily bag limit: 2/person3. Closed 4 months a year (September-20 December)4. Fish cannot be filleted at sea (filleting rule)5. Size and daily limits apply regardless of where

caught (transit rule)Initial proposal by Blue Cod Management Group

(BCMG), finalized by Ministry of Primary Industries

Frustration as fishers believe feedback is being ignored

7

MethodsFace to face surveys of 311 fishers at four

popular launching spots in January/February 2013

Asked about:Overall satisfaction with regulations and fishingInfluence of regulationsCorrect knowledge of filleting & transit rule and

agreement withAwareness of BCMG and knowledge of their role

8

Results: SatisfactionWidespread discontentment

and significant feelings of frustration and anger

Fishers negative towards regulations (M=2.47)Age, fishing experience and

residency differences observed

Only marginally satisfied with fishing itself (M=3.20)Because of regulationsRegion of residency

influence

9 or less 10-19 20-29 30-39 40 or more

1

2

3

4

5

2.992.38 2.38 2.61

1.78

Years fishing in the Marlborough Sounds

Mea

n le

vel o

f sa

tis-

fact

ion

20-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over1

2

3

4

5

2.922.53 2.38

2.02

Estimated age (years)

Mea

n le

vel o

f sa

tisf

acti

on

9

Regulation SatisfactionFilleting Rule: 71% agree

Effects from age and experienceDoes n0t make much differenceNon-compliance because of attitude likely

fairly lowTransit Rule: 34% agree

Residency a significant influenceUnfair, confusing, not legitimatePotential for high levels of non-compliance

Agree

Disagree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

24.8

75.2

46.4

53.6

Non-Marlborough ResidentMarlborough Resident

Percentage

10

Regulation KnowledgeKnowledge of size and bag limits quite high92% correctly knew filleting rule

Increases with experience and residencyApplies to all fishers

Not likely to be a driver of non-compliance

60% correctly knew the transit ruleIncreases with local fishing experienceDoes not apply to all fishers

Good possibility this is a driver of non-compliance

11

Regulation Influence on FishingLevel of influence is small (M=2.38)

Age, fishing experience and residency all significant

Rules mainly influence where and how often Not a primary driver of non-compliance

9 or less 10-19 20-29 30-39 40 or more1

2

3

4

5

2.0676 2.254 2.28 2.38782.9831

Years fishing in the Marlborough Sounds

Leve

l of

influ

ence

12

Blue Cod Management Group50% of the fishers had heard of the BCMG

Age, fishing experience and residency all significantBut only 34% provided accurate details on

roleAge significant Belief that BCMG responsible for the new regulations

Never heard of group50%

Heard of group and knew their role

16%

Only heard of group34%

13

Influence of age and experienceSignificant for five (age) and six (experience) variables

Lowered satisfaction, increased knowledge and influenceLeast experienced/youngest fishers

Only known a depleted fisherySome similar regulationsLess distinct preferences

Quicker to accept changesMost experienced/oldest fishers

“the good old days”Less restrictive regulationsMore set in their habits

Tougher to gain support from this group

14

Influence of local residencySignificant effect on six variables

Lowered satisfactionIncreased knowledge and influence

Local fishers:Struggle to see improvementsCan afford to be more particularHigher levels of investment in the fisheryIncreased exposure to fishery information

Rules affect them to a greater degree, may be more hesitant to accept

15

ParticipationCommon complaint regarding lack of participation

Yet limited knowledge of the official forum (BCMG)But fishers with more negative attitudes more

likely to believe in lack of participation or consultation

Fisher participation can lead to more widely accepted rulesFilleting vs. transit rules

Fishers believe BCMG just a “token gesture”Negative attitudes towards regulations,

management processStrong potential for non-compliance

16

Management ImplicationsNecessity of determining fisher knowledge of

and attitudes towards regulations Difficult to design regulations all fishers will

acceptFisher involvement in management should be

ongoing, not just at the startEven a perceived lack of participation may lead

to negative attitudesFor the Marlborough Sounds results suggest

high-levels of non-compliance may be occurringUndermining effectiveness of the new regulations

17

Thanks to:Taciano Milfont and Michael GavinSchool of Geography, Environment & Earth

Sciences; Victoria UniversityParticipating fishers

Alyssa Thomasalyssa.thomas@vuw.ac.nz

18

ReferencesBerkes, F. (2010). Shifting perspectives on resource management: Resilience and the Reconceptualization of 'Natural Resources' and 'Management'. Maritime Studies, 9(1), 13-40.

Jentoft, S., & McCay, B. (1995). User participation in fisheries management: Lessons drawn from international experiences. Marine Policy, 19(3), 227-246.

Page, K. S., Grant, G. C., Radomski, P., Jones, T. S., & Bruesewitz, R. E. (2004). Fish total length measurement error from recreational anglers: causes and contribution to noncompliance for the Mille Lacs walleye fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 24(3), 939-951.

Page, K. S., & Radomski, P. (2006). Compliance with sport fishery regulations in Minnesota as related to regulation awareness. Fisheries, 31(4), 166-178.

Pierce, R. B., & Tomcko, C. M. (1998). Angler Noncompliance with Slot Length Limits for Northern Pike in Five Small Minnesota Lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18(3), 720-724.

Schill, D. J., & Kline, P. A. (1995). Use of random response to estimate angler non compliance with fishing regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15(4), 721-731.