Tim Mead is a professional outdoor writer and was kind enough to allow me to post one of his writings on the website. The following article is copyrighted and cannot be used and or reproduced without explicit written permission of the author, Tim Mead. Tim Mead is member: Outdoor Writers Association of America, Southeastern Outdoor Press Association.
Last spring I fished Phelps Lake in northern Saskatchewan. Phelps
Lake has only been exposed to systematic angling since the opening of Wolf Bay
Lodge a couple of years ago. Though I can always use photos of big
fish, by the end of my stay I was releasing 40-inchers with taking a single
shot. In one afternoon, in addition to a number of "smaller" pike,
I caught a 44-inch, a 46-inch and a 47-inch pike. A companion caught
a 50-incher! There were pike, including lifetime trophies, everywhere.
Could this fishing be ruined by angling pressure?
According to research published by Professor John R. Post and a number of colleagues in a recent issue of Fisheries, a publication of the American Fisheries Society, the sad answer is "yes." Post and his colleagues argue that in many places in Canada there has been an "invisible collapse" in recreational fisheries. Invisible because it takes place over a long period of time.
When old-timers, like me, tell how wonderful it was "in the old days," younger anglers have no way to assess the reliability of such claims. Further, gradually anglers change the "target" of effort. As the lake trout fishing deteriorates, visiting anglers switch to walleyes or pike. As the walleye and pike fishing declines, other fish become targets. And anglers, over time, go farther and farther afield in search of excellent fishing; there are so many places in wilderness Canada that the collapse of fishing in one spot does not suggest a trend. Of course, that’s how I ended up in Phelps Lake. Post and his associates traced lake trout fishing in eastern Ontario, rainbow trout fishing in British Columbia, and pike and walleye fishing in Alberta. They found decline to be a process that took place in comparable ways over these diverse fisheries. In the pike studies, over-exploitation led to catch rates in the 1990s that were 15% of what they were two decades earlier.
Well, why doesn’t somebody do something? How about regulations? As the authors say, "Unfortunately, these regulations are not always successful. In Alberta walleye fisheries, non-compliance with regulations increased with declining catch rates leading to greater per capita mortality at lower fish abundance." In other words, anglers may be the problem. From the perspective of the ecological system, anglers are simply another form of predator. And once the adults of a game fish population are depressed, other species may become so abundant that the desired species cannot recover. Evidence from the walleye studies, for example, suggests that when mature fish are reduced in abundance predation on smaller fishes is reduced and their number increases. The smaller fishes, like last year’s perch, are then so numerous that they can cull young-of-the-year walleyes. Clearly, the same thing could happen to pike. Once this process gets far enough advanced, it is unlikely that it can be reversed.
What to do? The authors of the research contend that the status of fish populations must be maintained over time and that there must be changes in the management of recreational fishing that increase awareness of fish population declines to fisheries "biologists, the public, and politicians." While the authors did not make this point as directly as I am going to, the burden falls most heavily on anglers and the tourist industry. Anglers must follow regulations faithfully and not substitute their own judgment for that of the provincial (or state) fisheries biologists. Don’t let someone in your crowd say, "Well, there seem like lots of fish here. It won’t hurt if we take a few more home." Consider ways to reduce delayed mortality of released fish, including barbless hooks, quick release, avoiding dropping fish on the bottom of the boat, and other practices we all know but sometimes do not follow. And the tourist industry needs to understand the dynamic of fish populations. It may be that fishing is great near a lodge that can handle 20 guests, but if the lodge owner expands to a capacity of 40 he will make a short-term profit but the long-term prognosis will be "invisible collapse." Think about it.
Click the mailbox to e-mail. Last updated on ... August 14, 2004