Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in fish harvest, fishing effort, and angling guard activities between urban and natural fishing grounds

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recreational fishing is a very popular outdoor leisure activity. Assessing differences in basic metrics in recreational fishing on different types of fishing grounds is very important for effective fisheries management. This study aimed to discover how basic metrics in recreational fishing (harvest, fishing effort, angling guard activities) differ between urban fishing grounds (located in a densely populated city) and natural fishing grounds (located in the countryside). Data were obtained from individual angling logbooks collected by the Czech Fishing Union on the River Elbe and the River Vltava (Prague and Central Bohemia, Czechia, Central Europe). Study shows that urban and natural fishing grounds showed significant differences in basic metrics in recreational fishing. Urban fishing grounds displayed higher fish harvest in general and higher dominance of intensively stocked fish species in catches of anglers (mainly common carp Cyprinus carpio). High harvest rates of common carp can be mostly explained by intensive fish stocking. The only fish species that showed higher harvest on natural fishing grounds were large-growing piscivorous fish with high ecological demands. However, anglers were harvesting larger fish (average body weight) on natural fishing grounds. In addition, fishing effort was similar on both types of fishing grounds. Inversely, angling guards were more active on natural fishing grounds. In conclusion, differences in basic fisheries metrics between urban and natural fishing grounds seem to be partially driven by intensive fish stocking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ (2005) Global impact of recreational fisheries. Science 307:1561–1562. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.307.5715.1561

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R, Mehner T (2004) A management-orientated comparative analysis of urban and rural anglers living in a metropolis (Berlin, Germany). Environ Manag 33:331–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2004.00356.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R, Mehner T, Cowx IG (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish Fish 3:261–316. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2002.00102.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R, Bork M, Fladung E (2008) Understanding the heterogeneity of recreational anglers across an urban-rural gradient in a metropolitan area (Berlin, Germany), with implications for fisheries management. Fish Res 92:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R, Beardmore B, Riepe C, Meyerhoff J, Pagel T (2014) Species-specific preferences of German recreational anglers for freshwater fishing experiences, with emphasis on the intrinsic utilities of fish stocking and wild fishes. J Fish Biol 85:1843–1867. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balsman DM, Shoup DE (2008) Opportunities for urban fishing: developing urban fishing programs to recruit and retain urban anglers. Urban and Community Fisheries Programmes: Development, Management, and Evaluation. In: Am Fish S S 67:31–40

  • Beardmore B, Hunt LM, Haider W, Dorow M, Arlinghaus R (2015) Effectively managing angler satisfaction in recreational fisheries requires understanding the fish species and the anglers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72:500–513. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boukal DS, Jankovský M, Kubečka J, Heino M (2012) Stock-catch analysis of carp recreational fisheries in Czech reservoirs: insights into fish survival, water body productivity and impact of extreme events. Fish Res 119:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke SJ, Cowx IG (2004) The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises. Bioscience 54:857–859. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0857:TRORFI]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL (1996) Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Nat Areas J 16(2):94–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL, Phillips C, Bergersen EP, Harris CC (1984) Using angler preference data in defining types of sport fisheries to manage. In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades RT, Gabelhouse DW, Pape LD (2008) Nebraska's urban fisheries program. Urban and Community Fisheries Programmes: Development, Management, and Evaluation. In: Am Fish S S 67:239–246

  • Elmer LK, Kelly LA, Rivest S, Steell SC, Twardek WM, Danylchuk A, Arlinghaus R, Bennett JR, Cooke SJ (2017) Angling into the future: ten commandments for recreational fisheries science, management, and stewardship in a good Anthropocene. Environ Manag 60:165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0895-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2010) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture – 2010 (SOFIA). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy

  • Freire KMF, Machado ML, Crepaldi D (2012) Overview of inland recreational fisheries in Brazil. Fisheries 37:484–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2012.731867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenberg P, Arlinghaus R (2010) Benefits and constraints of outdoor recreation for people with physical disabilities: inferences from recreational fishing. Leis Sci 32:55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400903430889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havlíková P, Chuman T, Janský B (2017) Comparative study of fluvial lakes in floodplains of the Elbe, Luznice and Svratka Rivers based on hydrochemical and biological approach. Environ Monit Assess 189:639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6354-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Humpl M, Pivnička K, Jankovský M (2009) Sport fishery statistics, water quality, and fish assemblages in the Berounka River in 1975-2005. Folia Zool 58:457–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankovský M, Boukal DS, Pivnička K, Kubečka J (2011) Tracing possible drivers of synchronously fluctuating species catches in individual logbook data. Fish Manag Ecol 18:297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang TJ, Neal JW, Hutt CP (2008) Stocking frequency and fishing quality in an urban fishing program in Arkansas. Urban and Community Fisheries Programmes: Development, Management, and Evaluation. In: Am Fish S S 67:379

  • Lewin WC, Arlinghaus R, Mehner T (2006) Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Rev Fish Sci 14:305–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641260600886455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyach R, Čech M (2017) Do otters target the same fish species and sizes as anglers? A case study from a lowland trout stream (Czech Republic). Aquat Living Resour 30:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyach R, Čech M (2018a) A new trend in central European recreational fishing: more fishing visits but lower yield and catch. Fish Res 201:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.01.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyach R, Čech M (2018b) Do recreational fisheries metrics vary on differently sized fishing grounds? Fish Manag Ecol 25(5):356–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyach R, Remr J (2019) The effect of a large-scale fishing restriction on angling harvest: a case study of grayling Thymallus thymallus in the Czech Republic. Aquat Living Resour 32:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo MJ (1984) The comparability of onsite and offsite measures of recreation needs. J Leis Res 16:245–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marta P, Bochechas J, Collares-Pereira MJ (2001) Importance of recreational fisheries in the Guadiana River basin in Portugal. Fish Manag Ecol 8:345–354. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2001.00262.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin JCH, Mongruel R, Levrel H (2017) Integrating cultural ecosystem services in an ecosystem satellite account: a case study in the Gulf of Saint-Malo (France). Ecol Econ 143:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhee D (2017) Urban recreational fisheries in the Australian coastal zone: the sustainability challenge. Sustainability 9(3):422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meneau K (2008) The St. Louis urban fishing program. In: Urban and community fisheries programs: development, management, and evaluation. American Fisheries Society, Symposium, vol 67, pp 227–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Post JR, Sullivan M, Cox S, Lester NP, Walters CJ, Parkinson EA, Paul AJ, Jackson L, Shuter BJ (2002) Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27:6–17. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2002)027<0006:CRF>2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulford E, Polidoro BA, Nation M (2017) Understanding the relationships between water quality, recreational fishing practices, and human health in Phoenix, Arizona. J Environ Manag 199:242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.046

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen G, Geertz-Hansen P (2001) Fisheries management in inland and coastal waters in Denmark from 1987 to 1999. Fish Manag Ecol 8:311–322. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2001.00256.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schramm HL (2008) Not-so-urban urban and community fishing opportunities. Urban and Community Fisheries Programms: Development, Management, and Evaluation. In: Am Fish S S 67:53–52

  • Schramm HL, Dennis JA (1993) Characteristics and perceptions of users and nonusers of an urban fishery program in Lubbock, Texas. N Am J Fish Manag 13:210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schramm HL, Edwards GB (1994) The perspectives on urban fisheries management - results of a workshop. Fisheries 19:9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schramm HL, Gerard PD, Gill DA (2003) The importance of environmental quality and catch potential to fishing site selection by freshwater anglers in Mississippi. N Am J Fish Manag 23:512–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavík O, Bartoš L (2001) Spatial distribution and temporal variance of fish communities in the channelized and regulated Vltava River (Central Europe). Environ Biol Fish 61:47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavík O, Horký P, Bartoš L (2009) Occurrence of cyprinids in fish ladders in relation to flow. Biologia 64:999–1004. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-009-0157-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh RJ, Levitt JT, Nemeth ML (2008) Evaluating the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Fishing in the Neighborhood (FiN) Program. In: American Fisheries Society Symposium, vol 67

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward GHM, Allen MS, Camp EV, Cole N, Hunt LM, Matthias B, Post JR, Wilson K, Arlinghaus R (2016) Understanding and managing social-ecological feedbacks in spatially structured recreational fisheries: the overlooked behavioral dimension. Fisheries 41:524–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2016.1207632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal LM, Longoni M, LeBlanc CHL, Wali A (2008) Anglers' appraisals of the risks of eating sport-caught fish from industrial areas: lessons from Chicago's calumet region. Hum Ecol Rev 15:46–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter C, Minow J, Vilcinskas A, Grosch U (2000) Long-term effects of human influence on fish community structure and fisheries in Berlin waters: an urban water system. Fish Manag Ecol 7:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2000.00200.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Czech Fishing Union (Pavel Horáček, Jaroslava Fryšová, Dušan Hýbner, Pavel Vrána, Karel Anders) provided necessary data and insights on recreational fishing. Marek Omelka helped with statistical analyses. Anglers and angling guards in the Czech Republic made this study possible. This study was supported by the Charles University Grant Agency (Grant GA UK No. 112 218) and by the Faculty of Science on Charles University, Prague).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Evaluations and Social Analyses, Sokolovská 351/25, 186 00, Prague, Czech Republic

    Roman Lyach

  2. Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Branišovská 31, 370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

    Martin Čech

Authors
  1. Roman Lyach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Čech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Lyach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lyach, R., Čech, M. Differences in fish harvest, fishing effort, and angling guard activities between urban and natural fishing grounds. Urban Ecosyst 22, 975–987 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00875-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00875-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation