Prohibit Trophy Fishing Of Iucn Threatened Species?

[Tim Smith]

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=17469

These guys are suggesting IUCN species listed as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered be legally excluded from trophy fishing.

This includes 85 of the 1,222 species with tackle records listed by the IGFA and a few species we know about like hammerhead shark, bluefin tuna and Apache trout.

What think we?

Edit:

Here's the paper: http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/assets/Shiffman_et_al_Mar_Pol_2014.pdf

I'm a little blown away to see tarpon and common carp??? on the list.

[Haris122]

Well it was quite surprising to read of the effect to the overall population of just 1 61cm long red snapper being harvested comparative to 212 41 cm long ones.Wonder if that's just an extreme case in how much an effect size makes, or if that's similar for a lot of the other species. I think in some cases I can see the benefits of closing the IGFA records to certain species, especially when like they mention, people harvest large fish that are likely short of the record anyhow, and in effect only remove large individuals from the population without accomplishing anything records-wise. In other cases maybe closing certain spawning grounds where they are found in high concentrations, or at certain seasons where they are more vulnerable, might be enough. Certainly worth considering it in some cases I think. As far as the common carp, it would be interesting to find out what exactly it is that got them on that list of theirs. They seemed to suggest there being regionally threatened populations or something of the sort, but I don't know how that puts them on the list of vulnerable overall, unless things in much of the rest of the world are going completely different for them than they are here.

[Tim McDougald]

This is from IUCN's Website on the common carp (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/6181/0):

The native populations (Black, Caspian and Aral Sea basins) are slowly but continuously declining due to river regulation. Also hybridisation with domesticated introduced stocks, East Asian congeners and their hybrids, is a serious long term threat for the species. However, superficially pure carp (currently it is impossible to identify pure carp by genetic analysis) are still abundant in the lower parts of rivers within its native range. Most likely, only very few stocks remain "genetically unpolluted" as a result of this long lasting process. The average age of the spawners is estimated to be between 20-25 years, as they are a long lived species (up to 50 years). Although no population data exists, it is suspected that in the past 60 to 75 years within the species native range, river regulation (due to channelization and dams), which impacts the species as they need flooded areas at very specific times to successfully spawn, and hybridisation with introduced stock, has caused a population decline of over 30%.

[JohnF52]

Common carp are not native to the USA, and as such, are an invasive species. They are overpopulated in the white river and its lakes.

[Quillback]

I'd put trophy fishing way, way down on the list of threats to fish. Are Apache trout threatened by hordes of anglers trying to land a line class record?

And the inclusion of carp really makes me question the validity and motives of whoever wrote that stuff.

[Haris122]

To the defense of the paper, they did mention that there's many places where carp are actually invasive and ultimately a case by case approach would be best. It just seemed to mention that there are areas where they are native, and at the same time in decline (like afarensis showed, not superficially, but genetically as they mix or even get displaced by essentially a common-carp lookalike from further east). It wasn't meant to be just U.S. centric, and I've heard plenty harder things to believe than, that there are places where they're not that commonplace anymore.

I can see trophy fishing having some effect mainly because other factors decrease the population pool to the point that they have enough of a refuge for that size population for those factors not to have an effect anymore, but then with the trophy fishing added to it, it still keeps shrinking the population slowly due to really successful individuals being removed before they can really fulfill most of their reproductive potential.

[Feathers and Fins]

I do not buy the report one bit. PERHAPS 15 years ago this paper might have had validity but with the changes in taxidermy and IGFA record submissions I cannot put any stock in this and question the authors motives.

For the most part and vast majority most anglers now are using Fiberglass mounts instead of skin mounts so more and more trophy fish are released and most guides I have spoken to on this subject lead anglers that way. the process is simple and the mount last much longer. So there is no need to keep a fish for that reason.

As to the IGFA, THIS is the record submission form http://www.igfa.org/images/uploads/files/IGFA%20Record%20Application_2013.pdf you do not need to kill the fish. If you use a store bought scale you will need to send it in and pay to have them certify the scale. Most people I know who trophy hunt know all this information.

Now the only downside is requirement for state records of having a Warden see the fish so there is a chance it would be certified world record but not state without a Warden. I would say the report would have been better off to focus on that issue than the IGFA.

As to the species on the list many have been on it for some time and are heavily debated as to the cause, reasoning and even method.

[Tim McDougald]

I think the article is a day late and a dollar short. The authors of the paper mention IGFA's length based catch and release world records and the use of smartphones and whatnot to validate records. At the end of the paper they mention that their recommendations are for threatened species where studies have not been done to assess the impact of recreational fishing on the fishery.

[Tim Smith]

I guess I don't know much about the conservation status of common carp in Europe, but it seems unlikely they'd let their most prized freshwater game fish fall into serious decline.

The tarpon issue is one I've seen first hand. Studies have shown very high mortality of tarpon after a long fight. Sixty percent and above. They fight too hard and too long to just swim away when they're done. "Catch and release" for them is really often "catch, release, sink to the bottom and get eaten by a shark". Still, I was not aware they were declining as a species and the prospect seems dubious to me.

Usually the best thing that can happen to a species is to become a highly prized game fish. We've done well by our favorites.

[Wayne SW/MO]

First thing, the common carp is no more invasive that the ringneck peasant or the brown trout and you could throw in the Michigan chinook and the brook and smallmouth in the west if you were so inclined . Actually you could throw in the rainbow in Missour. It doesn't always revolve around world numbers because any time You remove a native population and create a vacumn you change the balance and that can be a negative. One of the bigger problems is the nations with blinders that see the need for more restrictions, but belive they are the exception. Japan is very good at it. The tuna ships won't ever stop, they have huge investments to capitalize.