1548-8446(1991)016_0004_TSOCSF_2 0 CO;2

Prévia do material em texto

The Status of Competitive Sport Fishing
in North America
Harold L. Schramm, Jr., Michael L. Armstrong, Nicholas A. Funicelli, David M. Green,
Dennis P. Lee, Ralph E. Manns, Jr., Bruce D. Taubert, and Stephen J. Waters
ABSTRACT
Organized competitive sportfishing has been a growing use of fishery resources for at least the last 20 years. We
conducted a survey of fishery agencies in Canada, the United States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin
Islands to estimate the numbers and types of competitive fishing events in inland and marine waters and to determine
fishery agency perceptions of the benefits and problems associated with these events. Based on survey responses, there
were 20,697 competitive fishing events annually. Adjusting for agencies that did not provide estimates and incomplete
reporting, we estimated that there were at least 31,000 competitive fishing events annually. Most competitive fishing
events were for black bass in inland waters and billfish in marine waters, but events targeted many species of fish. In
inland waters, events for species other than black bass appear to be increasing. Prevalent problems of competitive
fishing perceived by fishery management agencies were stimulation and concentration of fishing effort, conflicts among
user groups, and impeded access. Prevalent benefits of competitive fishing were economical acquisition of catch and
biological data, promotion of recreational fishing, and communication between agencies and anglers. Our survey
indicated the need for accurate (rather than estimated) and current data about competitive fishing and further inves-
tigations of sociological aspects, economic values, and biological impacts of competitive fishing events.
Introduction
O rganized competitive sportfish-
ing has been a growing use of
fishery resources for at least the last 20
years. We define competitive fishing
as "organized events in which a group
of anglers fish for inducements-
awards, prizes, or public recognition-
in addition to the catch or the satisfac-
tion of catching fish." Shupp (1979)
provided information about the num-
ber, geographic distribution, state
agency regulation, and perceived im-
pacts of black bass (see Table 1 for
scientific names of fishes referred to in
this paper) tournaments in the USA.
Duttweiler (1985) updated Shupp's sur-
vey for black bass tournaments and
included similar statistics for compet-
itive fishing for other fish species in
the USA. This article reports the results
of a survey of current competitive fish-
ing activities in North America.
The Survey
Information about current competi-
tive fishing activities in the United
States, District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Cana-
dian provinces was obtained from a
mail and telephone survey conducted
by the American Fisheries Society (AFS)
Competitive Fishing Committee' in
1989. Separate surveys were conducted
for inland and marine fisheries in coastal
states, provinces, and territories. Sixty-
two agencies were surveyed regarding
competitive fishing in inland waters
and 29 agencies were surveyed about
competitive fishing in marine waters.
Harold L. Schramm, Jr. is an assistant professor in the Department of Range and
Wildlife Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409. Other authors are:
Michael L. Armstrong, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission; Nicholas A. Funicelli,
Gainesville National Fisheries Laboratory, Fish and Wildlife Service; David M. Green,
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University; Dennis P. Lee, California
Department of Fish and Game; Ralph E. Manns, Jr., Fishery Information Services;
Bruce D. Taubert, Arizona Game and Fish Department; and Stephen J. Waters,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. All authors are past or current members of the
AFS Competitive Fishing Committee.
Survey respondents were fishery bi-
ologists or fishery agency administra-
tors, except for Hawaii (marine) and
Newfoundland where the surveys were
conducted with a director of a marine
tournament organization and an em-
ployee of the Tourism Branch of the
Department of Cultural Affairs, Tour-
ism, and Historic Resources. We were
referred to these respondents by the
state and provincial fishery agencies.
The survey asked what types of con-
tests were conducted; what species of
fish were sought; and whether fishing
contests were regulated, restricted, or
monitored by permits or another pro-
cess. Respondents were asked whether
their agency collected statistics on fish-
ing contests and to report (either based
on data or estimates) the number of
fishing contests in the state or province
during the last year, the average num-
ber of participants per event, the num-
ber or percentage of contests for dif-
ferent fish species or species groups,
and the number or percentage of fish-
ing contests of different durations. The
survey ended with an open-ended
question that asked the respondent to
list biological and administrative ben-
efits and problems that their agency
recognized from competitive fishing.
Fisheries, Vol. 16, No. 34
Table 1. Common and scientific names of fishes referred to in this paper.
Common name
Arctic grayling
Billfishes
Black bass (bass)
Bluefish
Burbot
Catfishes
Common carp
Crappies
Flounders
Hybrid striped bass
Largemouth bass
Mackerels
Pikes
Red drum
Sharks
Smallmouth bass
Spotted seatrout
Steelhead
Striped bass
Sturgeons
Sunfishes
Tunas
Trout and salmon
Walleye
Weakfish
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Competitive Fishing
Statistics
Competitive fishing was reported in
inland or marine waters in all states,
provinces, and territories (Table 2). Be-
cause there was wide variation in def-
initions, we categorized competitive
fishing events at either tournaments
(competition based on a catch statistic
such as size or number; included der-
bies, pools, big-fish contests) or tagged
fish events (competition based on the
catch of tagged fish). Tournaments
were held in inland waters in all 62
locations surveyed. Tournaments were
reported in marine waters by 21 agen-
cies; New Brunswick indicated there
were no marine tournaments. Tagged
fish events were held in inland waters
in 47 states and provinces and in marine
waters in 10 states and provinces.
'The Competitive Fishing Committee is a
joint committee of the Fisheries Adminis-
trators Section and the Fisheries Manage-
ment Section of the American Fisheries So-
ciety. The purpose of the Committee is to
provide information about competitive fish-
ing.
Scientific name
Thymallus arcticlts
Xiphias gladilus and Istiophoridae
Micropterus spp.
Pomatomus saltatrix
Lota ota
Ictalurus spp. and Pylodictis olivaris
Cyprinus carpio
Po7moxis spp.
Pleuronectiformes
Morone chrysops x Morone saxatilis
Micropteruts salnoides
Scoinber spp. and Scomnberontorus spp.
Esox spp.
Sciaenops ocellatus
Squaliformes
Micropterus dolomieui
Cynoscion nebulosus
Oncorhynchus miykiss
Morone saxatilis
Acipenseridae
Leponmis spp.
Euthynnlus spp. and Tnhunnus spp.
Oncorhynchus spp., Salmhno spp., and Salvelinus spp.
Stizostedion vitreuni
Cynoscion regalis
Morone chrysops
Coregonus spp.
Perca fiavescens
Survey respondents reported an an-
nual total of 20,697 competitive fishing
events (Table 2). We believe that this
count is an underestimate for several
reasons. Some agencies reported only
relatively large events or those for which
they issued permits. Some agencies
provided obviously low estimates; for
example, there were more bass clubs
in Texas than the reported number of
tournaments. Several states and prov-
inces with coastal fisheries did not re-
port any marine events. Duttweiler
(1985) also indicated a failure to report
marine competitive fishing events
among agencies that responded to his
survey. Respondents from six states
with inland competitivefishing rec-
ognized that competitive fishing events
were numerous but declined to provide
an estimate; in at least five of these
states annual competitive fishing
events numbered in the hundreds and
probably exceeded one thousand. Our
estimate of annual competitive fishing
events is at least 31,000. We arrived at
this estimate by adding the following
estimates to the count from the survey:
1,000 annual inland events each in
Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and Mis-
sissippi; 500 events in Michigan; an
additional 1,500 inland events in Cal-
ifornia, 300 events in Minnesota, and
1,200 inland events in Texas; an addi-
tional 500 marine events from nine
coastal states and provinces that did
not report marine events; and an ad-
ditional 3,000 small, informal events
(local big-fish contests, youth-oriented
events, fishing club events, etc.).
The number of reported events in a
year in a state or province ranged from
two to several thousand (Table 2). The
median number of participants for
agencies that reported an average num-
ber of participants was 35 (N = 29) in
inland waters and 167 (N = 10) in
marine waters. The number of partic-
ipants in a single event ranged from 4
to 15,000.
Most fishing contests reported were
1-day events (Table 2). Forty-seven
agencies reported events that lasted 3
days or longer. Many of these events
were annual or season-long and usually
were big-fish contests.
Annual fishing effort (angler-days)
was calculated for those agencies that
reported number of events, percentage
of contests of different duration, and
average participation. Total annual
fishing effort in competitive events was
882,422 angler days (Table 2). This es-
timate is based only on 12,543 (61%)
of the total 20,697 reported events.
Among all agencies that reported
number of annual competitive events
and percentage of contests for differ-
ent species or species groups for in-
land waters (a total of 18,066 events),
competitive fishing for black bass was
77.8% of the events, trout and salmon
was 8.1% of the events, walleye was
3.5% of the events, crappie was 2.7%
of the events, and striped bass or hybrid
striped bass was 1.3% of the events.
Events for pike, catfish, sunfish, and
carp were 0.7%, 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.1%
of all reported competitive fishing
events. Among the 62 reporting agen-
cies for inland waters, only Alaska,
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
Newfoundland, North Dakota, Prince
Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatch-
ewan did not report competitive fishing
for black bass (Table 2). An average of
73% (N = 50, SD = 27%, range 7-
100%) of competitive fishing events
targeted black bass in the states, prov-
inces, and territories where competi-
tive fishing occurred for black bass.
Competitive fishing for trout and
May - June 1991 5
Table 2. Number of competitive fishing events, duration, participation, types of regulations, and species sought. All values
are estimates for all competitive fishing events conducted in a year unless otherwise noted.
Duration, Participants
days; % per
Events Tagged of events contest Angler Species sought
Loca- per fish days/ Reg- and percentage
tion" year events 1 2 -3 Avg. Min. Max. year ulations, of contests d
Inland waters
Y 98 1 1 30
AB 1,025 Y
AZ 289' f Y
50 4,000
53' 29,102
AR 950 Y 60 30 10 60
BC 1,000 Y 5 10 85
CA 318g Y 77g 16g 7g
70
197'
22
18'
1,400
125
200
1,000
IN
Y
Y
Y
25 75
98 2
83'
Y 96
Y 90
99
Y 40
Y 50
11' 6'
1 3
50 200
178g 4 3,600
30
6 60
25 400
64
24 300
50
10 350
1
60
30 20
Y
IA 357' Y 86' 13' 1t 86' 4 6,800
KS 250 Y 60 39 1
KY 800 Y 80 15 5 30
LA 1,250 Y 89 10 1 25
10 100
10 400
Bass; crappie
Trout; salmon; grayling; burbot;
pike
1 Pike; walleye; yellow perch;
whitefish
2 Bass, 90; trout, 4; carp, 3; catfish,
2; pike 1
85,500 3 Bass, 92; striped bass, 5; crappie,
1; walleye, 1; sunfish, 1
4 Trout, 75; salmon, 20;
73,585 2 Bass, 77; trout, 9; striped bass, 7;
catfish, 3
1 Bass, 65; trout, 32; walleye, 2
6,028 1,2 Bass, 90; trout, 8
2 Bass, 90
Bass, 11; catfish, 6
95,872 Bass, 99
Bass, 80; crappie, 20
Bass, 80
2 Bass, 90; trout/salmon, 10
85,000 1 Bass, 90; trout/salmon, 5;
crappie, 3; walleye, 2
2 Bass, 80; crappie, 4; catfish, 4;
striped bass, 4; walleye, 4;
trout, 2; salmon 2
35,307 2 Bass, 75; walleye, 5; catfish, 3;
crappie, 2
3 Bass, 84; striped bass, 10; catfish,
3
30,000 2 Bass, 95; crappie, 4
35,000 2 Bass, 98; crappie, 1; striped bass,
ME
MB
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
239'
300
62h
800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
93' 5'
50 25
2 0 h 8 0 h
90
70 25
Y 80 20
1,650 Y 80 15
35' Y 75 24
NE 50
NV
NB 20
NF 2'
NH 70"
NJ 200
NM 30
NY 250
NC 750
ND 289
NS 31'
OH 1,000
95 5
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
2
e
25
10
5
270"
50 1,000
50 100
200
5 45
1 100
45
10 50 40
100
8 4h 7" 9h
99 1
10
70
75
90
15
23
30,132
92,813
4,410
2,363
30 300
10 5,500
6 300
15
2
509 46g 49
93' 7'
90 9 1
10 10,000
20 1,000
131g 5,649
50 300
20 200
2 Bass, 71; trout, 10
2,5 Walleye, 90
Bass, 100
Bass; trout
6 Bass, 50; trout, 30; walleye, 7;
pike, 7
7,8 Bass, 35; walleye, 25; pike, 10;
salmon, 10
Bass, 95; crappie, 4; catfish, 1
2 Bass, 75; crappie, 20
9 Trout, 50; bass, 20; walleye, 20;
yellow perch, 5
Bass, 70; walleye, 15; catfish 8
2 Bass; trout; striped bass
Trout/salmon, 55; bass, 35
Trout; salmon
2,8 Bass, 31; trout
Bass, 60; sunfish, 20; trout, 15
Bass, 90; trout, 9
Bass, 70; trout, 20
Bass, 85; crappie, 13; striped
bass, 2
2 Walleye, 46; pike, 33; salmon, 12
Trout, 90; bass, 7; striped bass, 3
10 Bass, 90; walleye, 5; pike, 3;
crappie, 2
Fisheries, Vol. 16, No. 3
AL
AK
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
120g
6
Table 2. (continued)
Duration Participants
days; %, per
Events Tagged of events contest Angler Species sought
Loca- per fish days/ Reg- and percentage
tion' year' events 1 2 -3 Avg. Min. Max. year ulations' of contests"
100
Y 10 40
45 45 10
Y 90 9 1
SD 185 Y 50 50
TN 500 Y 90 8
TX
UT
VT
402,
12
30
VA 500
WA 200
WV 297'
WI 300
WY 30
Subtotal 19,719'
AL
AK
BC
CA
CT
FL
GA
HI
LA
MD
MS
NH
NY
NC
PE
PR
RI
SC
TX
VI
VA
Subtotal 978'
Total 20,697
12
17
2
20
500
20
100
75
62h
70 h
40
Y 75 20 5
33 66 1
Y 20 45 35
Y 90 5
Y 85
90 10
Y 50 40
5
15
10
50
45
10 24
50
40
50
35
2 25
21'
24
20
54',i
20
50 5,000
100 1,000
50 5,000
25 200
4,013 3 Bass, 95; trout, 2; walleye, 1;
striped bass, 1; crappie, 1
Walleye, 40; bass, 35; trout, 25
2,025 2 Bass, 98; walleye, 2
36,000 11, 12 Bass, 90
100 Trout, 100
5,760 Bass, 100
6,000 Trout, 50; walleye, 20; yellow
perch, 20
11 Bass, 95
2 Trout, 25; walleye, 25; pike, 25
31,080 13 Bass, 85; striped bass, 5; catfish,
14,000
10,975
484
10 10,000
20 300
10
Y 10 90 100
50 40 10
100 3,000
Y 40 40 20
Y 95 5 50
Y
Y 70 25 5 125
20 80 150
Y 300
20 h 80h" 270 h
25 35 40
Y
31'
I
k
18'
6
8 4h 7 h 9
h
70 20 10
63' 37' 300
100
84' 16'
100
Marine 
100 2
200 4
50 15
8,600
17,642
200 9,600
5,700
762,740'
waters
,000
,000
,000
2,050
6 1,000
3,375
30 600 42,000
800
30,132
50 5,000
10 5,500
40 500
22,041
25
208 8,087
95' Y 58' 30' 12' 125 18,287
33' Y 5' 30' 65' 277' 30 1,000 23,767
8e Y 50
Y 90
30 20 50 200
5
2 Bass, 50; walleye, 49; salmon, 1
Bass, 97; striped bass, 1; sunfish,
1
Bass, 95; striped bass, 5
Bass, 95; trout, 5
Bass, 36; trout, 30; walleye, 19;
pike, 15
14 Bass, 90; striped bass
2 Bass, 75; trout, 25
2 Bass, 95; walleye, 1; pike, 1
Bass, 30; salmon, 10; pike,10;
walleye, 5
1 Trout, 50; walleye, 30; bass, 15
Billfish, 20
15 Salmon, 100
Salmon, 95
Billfish; tuna; shark; halibut
Bluefish; flounder; striped bass
16
14 Mackerel, 40; red drum, 20;
spotted seatrout, 20; sharks, 11
Billfish/tuna, 60
Billfish, 25; tuna, 25; bluefish, 25
Spotted seatrout, 25; red drum,
25; cobia, 8
Billfish/tuna, 25; striped bass, 25;
sharks, 25
Mackerel, 45; billfish, 26;
flounder, 6; sharks, 3
Tuna, 100
Billfish, 100
Bluefish, 75; tuna, 15; striped
bass, 5; flounder, 5
Mackerel, 22; billfish, 12
Spotted seatrout, 36; red drum,
29; mackerel, 27; billfish, 27;
sharks, 9
17 Billfish, 60; mackerel, 20; tuna, 10
Bluefish, 30; flounder; weakfish;
billfish; tuna
119,682'
882,422
May - June 1991
OK 150 Y 95 3 2 25
Y 10
Y 50
Y 60
100
40
50
30
ON 100
OR 309
PA 1,000
PE 1
PR 72'
PQ 50
RI 50
SK 102
SC 800
7
Table 2. (continued)
'U.S. Postal Service abbreviations.
bCalculated from number of contests per year, duration, and average number of participants. Events lasting three or more days were
assumed to last three days for this calculation.
'Regulations are: 1-permits required for tagged fish contests only; 2-permit required; 3-permits issued by Corps of Engineers (COE)
for events on COE reservoirs; 4-can close a body of water to competitive fishing; 5-can impose special restrictions in heavy use areas;
6-limit number of boats by Marine Safety Commission; 7-permit required for events with entry fee -$10 or total prizes -$2,000; 8-
tagged fish events not allowed; 9-no competitive events on wild trout waters; 10-permit required for events with entry fee -$5 or
-50 participants; 11-permit required for use of facilities on state property; 12-tagged fish events not allowed on state-owned lakes;
13-permit required from Boating Division; 14-permit required for striped bass events only; 15-permit required if fish caught are to
be sold commercially; 16-events that kill fish may be restricted; and 17-observer required.
dEvents for mixed species are not included.
'From data.
'Events average 1.9 days duration.
sFrom data for permitted events only.
hData for inland and marine events.
'Bass tournaments only.
'Including data for Maryland and New Hampshire.
kOne event every 2-3 years.
'Excluding data for Maryland and New Hampshire.
salmon occurred in 32 states and prov-
inces and comprised 1-100% (mean =
31%, SD = 31%) of the competitive
fishing events in these geographic lo-
cations. Competitive fishing for wall-
eye occurred in 23 states and provinces
and accounted for 1-90% (mean =
18%, SD = 22%) of the competitive
fishing events in these geographic lo-
cations. Competitive fishing events
were reported for crappie in 17 loca-
tions, for striped bass or hybrid striped
bass in 15 locations, for pike in 11
locations, for catfish in 10 locations, for
sunfish in 4 locations, and for carp in
4 locations.
Eighteen agencies reported species
and species groups sought in coastal
marine waters (Table 2). Among all
agencies that reported number of an-
nual competitive events and percent-
age of contests for different species or
species groups for marine waters (a
total of 582 events), competitive fish-
ing for billfish was 24.0% of the
events, tuna was 15.2% of the events,
mackerel was 9.2% of the events,
bluefish was 3.9% of the events, shark
was 2.8% of the events, salmon and
speckled seatrout were each 2.7% of
the events, red drum was 2.3% of
the events, striped bass was 1.8%
of the events, and flounder was 0.5%
of the events. Billfish events were re-
ported by 11 of the 18 agencies and
averaged 36% (SD = 29%, range 5-
100%) of the competitive fishing events
in these locations. Tuna events were
reported by eight agencies and were
39% (SD = 34%, range 10-100%) of
the competitive fishing events in these
locations. Mackerel events were re-
ported by five agencies and were 31%
(SD = 11%, range 20-45%) of the
competitive fishing events reported by
these agencies. These competitive events
generally had a relatively low number
of participants. Eleven agencies re-
Ice fishing derby in Vermont sponsored by Fair Haven Rotary Club and Benson Volunteer Fire Department to raise money for their
various community projects.
Fisheries, Vol. 16, No. 38
cm09
ported "multi-species" competitive
events; these events averaged 39%
(SD = 32%, range 2-100%) of the
total events reported by all agencies
that provided number of annual com-
petitive fishing events and percent-
ages of contests for different species
or species groups. Although relative-
ly few in number, multi-species ma-
rine events had high participation. For
example, a 3-day marine event in
Alabama attracted more than 2,000
participants, and a 2-week event in
Mississippi attracted approximately
5,000 participants.
Most (76% inland, 65% marine) agen-
cies obtained some type of statistics
from competitive fishing events, but,
in general, these agencies collected only
creel (fishing effort and catch per effort)
data from anglers and biological data
from the catch. Only 17 (20%) of the
83 responding agencies (inland plus
marine) were able to provide compet-
itive fishing event statistics based on
data rather than estimates (Table 2).
The statistics from several of these
agencies were based on a subset of
competitive fishing events (e.g., per-
mitted events, bass tournaments). Brit-
ish Columbia, Manitoba, New Bruns-
wick, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Nova Scotia, Oklahoma,
Ohio, Puerto Rico, and Vermont col-
lected competitive event statistics only
for selected waters or when special
conditions existed. Alabama, Alberta,
Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachu-
setts, Mississippi, New Jersey, South
Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas re-
lied on voluntary reporting of tour-
nament statistics. Overall, much of the
information we obtained seemed to be
based on the perceptions, sometimes
guided by voluntary reports or infor-
mation from selected events, of a few
people.
Some agencies identified the need to
collect more or better data about com-
petitive events. Iowa and Saskatche-
wan indicated they were implementing
mandatory reporting systems to obtain
participation and catch data in 1989 or
1990. Arkansas, Rhode Island, and
Tennessee were implementing volun-
tary reporting systems.
Permits are required for competitive
fishing events by 21 (31%) fishery agen-
cies for inland waters (Table 2). In
addition, several agencies require per-
mits for certain events: Minnesota and
North Dakota require permits if events
The start of a Bass Anglers Sportsman Society bass tournament.
exceed specified entry fees, number of
participants, or cash awards; Rhode
Island requires permits for inland events
on state property; Virginia requires per-
mits for inland striped bass events; and
Alaska requires permits for marine
salmon events if the fish are to be sold.
Permits are required for tagged fish
contests in Alberta, California (inland),
Colorado, Illinois, and Wyoming. Mon-
tana does not allow competitive fishing
in wild trout waters and Florida could
restrict marine events if fish are to
be killed. Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania (state-owned
water only), and Utah do not allow
tagged fish contests.
Impacts of Competitive
Fishing Events
The respondents were asked to iden-
tify biological and administrative prob-
lems and benefits of competitive fishing
(Table 3). Some of the stated problems
or benefits have both biological and
administrative implications. We cate-
gorized those responses that pertained
to fish populations or communities as
biological problems or benefits.
Problems
The most common biological prob-
lems associated with competitive fish-
ing identified by respondents were the
stimulation of fishing effort and its
unequal distribution; i.e., concentrat-
ingeffort on selected species or partic-
ular waters (Table 3). Louisiana and
South Carolina indicated that the in-
creased effort was often focused on
stocks that were already overexploited.
Vermont claimed the increased fishing
effort shortened the time fish were
available in the fishery. British Colum-
bia recognized a potential problem of
intensive fishing effort on steelhead
during the spawning run. Related to
the problems of stimulation and dis-
tribution of fishing effort were (1) re-
duction of standing crop and catch rate,
and (2) increased mortality. (These
problems were separated from stimu-
lation and distribution of fishing effort
because respondents specified them as
separate categories.) These four prob-
lem categories are perceived or antic-
ipated problems; significant declines of
fish stocks due to competitive fishing
are generally not substantiated. Illinois
and Mississippi (marine) suspected a
general negative effect of competitive
fishing on the abundance of fish stocks,
but stated they had no supporting data.
Florida (inland) and Oklahoma indi-
cated that the present level of tour-
nament activity has not caused a fishing
effort or mortality problem, but there
could be an effect if tournament activity
increased. Nova Scotia, South Dakota,
and U.S. Virgin Islands specified that
additional biological data were needed
to determine if competitive fishing was
causing a stock reduction problem.
There is concern that competitive
fishing may alter the natural distribu-
tions of target species. Dislocation of
fish from home waters (fish caught in
one location and released in another
location in the same body of water) is
May - June 1991 9
a concern of five agencies. Three agen-
cies believe that competitive fishing
stimulated or caused the introduction
of a fish species into new waters: Dis-
trict of Columbia was aware of illegal
interstate transplantation of fish; Mon-
tana reported the introduction of wall-
eye into trout waters; and smallmouth
bass have been introduced into new
waters in Utah (not a problem, see
below). The response from California
(inland) suggested the equipment that
anglers are encouraged to use to pro-
mote survival of fish caught in certain
types of competitive fishing events fa-
cilitates the transport and unauthor-
ized introductions of fish.
The most frequently cited adminis-
trative problem was "conflicts among
user groups" (Table 3). Although the
responses were worded differently, the
agencies perceived conflicts primarily
between competitive and noncompe-
titive anglers. A unique conflict among
user groups was reported by Hawaii
where marine tournament competitors
sold their catch after it had been reg-
istered by the tournament organiza-
tion. Although this practice reduced
waste of fish, a problem recognized by
several inland and marine agencies, it
caused a direct conflict with commercial
fishermen who sold the same species
of fish.
Impeded access at marinas and boat
ramps were also a commonly cited
problem. Competitive event spokes-
persons often argue that "the anglers
would be fishing anyway," but the
events undoubtedly concentrate an-
glers on occasion. Scheduling times
and locations of competitive events
would reduce this problem. California,
Oregon, and West Virginia use permit
systems to schedule only one bass tour-
nament at a time on any water. Maine
allows only four competitive events per
year on a water. Twelve agencies in-
dicated that competitive fishing events
increased demands on staff time. Sev-
eral agencies reported use of staff time
for tagging fish, monitoring events, or
assisting in fish release efforts. Staffing
problems associated with monitoring
and fish release are exacerbated be-
cause most competitive events occur
on weekends. Also, staff time was re-
quired for tournament permitting and
management of data obtained by agency
personnel or from volunteers. Tennes-
see reported that considerable staff time
was spent addressing complaints or
problems associated with competitive
fishing.
Table 3. Biological and administrative problems associated with competitive
fishing.
Item
Stimulation of effort
Distribution of effort
Reduced standing stocks
Increased mortality
Relocation of fish
Introductions
Affect research
Affect reproduction
User group conflicts
Impedes access
Staff time
Boating hazards
Waste of fish
Legal aspects (fish
possession, sale of
fish)
Agency
Biological
AK', AB, BC1, LA 2, MB, NH, NC2, ND, NS', ON, PR',
SK, SC', TX'
AL, AB, ME', MB, MS', NB', SK, SC 2, TX2, UT
AL, AK 2, IA, ME', MB, NE, RI 2
AL, AR, NE, ON, SC(M)
AL', AR, DE, IA, WI
DC, MT, UT
IA
SC'
Administrative
AZ, AR, CA2, DE, FL', HI2, IA, KS, KY, MB, MA,
MN, MT, NE, NY', OK, ON, SC, SD, VT, WY
AL', AR, CT', DE, FL', ID, IL, KY, MA, MN, MO,
MT, NY', NC 2, ND, OH, SD, TX, WV, WY
AL2, BC', FL2, IA, ME', MO, NY', NS', RI2, SK, SD,
TN
AR, CT', FL', MA, MS', TN
AL 2, CT2, NE, NY2 , SC2
LA2 , NY2, WI
'Inland waters only.
2Marine waters only.
Benefits
Most agencies also identified biolog-
ical and administrative benefits of com-
petitive fishing events (Table 4). The
opportunities to economically collect
catch statistics and biological data were
the most frequently cited biological
benefits. Several agencies believe that
competitive fishing events can be used
to reduce populations of undesirable
species (British Columbia and Mon-
tana), to encourage fishing for under-
utilized species (North Dakota), or to
shift fishing effort from overexploited
populations (New Brunswick and Que-
bec). Many agencies, particularly Ca-
nadian provincial agencies, consider
competitive fishing administratively
beneficial because it promotes recrea-
tional fishing and increases the public's
awareness of the availability of high-
quality fishery resources. New Bruns-
wick and Newfoundland have encour-
aged competitive fishing to advertise
their fishery resources and promote
tourism. Maine and Newfoundland en-
courage competitive fishing events to
stimulate interest in recreational fish-
ing as a family activity. Associated with
the anglers' awareness of the fishery
resource is their awareness of the agen-
cies that manage the resources. Four
agencies responded that competitive
fishing gave their agency a higher pro-
file and created a positive image with
anglers.
Several agencies recognize the local
economic benefit associated with com-
petitive fishing and encourage it. Seven
fishery agencies receive direct eco-
nomic benefit from competitive fishing.
Three agencies recognize that compet-
itive fishing events provide opportun-
ities to measure the social and economic
benefits of fishery resources. In times
of ever-increasing competition for lim-
ited funds, quantitative information
about social and economic benefits is
useful; it may, in fact, be becoming
critical.
Communication and angler educa-
tion are categories that span biological
and administrative benefits. Fourteen
of the agencies surveyed indicate that
competitive fishing facilitates com-
munication with anglers. Well-devel-
oped communication channels foster
angler awareness of agency programs
and are conducive to successful angler
education programs. The communi-
cation channels also provide a means
Fisheries, Vol. 16, No. 310
cm09
Table 4. Biological and administrative benefits associated with competitive
fishing.
Item
Catch statistics
Biological data
Coarse fish derbies,
promote underutilized
species
Promote resource
awareness
Communication with
anglers
Economic benefit
Generates revenue for
agency
Demonstrates social and
economic benefits of
resource
Promotes no-kill ethic
Public participation
Agency recognition
Permits allow scheduling
and allocation
Self-regulation of rules
Agency
BiologicalAL, CA 2, CO, CT, FL', HI, ID, IA, LA, ME', MA,
M1, MS2, MT, NB', NJ2, NY, NC2, ND, ON, PR,
RI, SK, SC2, TX', VI, VA2, WV, WI, WY
AL2, AK2, CT, LA', NC2, R12
BC', MT, NB2, ND, PQ
Administrative
AB, BC', DC, HI', IL, IA, KS, KY, LA', ME', MB,
MO, NE, NB', NF', NJ', NS', OH, PQ, VT
AL', AB, AR, BC', CA2, DC, IA, LA', MS2, MB,
MT, NJ', NC2, NS', OH, ON, PQ, SD, UT, WV
IL, IA, KY, NE, SD, TX2, WI
BC, LA', MT, ND, OK, SD, TX', WI
AB, BC, MI, ON, PR', HI'
AR, BC', FL', LA', MO, OK, SC'
CO, ID, OK, SK, UT
MO, NS', PQ, V12
IN, ME', SK, WV
AB
'Inland waters only.
2Marine waters only.
for anglers to register opinions with
management personnel. For example,
Utah has expanded the range of small-
mouth bass and created new angling
opportunities because bass clubs in-
creased the agency's awareness of the
opportunity and the need for positive
stocking.
Agencies identified several ways that
competitive fishing or competitive fish-
ing groups can benefit fishery man-
agement activities. Encouragement of
live release can foster this conservation
ethic among noncompetitive anglers.
Groups providing assistance to biolo-
gists can save an agency's limited man-
power. Alberta indicated that compet-
itive fishing organizations establish and
enforce biologically desirable rules that
could not be imposed or enforced by
a provincial or federal agency. Al-
though Alberta was the only agency
that noted this attribute, many types
of competitive events in many areas
impose and enforce catch and boating
safety regulations that are more strin-
gent than existing state or provincial
fishing regulations.
Trends
Comparison of our results with those
from surveys of bass tournaments
(Shupp 1979) and competitive fishing
for black bass and other species (Dutt-
weiler 1985) helps to identify trends in
competitive fishing and agencies' po-
sitions on competitive fishing. Shupp's
(1979) and Duttweiler's (1985) surveys
were restricted to the United States.
Shupp (1979) estimated 12,369 bass
tournaments in 1978 (49 of 50
states responding); Duttweiler (1985)
indicated that bass tournaments de-
creased to 7,419 in 1983 (46 of 50 states).
Using the number of tournaments in
a state and the percentage of compet-
itive events for black bass, we estimate
13,926 bass tournaments in 42 states.
Bass tournaments appear to have in-
creased since 1978. Furthermore, the
distribution of black bass tournaments
has expanded from 44 of 49 states in
1978 (Shupp 1979) to 48 of 50 states in
1989.
Duttweiler (1985), based on survey
responses from 46 states in 1983, re-
ported approximately 8,200 competi-
tive fishing events for all species; bass
tournaments outnumbered competi-
tive fishing events for all other species
by 10 to 1. In our survey, using only
data for the USA, there were 17,016
competitive fishing events in inland
waters (44 agencies reporting) and 949
(13 agencies reporting, excluding
Maryland and New Hampshire) in ma-
rine waters. Duttweiler (1985) stated
that competitive fishing for saltwater
species was underreported in his sur-
vey. Although Duttweiler's (1985) sur-
vey and the present survey probably
underestimated the total number of
competitive events annually, it is ap-
parent that the number of competitive
fishing events has increased substan-
tially.
In 1983, the 7,419 bass tournaments
in 46 states were more than 90% of the
total competitive fishing events (Dutt-
weiler 1985). Based on the 1989 survey
responses from 44 agencies, 13,926
competitive events for black bass were
82% of all inland competitive fishing
events. Although there were more black
bass tournaments in 1988 than in 1983
and black bass tournaments still rep-
resent the majority of competitive fish-
ing events, there have been large in-
creases in competitive events targeting
other species. The numbers of states
reporting competitive events for sal-
monids, panfish, and striped bass in
our survey were similar to the 1983
survey (Duttweiler 1985). The number
of states reporting competitive fishing
for walleye increased from eight in 1983
to 18 in 1988. However, the number of
states reporting competitive fishing for
carp declined from 15 states in 1983 to
three states in 1988 and competitive
fishing for pike declined from 12 states
in 1983 to eight states in 1988. Consid-
ering the incomplete reporting of data
by survey respondents, we cannot de-
termine whether the lower number of
states reporting events for carp and
pike represent declines in competitive
fishing for these species or lesser
awareness of events for these species
by the respondents. Information is not
available to compare trends in com-
petitive fishing for marine species.
Although information was unavail-
able on competitive fishing in Canada
before 1988, our survey shows that
competitive fishing in inland waters
currently approaches a scale similar to
that occurring in the USA. There was
an average of 387 competitive fishing
May - June 1991 11
Walleye tournament at Mille Lacs, Minnesota. Competitors returning to the weigh-in
site at the end of the fishing day.
events per year among the 44 states
reporting. In Canada, 10 provinces re-
ported an average of 263 competitive
events annually. Sixty-nine percent of
the events were for trout or salmon
and 22% were for walleye; black bass
and pike were 3% and 2% of the com-
petitive events.
Duttweiler (1985) concluded that
fishery agency perceptions of the im-
pacts of competitive fishing did not
change dramatically between 1978 and
1983, with the exception that more
states identified positive media cov-
erage for fishing in general and more
states reported problems of concen-
trated fishing effort. Prominent im-
pacts perceived by agencies common
to our survey and the previous surveys
were "promotion of recreational fish-
ing," "conflicts among user groups,"
and "distribution of fishing effort."
"Local economic benefit" was recog-
nized by more agencies in the previous
surveys than in ours. Twenty agencies
perceived "impeded access" as an ad-
ministrative problem and 14 agencies
considered "stimulation of fishing ef-
fort" as a biological problem in our
survey. These impacts were not rec-
ognized in the previous surveys. The
similarities and differences in fishery
agencies' perceptions about the im-
pacts of competitive fishing events be-
tween the present and previous sur-
veys suggest a tendency for fishery
management agencies to be more aware
of those impacts that directly affect the
fishery resources and access to them
and less concerned with impacts ex-
ternal to fishery management, such as
social benefits and value to local econ-
omies. It should be noted, however,
that some of the differences in per-
ceived impacts of competitive fishing
between this and previous surveys
(Schupp 1979; Duttweiler 1985) may be
related to different survey formats; the
previous surveys asked for responses
to specific impacts, whereas our survey
asked respondents to list problems and
benefits.
Conclusions
Information obtained from fisheries
agencies throughout North America
indicates that competitive fishing is a
major and increasing use of our inland
and marine waters. We found that ac-
curate and current data were scarce
and most agencies provided estimates;
in a few cases, estimates were not
available. The respondents to our sur-
vey identified problems and benefits
associated with competitive fishing.
Some problems are likely real (e.g.,
impeded access, staff time require-
ments), but others are largely perceived
or anticipated (e.g., conflicts among
user groups, stimulation of fishing ef-
fort, stock reduction). Competitive
fishing provides benefits, such as catch
and biological data, promotes fishery
resources, channels for communica-
tion, revenues for fishery agencies and
local economies, and educationalop-
portunities. However, some of these
benefits can be better described as op-
portunities-they were listed by agency
respondents, but programs to achieve
them were not necessarily in operation.
Problems listed by some agencies were
viewed as benefits by other agencies.
For example, although stimulation of
fishing effort and conflicts among user
groups were commonly stated prob-
lems, several agencies encourage com-
petitive fishing to attract anglers to their
fisheries. Competitive fishing drains
staff time in several agencies, but other
agencies reported that competitive fish-
ing events provide opportunities to
efficiently and economically collect
useful catch and biological data and
that competitive fishing groups assist
with management projects, collect fish
for hatchery programs, and contribute
funds. Similar paradoxes are apparent
in the surveys conducted by Shupp
(1979) and Duttweiler (1985).
It is not possible to weigh perceived
problems against potential benefits to
conclude whether competitive fishing
has an overall positive or negative effect
on fisheries. This determination of
"good" or "bad" will require infor-
mation to answer important questions.
In many cases, these are the same
questions posed in previous competi-
tive fishing surveys (Shupp 1979; Dutt-
weiler 1985). Enlightened by the re-
sponses of fisheries scientists through-
out North America, we believe that the
most urgent needs are: (1) current and
comprehensive data about the extent
of competitive fishing, (2) information
about the sociological aspects of com-
petitive fishing, (3) determination of
economic impacts of competitive fish-
ing, and (4) evaluation of biological
effects of competitive fishing on fish
populations. Furthermore, programs
are needed to realize the benefits that
competitive fishing can provide the
fishery manager. These programs need
to be initiated and evaluated. )_
Acknowledgments
We express our appreciation to the
numerous individuals who provided
requested information. A. J. Fedler, S.
J. Gutreuter, J. Hahn, L. A. Helfrich,
A. D. Mills, and S. P. Quinn provided
helpful comments on the manuscript.
References
Duttweiler, M. W. 1985. Status of compet-
itive fishing in the United States: trends
and state fisheries policies. Fisheries (Be-
thesda) 10(5):5-7.
Shupp, B. D. 1979. 1978 status of bass fish
tournaments in the United States. Fish-
eries (Bethesda) 4(6):11-19.
Fisheries, Vol. 16, No. 312