Q&A BPAM, with the author,

Ralph recently seeded a thread:

"The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling" in which he
posted:
The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of
harvest; catch and release and so forth.

Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and
statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at
Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing
best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and
recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in
a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of
the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated.

For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has
talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to
address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by
access by payment)

He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and
when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a
mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this:

http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf

His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole

watch this site for additional work on his thesis

I would like to ask Mr. Poole a couple of questions to help fully
understand BPAM.

1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?
and
2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?

Thanks very, very much. I'm looking forward to a great discussion.

Sincerely,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

Hello Tim,

1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?

How would the Best Practice Angling Method concept guide further tackle
restrictions, if any, in Colorado? I know Colorado angling by
reputation only so bear that in mind.

Public salmonid fisheries facing overharvesting and/or congestion
problems would likely benefit from a bait ban, but would unlikely
benefit from a fly fishing only restriction.

In the case of privately owned salmonid fisheries. a flyfishing only
restriction would make the owner the most money. I would probably
suggest to an owner that the fishery be posted and advertised as fly
fishing only but that paying artificial lure anglers be allowed to ply
the waters, space and reputation issues permitting.

2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?

Not formally as in a written piece, but I have fished under those
regulations in Quebec Atlantic salmon streams. *Mandatory*
kill-then-quit regulations are feasible in a tightly managed situation
like the ZECs, provincial parks and state-managed wildlife reserves of
Quebec. Otherwise, they promise difficulties in typically
passively-managed North American public fisheries due to monitoring and
enforcement issues. I believe *voluntary* harvest-then-quit and/or
*voluntary* catch-and-release limits would be more cost effective and
ultimately more effective. Anglers have proven themselves enormously
successful in supporting self-enforcing conventions in not all but many
situations.

If cherry-picking the catch for harvest by holding fish in live wells
and releasing them as larger fish show up, for example, is your driving
concern, then I'm not sure what to propose though I can clearly
understand why one would want to discourage that kind of behaviour. In
a similar vein, catching and releasing hundreds of trout in one day is
something else we might want to effectively discourage.

Thanks to RalphH for his accurate and informative introduction. This
paper will be subject to further peer review. If you feel like citing,
please do, but contact me in case there have been major changes or a
published version is available at the time. All comments and
suggestions would be most welcome. regards -Erik




wrote:
Ralph recently seeded a thread:

"The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling" in which he
posted:
The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of
harvest; catch and release and so forth.

Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and
statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at
Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing
best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and
recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in
a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of
the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated.

For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has
talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to
address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by
access by payment)

He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and
when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a
mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this:

http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf

His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole

watch this site for additional work on his thesis

I would like to ask Mr. Poole a couple of questions to help fully
understand BPAM.

1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?
and
2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?

Thanks very, very much. I'm looking forward to a great discussion.

Sincerely,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

wrote:

Hello Tim,


1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?


How would the Best Practice Angling Method concept guide further tackle
restrictions, if any, in Colorado? I know Colorado angling by
reputation only so bear that in mind.

Public salmonid fisheries facing overharvesting and/or congestion
problems would likely benefit from a bait ban, but would unlikely
benefit from a fly fishing only restriction.

In the case of privately owned salmonid fisheries. a flyfishing only
restriction would make the owner the most money. I would probably
suggest to an owner that the fishery be posted and advertised as fly
fishing only but that paying artificial lure anglers be allowed to ply
the waters, space and reputation issues permitting.


2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?


Not formally as in a written piece, but I have fished under those
regulations in Quebec Atlantic salmon streams. *Mandatory*
kill-then-quit regulations are feasible in a tightly managed situation
like the ZECs, provincial parks and state-managed wildlife reserves of
Quebec. Otherwise, they promise difficulties in typically
passively-managed North American public fisheries due to monitoring and
enforcement issues. I believe *voluntary* harvest-then-quit and/or
*voluntary* catch-and-release limits would be more cost effective and
ultimately more effective. Anglers have proven themselves enormously
successful in supporting self-enforcing conventions in not all but many
situations.

If cherry-picking the catch for harvest by holding fish in live wells
and releasing them as larger fish show up, for example, is your driving
concern, then I'm not sure what to propose though I can clearly
understand why one would want to discourage that kind of behaviour. In
a similar vein, catching and releasing hundreds of trout in one day is
something else we might want to effectively discourage.

Thanks to RalphH for his accurate and informative introduction. This
paper will be subject to further peer review. If you feel like citing,
please do, but contact me in case there have been major changes or a
published version is available at the time. All comments and
suggestions would be most welcome. regards -Erik




wrote:

Ralph recently seeded a thread:

"The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling" in which he
posted:

The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of
harvest; catch and release and so forth.

Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and
statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at
Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing
best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and
recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in
a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of
the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated.

For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has
talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to
address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by
access by payment)

He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and
when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a
mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this:

http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf

His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole

watch this site for additional work on his thesis

I would like to ask Mr. Poole a couple of questions to help fully
understand BPAM.

1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?
and
2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?

Thanks very, very much. I'm looking forward to a great discussion.

Sincerely,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.



uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal"
posting requirements...g

jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?)

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:19:30 -0400, jeff wrote:

[snipped]

uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal"
posting requirements...g

jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?)

You suppose quoting 200 lines to make an irrelevant point is going to sit well
with usenet cops, eh?

/daytripper (speaking of not getting the memo... ;-)

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:19:30 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:

Hello Tim,


1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?


How would the Best Practice Angling Method concept guide further tackle
restrictions, if any, in Colorado? I know Colorado angling by
reputation only so bear that in mind.

Public salmonid fisheries facing overharvesting and/or congestion
problems would likely benefit from a bait ban, but would unlikely
benefit from a fly fishing only restriction.

In the case of privately owned salmonid fisheries. a flyfishing only
restriction would make the owner the most money. I would probably
suggest to an owner that the fishery be posted and advertised as fly
fishing only but that paying artificial lure anglers be allowed to ply
the waters, space and reputation issues permitting.


2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?


Not formally as in a written piece, but I have fished under those
regulations in Quebec Atlantic salmon streams. *Mandatory*
kill-then-quit regulations are feasible in a tightly managed situation
like the ZECs, provincial parks and state-managed wildlife reserves of
Quebec. Otherwise, they promise difficulties in typically
passively-managed North American public fisheries due to monitoring and
enforcement issues. I believe *voluntary* harvest-then-quit and/or
*voluntary* catch-and-release limits would be more cost effective and
ultimately more effective. Anglers have proven themselves enormously
successful in supporting self-enforcing conventions in not all but many
situations.

If cherry-picking the catch for harvest by holding fish in live wells
and releasing them as larger fish show up, for example, is your driving
concern, then I'm not sure what to propose though I can clearly
understand why one would want to discourage that kind of behaviour. In
a similar vein, catching and releasing hundreds of trout in one day is
something else we might want to effectively discourage.

Thanks to RalphH for his accurate and informative introduction. This
paper will be subject to further peer review. If you feel like citing,
please do, but contact me in case there have been major changes or a
published version is available at the time. All comments and
suggestions would be most welcome. regards -Erik




wrote:

Ralph recently seeded a thread:

"The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling" in which he
posted:

The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of
harvest; catch and release and so forth.

Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and
statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at
Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing
best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and
recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in
a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of
the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated.

For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has
talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to
address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by
access by payment)

He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and
when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a
mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this:

http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf

His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole

watch this site for additional work on his thesis

I would like to ask Mr. Poole a couple of questions to help fully
understand BPAM.

1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?
and
2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?

Thanks very, very much. I'm looking forward to a great discussion.

Sincerely,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.



uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal"
posting requirements...g

jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?)

Not to mention that if you use the slider to scroll up and down rapidly,
it seems to fascinate the housepets...

Hey, looking for the good where I might stumble upon it,
R

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:54:37 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:19:30 -0400, jeff wrote:

[snipped]

uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal"
posting requirements...g

jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?)

You suppose quoting 200 lines to make an irrelevant point is going to sit well
with usenet cops, eh?

Oops...

/daytripper (speaking of not getting the memo... ;-)

Oh...I didn't think anyone really read those...

Ah, well, the pets appear to like it, and I'm fine with that,
R

daytripper wrote:

....ripper (speaking of not getting the memo... ;-)

well...if the theory is that one must be able to keep up with the
conversation for response or comprehension, seems to me the entire
conversation must be available to readers who aren't participating
directly in the discussion. i don't need to include any of the prior
posts for my reply purposes. i know what the other guy said, he knows
what he said, and i can snip everything...

but your point is known, and i made my point knowing your point, and, i
agree, it's all pointless in the grand scheme.

jeff

wrote:
Hello Tim,

1) What specifically would you do in Colorado to begin this
methodology?

How would the Best Practice Angling Method concept guide further tackle
restrictions, if any, in Colorado? I know Colorado angling by
reputation only so bear that in mind.

Public salmonid fisheries facing overharvesting and/or congestion
problems would likely benefit from a bait ban, but would unlikely
benefit from a fly fishing only restriction.

In the case of privately owned salmonid fisheries. a flyfishing only
restriction would make the owner the most money. I would probably
suggest to an owner that the fishery be posted and advertised as fly
fishing only but that paying artificial lure anglers be allowed to ply
the waters, space and reputation issues permitting.
[snip]

Colorado, AFAIK, has no "Flyfishing Only" sections but has "flies and
lures only" regulations on many waters. Its interesting that you noted
the 'reputation' issues of a private fishery because I think it's clear
that there are no sound reasons for flyfishing only regulations based
biology alone. This was a very hot topic in Oregon a few years back and
was heavily debated here, including several members of the Oregon
commission. This speaks to the social aspects affecting these
regulations more than the critical health of the fisheries, as you
mention in your report. During these discussions the flyfishermen cited
such issues as quality of experience being ruined by the presence of
spin fishermen and other, stereotypical, issues such as the feeling
that flyfishermen were cleaner and left trash astream (yes, that was
stated). I think the Colorado regulations speak to the latest data on
mortality of these tackle choices, make more sense and are more 'fair'
than limiting tackle choices (exclusive of bait) on public waters. I am
speaking to physical and financial constraints on some fishermen that
would be otherwise excluded, but also to a personal preference (it
takes a great deal of skill to fish a lure properly, is fun and is a
great education segue to other imitative angling methods) as well as to
exposing the class bias that exists for what it is.

[continues]

2) Have you ever considered mandatory kill-then-quit regulations?

Not formally as in a written piece, but I have fished under those
regulations in Quebec Atlantic salmon streams. *Mandatory*
kill-then-quit regulations are feasible in a tightly managed situation
like the ZECs, provincial parks and state-managed wildlife reserves of
Quebec. Otherwise, they promise difficulties in typically
passively-managed North American public fisheries due to monitoring and
enforcement issues. I believe *voluntary* harvest-then-quit and/or
*voluntary* catch-and-release limits would be more cost effective and
ultimately more effective. Anglers have proven themselves enormously
successful in supporting self-enforcing conventions in not all but many
situations.
[snip]

The one area of fisheries management you do not discuss in your report
is the ethos of catch and release fishing and the impact this has on
recreational sport fishing. It is my personal feeling that managing
fisheries more akin to hunting will result in better and more
sustainable regulations over time. Your comment below is spot on, in my
estimation, yet I feel that it is the pure catch and release crowd is
not, generally, accepting of voluntarily limiting catch and release
resulting in significantly more mortality in some cases than areas
where subsistence harvest is allowed. This is especially true when
water temperatures are warmer or when fishing from a drift boat in
swift water. It does not cease to amaze me the moral high ground
claimed by catch and release flyfishermen that generally do not show a
great deal self restraint limiting the hours astream (which affects the
availability and quality of angling for everyone).

If cherry-picking the catch for harvest by holding fish in live wells
and releasing them as larger fish show up, for example, is your driving
concern, then I'm not sure what to propose though I can clearly
understand why one would want to discourage that kind of behaviour. In
a similar vein, catching and releasing hundreds of trout in one day is
something else we might want to effectively discourage.
[snip]

Stringly agree. Have you had a chance to read the report from the
Norwegian Fisheries council found at:

http://org.nlh.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

I'm curious if you think applying BPAM with a sound biological 'ethic'
might be the watershed, definitive, overall management strategy
cornerstone.

Thank you very, very much for your time and for your generative
discussion on this important subject.

Sincerely,

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

Colorado, AFAIK, has no "Flyfishing Only" sections but has "flies and
lures only" regulations on many waters. Its interesting that you noted
the 'reputation' issues of a private fishery because I think it's clear
that there are no sound reasons for flyfishing only regulations based
biology alone.

The problem with respect to resident salmonids is that flyfishing is
too effective; the expected catch rate is too high. Congestion and
sublethal impacts can be significant on systems where the vast majority
of the effort is flyfishing.



I am
speaking to physical and financial constraints on some fishermen that
would be otherwise excluded, but also to a personal preference (it
takes a great deal of skill to fish a lure properly, is fun and is a
great education segue to other imitative angling methods) as well as to
exposing the class bias that exists for what it is.

Imposing tackle restrictions often results in anglers exiting the
fishery. In recreational fishing we never compensate losers so
gratuitous restrictions that really do not address the underlying
problem are perhaps best avoided.

The class bias issue is misleading as I demonstrate in the case of
resident British Columbia steelhead anglers. Household incomes are
indistinguishable.

The one area of fisheries management you do not discuss in your report
is the ethos of catch and release fishing and the impact this has on
recreational sport fishing. snip It does not cease to amaze me the moral high ground
claimed by catch and release flyfishermen that generally do not show a
great deal self restraint limiting the hours astream (which affects the
availability and quality of angling for everyone).


If you think of catch and release as simply a form of selective fishing
then it is not so mysterious perhaps. Easy-access public fisheries may
have spawned catch and release as a dominant mode of angling, yet we
observe private fisheries and jurisdictions with direct effort controls
governing public fisheries that are increasingly adopting catch and
release as a management tool.

I know many fly anglers who do quit early or who adopt less effective
techniques in the face of abundant, available fish. Some do the 75
trout/day thing once or twice and then never go back, or find a
different, less effective but often more interesting and rewarding
presentation.

I agree entirely with your assessment of the externalities of catch and
release. Daily fees on public fisheries will reduce some of that
resource damage. Restricting tackle to one fly rigs would reduce catch
rates on many US tailwater fisheries. If anglers are keen to avoid
direct effort controls, then maybe some trout fisheries should be
limited to no sinking-line, no additional weight rules? Would not be
my first choice but such a restriction would reduce catch rates.


Have you had a chance to read the report from the
Norwegian Fisheries council found at:

http://org.nlh.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

I just did, thank you. In Norway, the coast is an open access fishery,
but most of the valuable salmonid fisheries, migratory and resident,
enjoy some form of direct controlled effort management, typically
through daily fees. Quebec, which also enjoys intense management
regimes of high demand public sport fisheries has been reluctant to
integrate catch and release. But from all accounts many keen anglers
and the younger biologist-managers support catch and release. It is
coming. Many high-value, keen anglers are willing to sacrifice
enormously for the privilege of fishing an undisturbed distribution of
year classes. If the globe-trotting Swedes practice catch and release,
are the Norwegians far behind?

Personally I hope we retain and further develop opportunities to
harvest recreational fish, even if recreational harvesting is by
definition irrational (sic) to the extent that all of us would expend
fewer resources if we bought our fish at the market, and thus open to
the accusation of playing or torturing and harrassing one's prey.


I'm curious if you think applying BPAM with a sound biological 'ethic'
might be the watershed, definitive, overall management strategy
cornerstone.

'Ethic'? Not that strong. Mangement principles and heuristic decision
models--yes. However, I suppose that many will view the issues raised
as largely ethical in nature, for example:

* Should individual resource users confront their own resource costs?

* Should asset owners get a share of the loot from from natural public
assets?

* Should the resource be allocated in preference to high-demand, high
willingness to pay users as we expect from all well functioning markets
to do?

On a different level, there is another challenge. In the face of a
dysfunctional management regime, do managers give up trying to improve
outcomes? Additional tackle restrictions are generally best avoided but
if that is the only tool available, what is one supposed to do?

The message for managers and scientists is that the catch rate matters.

Apologies for the length of this; thanks for the interest. -Erik

--
Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH


uh oh, erik must not have gotten the memo on "convention" and "normal"
posting requirements...g

jeff (lot of scrolling or page down work to get here, eh?)

thank god you caught the most important aspect of the discussion - I thought
I would have to content myself with all that shallow tripe about "heuristic
tools"
sheesh!