• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Review

The physiological consequences of catch-and-release angling: perspectives on experimental design, interpretation, extrapolation and relevance to stakeholders

  1. S. J. Cooke1,*,
  2. M. R. Donaldson2,
  3. C. M. O'connor3,
  4. G. D. Raby1,
  5. R. Arlinghaus4,
  6. A. J. Danylchuk5,
  7. K. C. Hanson6,
  8. S. G. Hinch2,
  9. T. D. Clark7,
  10. D. A. Patterson8,
  11. C. D. Suski9

Article first published online: 25 OCT 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2012.00867.x

Issue

Fisheries Management and Ecology

Fisheries Management and Ecology

Volume 20, Issue 2-3, pages 268–287, April 2013

Additional Information

How to Cite

Cooke, S. J., Donaldson, M. R., O'connor, C. M., Raby, G. D., Arlinghaus, R., Danylchuk, A. J., Hanson, K. C., Hinch, S. G., Clark, T. D., Patterson, D. A. and Suski, C. D. (2013), The physiological consequences of catch-and-release angling: perspectives on experimental design, interpretation, extrapolation and relevance to stakeholders. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 20: 268–287. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2012.00867.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  2. 2

    Center for Applied Conservation Research, Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

  3. 3

    Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

  4. 4

    Inland Fisheries Management Laboratory, Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Humboldt-Universität zu, Berlin, Germany

  5. 5

    Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

  6. 6

    United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Abernathy Technology Center, Longview, WA, USA

  7. 7

    Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville MC, Qld, Australia

  8. 8

    Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Cooperative Resource Management Institute, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

  9. 9

    Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana, Urbana, IL, USA

*Correspondence: Steven J. Cooke, Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada (e-mail: Steven_Cooke@carleton.ca)

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 11 MAR 2013
  2. Article first published online: 25 OCT 2012

Funded by

  • Canada Research Chairs Program. Grant Number: MAS00987
  • NSERC
  • Environmental Watch Program of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • project Besatzfisch. Grant Number: 01UU0907
  • Federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). Grant Numbers: MAS00987, 01UU0907
  • Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
  • NSERC graduate scholarships
  • Eastburn Fellowship from McMaster University
  • National Institute of Food & Agriculture
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station
  • Department of Environmental Conservation. Grant Numbers: MAS00987, 01UU0907

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (303K)

Keywords:

  • bycatch;
  • conservation physiology;
  • discards;
  • recreational fisheries;
  • stress

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of physiological tools and experimental approaches for the study of the biological consequences of catch-and-release angling practices for fishes. Beyond simply documenting problems, physiological data are also being used to test and refine different strategies for handling fish such that stress is minimised and survival probability maximised, and in some cases, even for assessing and facilitating recovery post-release. The inherent sensitivity of physiological processes means that nearly every study conducted has found some level of – unavoidable – physiological disturbance arising from recreational capture and subsequent release. An underlying tenet of catch-and-release studies that incorporate physiological tools is that a link exists between physiological status and fitness. In reality, finding such relationships has been elusive, with further extensions of individual-level impacts to fish populations even more dubious. A focus of this article is to describe some of the challenges related to experimental design and interpretation that arise when using physiological tools for the study of the biological consequences of catch-and-release angling. Means of overcoming these challenges and the extrapolation of physiological data from individuals to the population level are discussed. The argument is presented that even if it is difficult to demonstrate strong links to mortality or other fitness measures, let alone population-level impacts of catch-and-release, there remains merit in using physiological tools as objective indicators of fish welfare, which is an increasing concern in recreational fisheries. The overarching objective of this paper is to provide a balanced critique of the use of physiological approaches in catch-and-release science and of their role in providing meaningful information for anglers and managers.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (303K)