North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Summer results July to October Goudge, H., Morris, E.S. & Sharp, R.

Transcription

1 North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Summer results July to October Goudge, H., Morris, E.S. & Sharp, R. CCW Policy Research Report No. 08/31 This is a report of research commissioned by the Countryside Council for Wales. The Council has a programme of research in scientific and other areas, which supports the development of policies and practical work and helps point the way to new countryside legislation. However, the views and recommendations presented in this report are not necessarily those of the Council and should, therefore, not be attributed to the Countryside Council for Wales. No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Countryside Council for Wales.

2 ii

3 Report Number: CCW Policy Research Report No. 08/31 Publication Date: March 2010 Contract Number: Nominated Officers: R Rowland Sharp Title: North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Summer results July to October Authors: Restrictions: H. Goudge, E.S. Morris and R. Sharp. None Distribution list (core): CCW HQ Library, Bangor CCW North Region Library, Mold CCW North Region Library, Bangor CCW S&E Region Library, Cardiff CCW West Region Library, Aberystwyth CCW West Region Library, Pembroke Dock National Assembly of Wales Library National Library of Wales British Library Natural England Library SNH Library Distribution list (others): Clare Eno, CCW Chris Uttley, CCW Kate Smith, CCW Lucy Kay, CCW Mike Camplin, CCW Phil Newman, CCW David Donnan, SNH Audrey Jones, NE Tom Blasdale, JNCC Jo Breen, DOENI Mike Flynn, WFSA Graham Rees, WAG Roger Cook, WFSA Mike Smith, CEFAS Kevin Williamson, M&FA Phil Coates, SWSFC Stephen Atkins, NWNWSFC Julie Fitton, DEFRA Anthony Hynes, DEFRA Mark Lloyd, AT David Rowe, AT Peter Maconnell, BASS Alan Charlton, NFSAS Daniel Burgess, WAG Recommended citation for this report: Goudge, H., Morris, E.S. & Sharp, R North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Summer results July to October CCW Policy Research Report No. 08/31. iii

4 North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Summer results July to October Prepared by: Harry Goudge Prepared For: The Countryside Council for Wales Date of Release: March 2010 Company Details: Website: Marine Ecological Solutions Ltd. 41 High Street Menai Bridge Isle of Anglesey LL59 5EF iv

5 Contents Contents List of Figures List of Tables Crynodeb Gweithredol Executive Summary 1 Rationale 1 2 Project Aim Survey Objectives 2 3 Methods Identification of survey sites Angling activity and behaviour surveys Angler s Catch Recording Angling group classification and data analysis 6 4 Results Popular Summer Angling venues Classifying Anglers by Summer Angler Group Angler and surveyor catch recording periods Angling Effort Changes in Angling Effort Targeted Species Species and numbers of fish caught Immediate Survivorship of Discarded Fish Perceived survivorship of released fish Lost or discarded fishing tackle 25 5 Limitations of the data and data collection methods Developing the angler classification system Classifying and grouping summer anglers using profiling questionnaires Fishing effort in terms of time spent fishing Target species at survey locations and more widely in Wales Catch per unit of effort and size of fish caught Immediate survivorship of discarded fish Lost or discarded fishing tackle Evaluation of Data Collection Methods and Further Considerations 33 6 Acknowledgements 35 7 References 36 8 Appendices 37 v vi vi vii ix v

6 List of Figures Figure 1. North Wales survey regions. 3 Figure 2. Popular angling venues located throughout North Wales. 7 Figure 3. RSA surveys undertaken throughout the summer pilot study. 8 Figure 4. Frequency of recording-period durations undertaken by anglers and surveyors. 13 Figure 5. Composition of recording periods undertaken by anglers and surveyors. 14 Figure 6. Average duration of pleasure, match and boat fishing sessions. 14 Figure 7. Average duration of pleasure fishing sessions for anglers grouped by region and summer angler category. 15 Figure 8. Average pleasure angling hours per season for anglers grouped by summer angler category. 15 Figure 9. Species of fish targeted during April to October by anglers fishing in each region. 18 Figure 10. Species and percent of total fish caught within the three RSA regions. 21 Figure 11. Number of fish caught per hour recorded by anglers and surveyors. 23 Figure 12. Number of fish caught per hour recorded by anglers and surveyors combined. 24 Figure 13. Angler s perception of the survival of released fish (% survival). 25 List of Tables Table 1. Surveys of pleasure and match anglers per RSA region. 7 Table 2. Host organisations for club and open match surveys undertaken in each region. 8 Table 3. Numbers of anglers present at RSA survey venues. 9 Table 4. Average numbers of anglers present during open, club and pleasure angler surveys. 9 Table 5. Winter RSA angler groups compared to summer groups. 10 Table 6. Numbers of anglers classified into summer angler groups. 11 Table 7. How anglers classified themselves compared with how they were classified by the RSA classification rules. 11 Table 8. Percent of anglers who said their angling frequency had recently changed. 16 Table 9. Fish species targeted by 221 anglers, on the day they were questioned. 17 Table 10. Fish species targeted by 222 anglers more generally during summer months. 17 Table 11. Species most targeted by summer angler group during summer. 19 Table 12. Species, numbers of fish caught and percent of total fish caught. 20 Table 13. Species most commonly caught by summer angler groups. 22 Table 14. Numbers of mackerel caught per hour by anglers of the summer angler groups. 23 Table 15. Species and size of fish seen to float on the surface immediately after release. 24 vi

7 Crynodeb Gweithredol Cafodd dulliau a luniwyd yn astudiaeth flaenorol y gaeaf eu hailadrodd a u datblygu n llwyddiannus yn astudiaeth beilot yr haf. Nod y naill astudiaeth a r llall oedd llunio cofnod cywir a systematig o Bysgota Môr Hamdden o r lan tra r oedd y pysgotwyr yn pysgota. Dosbarthwyd y pysgotwyr yn ôl pa mor aml yr oeddent yn pysgota, eu profiad a u proffil pysgota cyffredinol ar sail gwybodaeth a gafwyd mewn holiaduron. Defnyddiwyd y grwpiau o bysgotwyr haf a gafwyd yn sgîl hynny i archwilio a dangos gwahaniaethau o ran y rhywogaethau a oedd yn cael eu targedu, nifer a rhywogaeth y pysgod a ddaliwyd a dalfeydd safonedig am bob uned o ymdrech. Gwelwyd bod y dull hwn wedi gweithio eisoes yn nhymor y gaeaf, ac roedd yn llwyddiannus yn yr astudiaeth hon hefyd yn ystod tymor prysurach yr haf, pan oedd mwy o leoliadau pysgota ar gael, llawer mwy o bysgotwyr yn pysgota, a mwy o bysgod a rhywogaethau n cael eu dal. Cynhaliwyd cyfanswm o 24 arolwg o Bysgota Môr Hamdden mewn 20 lleoliad poblogaidd ar gyfer pysgota yn yr haf yma ac acw mewn tair ardal yng Ngogledd Cymru. Roedd yr ardaloedd yn cynnwys Gogledd-ddwyrain Cymru, Ynys Môn ac Afon Menai, a Phen Llŷn. Cynhaliwyd o leiaf un arolwg mewn cystadleuaeth bysgota ym mhob ardal gan fod cystadlaethau wedi u nodi fel cyfleoedd da i gasglu data am ddalfeydd gan nifer fawr o bysgotwyr tebyg i gyd yn pysgota yr un pryd ac yn yr un lleoliad. Cyfrannodd dros 300 o bysgotwyr ddata i r astudiaeth beilot am y pysgod a ddaliwyd, ac o r rhain, roedd 284 wedi u gosod yn y dosbarthiadau a ganlyn: Prif Gystadlaethau, Cystadlaethau, Gweithredol - Blynyddol, Gweithredol - Tymhorol, Clwb, Achlysurol neu Nofis. Gofynnwyd i r pysgotwyr ddosbarthu eu hunain ar sail disgrifiadau o r grwpiau o bysgotwyr, a chymharwyd y canlyniadau â r rhai a gynhyrchwyd gan reolau dosbarthu Pysgota Môr Hamdden, a gynlluniwyd er mwyn dosbarthu r pysgotwyr yn awtomatig ac yn wrthrychol ar sail meini prawf amrywiol. Roedd llai o gytundeb na r disgwyl rhwng y ddau ddull dosbarthu ar gyfer grwpiau Cystadlaethau, Gweithredol - Blynyddol a Chlwb; un rheswm posibl yw y gallai r geiriau a ddefnyddiwyd i ddisgrifio r grwpiau wrth hunanddosbarthu fod wedi dylanwadu ar y pysgotwyr wrth iddynt ddewis eu grŵp. Ar y diwrnodau yr holwyd y pysgotwyr, mecryll oedd y rhywogaeth oedd yn cael ei thargedu fwyaf, gyda bron i hanner y pysgotwyr yn targedu r rhywogaeth hon; daliwyd 484 o fecryll, sef 39% o r holl bysgod a gofnodwyd yn ystod yr astudiaeth. Fodd bynnag, yn wahanol i r patrwm hwn, draenogiaid y môr oedd y rhywogaeth a oedd yn cael ei thargedu fwyaf yn gyffredinol, gyda bron i ddwy ran o dair o r pysgotwyr yn targedu r rhywogaeth yn ehangach drwy gydol tymor yr haf. Dim ond 3 draenog môr a ddaliwyd ac a gofnodwyd drwy gydol yr arolygon, sef 0.24% yn unig o r holl bysgod a ddaliwyd. Canfuwyd bod mwy o amrywiadau o ran ymdrech i bysgota rhwng pysgota cwch, pysgota cystadlaethau a physgota pleser na rhwng y grwpiau o bysgotwyr haf a rhwng y tair ardal Pysgota Môr Hamdden. Cafwyd canlyniad annisgwyl wrth ystyried nifer y pysgod a ddelid ar gyfer pob uned o ymdrech, gyda r grwpiau lleiaf profiadol yn dangos y cyfartaledd dalfeydd uchaf am bob awr o bysgota. Priodolwyd hyn i r ffaith fod y grwpiau hyn yn targedu mecryll yn bennaf, a oedd yn cael eu dal mewn niferoedd mawr iawn ambell waith, fel y dengys y cyfartaledd o 11 macrell yr awr ar gyfer y grŵp Nofis. Realeiddiwyd cyfyngiadau logistaidd, methodolegol a dadansoddol, llawer ohonynt yn ymwneud â nifer y mecryll a ddaliwyd mewn cyfnod byr. Roedd hyn yn effeithio ar nifer yr arolygwyr yr oedd eu hangen er mwyn cofnodi n gywir a hefyd yn dylanwadu ar gyfartaledd y dalfeydd am bob uned o ymdrech ar gyfer pob grŵp o bysgotwyr a oedd yn targedu mecryll. vii

8 Bydd gwerthusiad a thrafodaeth lawn o ddulliau r arolwg peilot, gan gynnwys casgliadau ac argymhellion pellach yn deillio o arolygon y gaeaf a r haf yn cael eu cyhoeddi ar wahân mewn adroddiad yn dwyn y teitl North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Discussion of the pilot methodologies and recommendations for future surveys. viii

9 Executive Summary The summer pilot study successfully repeated and developed methods created in the previous winter study, both of which aimed to accurately and systematically record Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) shore fishing activity whilst the anglers fished. Anglers were classified by their fishing frequency, experience and general fishing profile based on information obtained from questionnaires. The resulting summer angler groups were used to explore and demonstrate differences in target species, numbers and species of fish caught and standardised catch per unit of effort. This approach was previously shown to work during a winter season, and in this study also proved successful during a busier summer season, where a larger number of fishing venues were accessible, considerably more anglers were fishing, and a greater number of fish and species were caught. In total 24 RSA surveys were undertaken at 20 popular summer fishing venues spread throughout three regions of North Wales. The regions included North East Wales, Anglesey and the Menai Strait, and the Llŷn Peninsula. At least one competitive match survey was undertaken within each region as matches were identified as good opportunities to collect catch-data from large numbers of similar anglers all fishing simultaneously and at the same location. Over 300 anglers contributed catch data to the pilot study and of these 284 were classified as either: Top Match, Match, Active Annual, Active Seasonal, Club, Casual or Novice. Anglers were asked to self-classify based on descriptions of the angler groups, and the results were compared to those produced by the RSA classification rules, which were designed to automatically and objectively classify the anglers based on various criteria. Agreement between the two classification methods for the Match, Active Annual and Club groups was lower than expected; a possible reason was the wording used to describe the groups during self classification might have influenced the angler s choice of group. On the day anglers were questioned mackerel was the most targeted species with nearly half the anglers targeting this species; 484 mackerel were caught which comprised 39% of all fish recorded during the study. However contrary to this pattern, bass was the most targeted species overall, with nearly two thirds of anglers targeting the species more widely throughout the summer season. Only 3 bass were caught and recorded throughout the surveys representing only 0.24% of all fish caught. Angling effort was found to vary more between boat, match and pleasure fishing than either between the summer angler groups or the three RSA regions. Catch per unit of effort provided an unexpected result with the least experienced groups demonstrating the highest average catch per hour of fishing. This was attributed to these groups primarily targeting mackerel which on occasion were caught in very large numbers, demonstrated by an average of 11 mackerel per hour for the Novice group. Logistical, methodological and analytical limitations were realised, several of which related to the numbers of mackerel that were caught in a short period of time. This affected the number of surveyors required to accurately record and also biased the average catch per unit of effort for all angler groups who targeted mackerel. A full evaluation and discussion of the pilot survey methods including conclusions and further recommendations drawn from the winter and summer surveys will be published separately in a report entitled North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Discussion of the pilot methodologies and recommendations for future surveys. ix

10 1 Rationale The rationale remains unchanged since the winter results report produced in May 2009, entitled North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Winter results December 2007 to March 2008 (referred to throughout this report as the winter report ). The following section is therefore extracted from the winter report. Ecological impacts of commercial fisheries on both target and non target fish populations and their habitats have been extensively studied and are well documented throughout the fisheries literature. Comparatively little research has been undertaken on the impacts of Recreational Sea Anglers (RSA) (Richardson E. A. et al. 2006) and this lack in research is probably due to the fact that very little data is available on recreational catches compared to the relative ease of access to commercial fish landings data. It is now becoming widely accepted within the scientific literature that whilst commercial overfishing has contributed to declines in stock abundance, anglers have also accounted for a significant proportion of total landings of certain fish species in some areas (Coleman F.C. et al. 2004; Dunn M. et al. 1989; Richardson E. A. et al. 2006). Although several reports including (Drew Associates Ltd. 2004) and (Nautilus Consultants Ltd.& EKOS Economic Consultants Ltd. 2000) attempted to assess the socio-economic costs and benefits of RSA in England and Wales, very few studies have focused on the fishing activities or catches from the recreational sea angling industry. During the current pilot no published studies from the UK were identified that collected first hand catch data from shore based sea anglers whilst they were fishing using any set scientific method. Although no UK RSA surveys were identified the Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories undertook both catch and effort surveys of recreational shore anglers during a 12 month period in (Williamson P.C. et al. 2006). The recreational anglers catch of fin fish was estimated at 383 tonnes, approximately one sixth of the commercial catch for the same area during 2000 (Williamson P.C. et al. 2006). However this was probably an underestimate of the total recreational catch as it excluded catch from charter boats and also from shore anglers between the hours of 6pm and 9am (Williamson P.C. et al. 2006). Declines and changes in recent recreational catches reported anecdotally by sea anglers have highlighted a greater need for systematic accurate catch information to be collected, analysed and reported from the RSA fishery in Europe. Previously these anecdotal reports of changes in fish catches filtered through to managers by irregular records from shore based sea angling club matches; charter boat matches; charter boat daily catch records; and from anecdotal reports by sea angling organisations and individuals (WAG 2007). No coordinated data collection has been previously attempted directly from the sea anglers whilst they fish. Consultation documents published by the Welsh Assembly Government (Wales Fisheries Strategy) and Defra (Consultation on a Recreational Sea Angling Strategy for England) in 2007 both suggested that lack of data is a serious challenge facing the effective management and accurate assessments of recreational fisheries in Wales and England (DEFRA 2007; WAG 2007). Both documents also referred to the need for increasing our knowledge of environmental interactions with fisheries (WAG 2007) and more specifically the need to gather accurate scientific data on RSA fisheries and their catches (DEFRA 2007). Further RSA legislative reporting requirements are detailed in the separate report: North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Discussion of the pilot methodologies and recommendations for future surveys. 1

11 The present pilot study attempts to challenge sampling difficulties and trial methods for collecting RSA activity and catch data from a variety of sea anglers active in North Wales. Once data collection methods are tested, refined and implemented on a regular basis, RSA data could provide baseline information which could be used to investigate reported changes in RSA catch and or activity. 2 Project Aim To repeat during a summer period, the North Wales RSA pilot study undertaken in Winter 2007/08, which: gathered accurate information on recreational angling activity; collated anecdotal evidence of change and assessed methods of gathering catch data from anglers. 2.1 Survey Objectives To fulfil the aim of the project the brief was split into more manageable specific objectives, listed here in order of process rather than by priority or importance: 1. Continue developing and improving the angler classification system, created during the previous winter pilot study for grouping anglers by fishing behaviour and activity, using profiling questionnaires; 2. Classify summer anglers using the newly developed summer angler classification system; 3. Estimate fishing effort in terms of time spent fishing for the angler group; 4. Identify target species both at survey locations and more widely in Wales; 5. Estimate numbers, species and size (length) of fish caught for the angler groups; 6. Quantify catches per unit of effort for the angler groups; 7. Estimate numbers and immediate survivorship of discarded fish; 8. Observe lost or discarded fishing tackle; 2

12 3 Methods The methods used during this summer pilot study were based on those developed for the winter pilot undertaken in 2007/08, described in the separate report North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Winter results December 2007 to March Targeted questionnaires and direct observation methods were used to collect catch data and behavioural information from and about anglers, whilst they were fishing, at angling venues throughout North Wales. 3.1 Identification of survey sites Summer angling venues were identified by a combination of discussions with anglers and bait shop owners during the winter pilot study; searching through angling internet forums; and also from the author s experience. Preliminary site information was collated about each site as follows: the type of angling site i.e. whether it was a sandy or rocky mark; the popularity of sites; the time and state of the tide that provides the best fishing at the sites. The popularity of sites and best state of tide were investigated to ensure times and sites were chosen when anglers were likely to be fishing and that sites were popular enough to give the best chance of seeing anglers, therefore obtaining catch data with the limited survey effort available. Figure 1. North Wales showing the three survey regions as divided for the purposes of the pilot study. Region 1 North East Wales shown in purple; Region 2 Anglesey and the Menai Strait shown in green; and Region 3 Llŷn Peninsular shown in blue. During the winter pilot study the North Wales coastline was divided into 3 regions, shown in figure 1. The same regions were used for the summer pilot and were defined as: 1. North East Wales, from Talacre to Penmaenmawr; 2. Anglesey, including both sides of the Menai Strait; 3. The Llŷn Peninsular, from Abermenai Point to Porthmadog. 3

13 A summer survey plan was developed that incorporated all of the following: Approximately the same number of surveys per region surveys of angling venues spread evenly throughout each region at least one repeat survey of an all-year popular venue per region a minimum of two all-year popular venues per region one angling club-organised angling match per region at least one angling federation-organised open match a minimum total of six surveys per region surveys planned during both weekends and weekdays surveys planned during both evenings and daytime and alternative survey locations in case conditions were not favourable for fishing. Depending on the nature and specifics of the planned survey, between one and six surveyors were used to undertake the surveys. All surveyors were trained in the survey technique beforehand and given a site specific briefing before the start of every survey. Maps were produced showing the exact location of the angling venue, any access points and dangers, directions to the site and also car parking areas. Prior to or at the beginning of each survey the following information was recorded: state of the tide number of anglers present weather conditions general site description and relevant notes. 3.2 Angling activity and behaviour surveys The summer questionnaire (appendix 1) a modified version of the winter questionnaire, aimed to fulfil objective two of the summer study, to collect enough relevant information from anglers to allow them to be accurately and consistently classified into one of the RSA summer angler groups. The summer questionnaire was modified based upon comments from anglers and surveyors during the winter surveys. Questions were re-worded to reduce ambiguity of answers and several questions relating to fishing effort and targeted species were divided by angling season i.e. summer being April to October and winter being November to March. Additionally anglers were asked to classify their own angling activity using the RSA summer groups. Descriptions of the summer groups (appendix 2) were shown to each angler before they were asked to choose the one that best described their angling frequency and broad skill level. The descriptions aimed to ensure the anglers used consistent descriptions for placing themselves into one of the angler groups. The summer questionnaire was divided into the following sections: Experience level and angling frequency: Questions captured information about the angler s sea fishing history such as: club membership; if they competed in club or open matches, and if so how many; where the angler travelled from and why they have travelled that distance; approximately how many times they fish between April to October (summer) and November to March (winter); and whether the frequency of fishing has changed recently, and if so, any reason for the change. 4

14 Angling effort: The locations the angler regularly fishes from and how long the angler fishes for during an average session when fishing for pleasure, match fishing and also boat fishing. Catch statistics: Questioning whether the angler operates catch and release fishing; approximately how many fish per year they would keep; reasons the angler might release the fish; whether the angler is using a specific technique or equipment to catch a particular species; identifying target species both on the day and also more generally during April to October (summer) and November to March (winter); whether the angler targets cod, and if so how often; and how many cod were caught/kept during recent years (2006 and 2007). The final question in this section asked the angler what percentage of fish caught and then released, the angler thought would survive after release. Other comments. An open question which allowed the surveyor to record additional comments regarding the questions asked in the survey and also any general comments and observations the angler might have on fishing activity and species trends or changes during recent years. Unique Angler ID. Each angler questioned was assigned a unique angler ID which was used to link all related catch records with the questionnaire from each angler. Anglers present during a survey were first questioned and then given recording forms and/or observed by a surveyor. When large numbers of anglers were present at a site, the number of anglers to be questioned was agreed, ensuring the surveyors could divide their time equally between questioning anglers and observing the angler s catch. 3.3 Angler s Catch Recording To accurately estimate and validate anglers fishing effort; catch; loss of fishing tackle; and survivorship of released fish, i.e. objectives three to eight, trained surveyors were required to be present at the time and place of fishing, and for the surveyors to observe fish being caught as well as the general angling activity. However to maximise the number of catch records obtained with the limited survey effort available the anglers were also asked to record their own catch separately. Recording of catch and angling effort were undertaken in three ways using different recording forms (example forms are in the Appendices as shown below): Surveyor recording form (appendix 3): Angler s catch and effort was observed and recorded by a trained surveyor usually following completion of a profiling questionnaire. Surveyors recorded the following information: Start and end time of each observation period; time each fish was caught; species and size of fish caught; bait used when a fish was caught; whether fish were kept or returned, and once returned whether they floated to the surface (assumed mortally injured). Catch and fishing behaviour were observed and recorded for a minimum of 40 minutes per angler and each angler s unique ID was noted to ensure that the angler and his/her catch was linked to the correct profiling questionnaire. Angler recording form (appendix 4): Upon completing a profiling questionnaire anglers were asked to record catch and effort on a recording form, pre-labelled with their unique ID which was duplicated on their profiling questionnaire. The anglers were briefed on what information was required and it was specified that both undersize and in-size fish should be recorded on the form. The following information was requested both on the forma and during the briefing: Start and end time of recording period; time each fish was caught; species and size of fish caught and whether fish were kept or returned. 5

15 Catch-and-release match-cards (appendix 5): Catch records from angling matches where fish were released after being measured, identified and signed off by a second angler (i.e. witnessed). Match cards were collected after matches coinciding with surveys. In some cases where anglers did not complete questionnaires, the angler was asked to anonymously complete an angler recording form to ensure as much catch data as possible was obtained during the surveys. At the end of each survey all the angler recording forms were collected by a surveyor. In some cases where an angler was expected to fish well beyond the duration of the survey, the angler was presented a stamped addressed envelope and asked to return their completed forms by post. On occasion the two recording types were undertaken simultaneously i.e. both angler and surveyor recording catch on their separate forms at the same time. However it must be noted that the priority was to collect as many catch records as possible and to achieve this aim, surveyors focussed on recording catch for anglers who did not wish to complete angler recording forms. Therefore the number of anglers who were observed by a surveyor and also completed an angler recording form during the same angling session was limited. 3.4 Angling group classification and data analysis Angling group classification: Answers to the profiling questionnaires were sorted by the angler group that each angler thought best described his/her fishing activity (self-classification), and similarities in answers within each group were noted. Using SIMPER Analysis, part of the PRIMER 5 software package, questions from the questionnaire were identified that contributed the greatest, to the average similarity between anglers who chose the same summer angler group during self-classification (appendix 6). Using these questions and also ranges of answers noted for each angler group, a set of rules was created (appendix 7) to classify anglers based on similarities in their answers to key questions. Rules included values ranges for each question and each angler group, for example any angler who had been fishing for one year or less was considered a novice angler. Questions were combined to make classification rules such as: any angler who has been fishing for three or fewer years and fishes less than 12 times per year is considered a novice angler. Analysis. All data was collated in a Microsoft Access database, and analysed using a series of queries. Data from anglers within each summer angler group was analysed using basic statistics and represented visually in maps and graphs. Catch data was analysed to investigate variability in catch and angling behaviour depending on angling group and location. Broad extrapolations or use of averages of angler s catch should be avoided due to the high variability in the data and any resulting misuse of such averages. 6

16 4 Results The summer Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) pilot study repeated methods developed during the winter pilot. Data presented in this section, in most cases, can be compared to the winter data; however it should be noted that the summer angler groups were modified from those used in the winter study. This is covered later in section Popular Summer Angling venues Each region contained several angling venues considered popular throughout the year as well as less popular marks that are regularly fished during summer months (figure 2). Figure 2. Popular angling venues located throughout North Wales with green circles ( ) representing venues considered popular throughout the year, and red circles ( ) less popular sites but regularly fished during summer months. Further details of angling venues identified during the RSA pilot studies are in appendix 8. Table 1. Number of surveys targeting pleasure and match anglers undertaken per RSA region. Further details of each RSA survey including sites, dates and survey times are in appendix 9. Pleasure angling Match angling Region Total surveys surveys surveys Total In total 24 RSA surveys were conducted by staff at Marine Ecological Solutions between 23 rd July and 18 th October Surveys were undertaken with approximately equal numbers in each of the three RSA regions, targeting both pleasure and match anglers (table 1). During surveys of angling matches, when present, both pleasure and match anglers were surveyed, although the focus was often on the match anglers. Both open matches surveyed during the summer pilot were organised in region two around Anglesey, which resulted in this region having a slightly greater number of surveys with ten 7

17 surveys compared to seven in each of region one and three (table 1). Surveys ranged in duration from two to four and a half hours and were generally undertaken during early evenings on Saturdays and Sundays with the occasional early afternoon and/or midweek survey to target holidaying anglers or those not working during the day. Further details of surveys including dates, locations, times, durations and numbers of anglers present are in table 1 and 2 of appendix 9). Table 2. Host organisations for club and open match surveys undertaken in each RSA region. Further details of each match survey including sites, dates and times are in appendix 9. Region Match Organiser Match Type 1 Colwyn Bay Victoria Sea Angling Club (CBVSAC) Club 1 North West Association of Sea Angler Clubs (NWASAC) Club 2 Welsh Federation of Sea Anglers Open (WFSA) Open 2 Holyhead and District Sea Angling Club (HDSAC) Club 2 Holyhead and District Sea Angling Club (HDSAC) Open 3 Three Herrings Sea Angling Club Match (THSAC) Club Within each region one angling club was selected, match dates researched, and a survey of a club match was carried out (table 2). In order to collect catch data from the more competitive match angler group, two open matches were also surveyed. During a planned pleasure angler survey in region one, an additional match was encountered, organised by the North West Association of Sea Angler Clubs (NWASAC). This unplanned match took the total number of match surveys to six matches as is shown in table 2. Also shown in table 2 is the organisers of each match and the region the matches took place. Within each RSA region at least 1 popular angling venue was surveyed on more than one occasion to investigate variations in angler numbers at the same location. Figure 3 shows the locations of angling venues that were surveyed on one, two or three occasions. Figure 3. RSA surveys ( ) undertaken throughout the summer pilot study. The size of the green circles indicates the number of surveys undertaken at each angling venue. 8

18 Table 3. Numbers of anglers present at RSA survey venues during repeat surveys between 23/07/08 and 18/10/08. Site Name Llandudno North Shore Mackerel Rock Holyhead Breakwater Pwllheli South Beach Region Match Survey First survey Second survey Third survey Day Anglers Present Match Survey Day Anglers Present 1 No Wed 23 No Sat 27 2 No Sat 18 No Wed 7 Match Survey Day Anglers Present 2 Yes Sat 47 Yes Sun 78 No Sat 24 3 Yes Sun 12 No Sun 13 Table 3 shows how many anglers were present on repeat surveys, as well as the day repeat surveys were undertaken, and if these were surveys of match or pleasure anglers. As repeat surveys were not undertaken at the same time of day and rarely on the same day, comparisons in angler numbers would not be valid and would require far greater replication to provide any meaningful patterns or averages. However it was noted that generally angler numbers were higher during open match surveys, followed by club matches and then pleasure angling surveys. Table 4. Average (+/- standard error) numbers of anglers present during open, club and pleasure angler surveys between 23/07/08 and 18/10/08. Survey Type Number of surveys Average number of anglers present +/- Standard Error Open match surveys Club match surveys Pleasure angler surveys This pattern is evident in table 4 showing the average number of anglers present at open, club and pleasure angler surveys. The large standard error reflects the low replication for open match surveys (further details of the numbers of anglers present during surveys are in appendix 9). 4.2 Classifying Anglers by Summer Angler Group Prior to classifying anglers in the summer pilot study, Simper analysis was used to help identify questions from the questionnaire that contributed the greatest to similarities between anglers who chose the different angler groups during self-classification (appendix 6). The following three questions were identified as contributing the most to the similarities between anglers from each of the groups, so these were used as the key questions to create the RSA summer classification rules detailed in appendix 7: Qu 6: How many times do you go sea angling between April-October & November- March? Qu 1: How many years have you been actively sea angling? Qu 10: During an average angling session approximately how long would you fish for when pleasure fishing? 9

19 Table 5. Winter RSA angler groups compared to summer angler groups showing changes in the group names and descriptions. Winter Angler Groups Specimen: Experienced anglers who target particular species of fish, often fishing in remote locations and not generally competing in club or open matches. Summer Angler Groups Specimen: Very experienced anglers who target particular species and sizes of fish. Match: Experienced anglers who fish in highly competitive matches often with prize money. Day: Anglers who regularly fish for longer periods than a tidal cycle and often fish for entire days. This group was removed during the summer study. Club: Anglers who generally only fish with a club and if competing in any matches will compete in club matches rather than open matches. Casual: Anglers with some experience who do not compete in club or open matches who generally fish infrequently, sometimes described as fair weather anglers. Novice: New anglers or generally less experienced than the casual anglers. Match: Experienced anglers who fish in competitive matches often with prize money. Active Annual (Regular * ): Fish regularly throughout the year and have done so for many years. Experienced in techniques to catch different species and might compete in occasional matches. Active Seasonal (Seasonal ): Regularly fish throughout the season i.e. April to October or November to March. Experienced in techniques to catch different species and might compete in occasional matches. Club: Anglers who usually fish with a club and compete in club matches more often than open matches. Casual: Anglers with some experience who do not compete in matches who generally fish infrequently such as during a holiday. Novice: New anglers or generally less experienced than the casual anglers. * The Active Annual group was initially called Regular but was renamed during analysis because it was thought different angler s interpretations of the word regular led to a range of anglers, in terms of fishing experience, choosing this group during self-classification. The Active Seasonal group was initially called Seasonal however it was changed during analysis as it was thought that the title conveyed negative connotations when compared to the Regular / Active Annual group, which might have prevented anglers from choosing this group during self-classification. The summer angler groups, used in this study, were modified from those created prior to the winter pilot study. The differences between the winter and summer angler groups are shown in table 5. In summary the Day angler group was removed, the Active Annual and Active Seasonal groups were added, and the definitions of all the groups were refined. The specific definitions for each summer angler group including the value ranges used to create the RSA classification rules are shown in appendix 7. Of the 303 anglers who contributed data to the summer pilot study, 284 were classified by summer angler group using the following information: Profiling questionnaire answers, RSA classification rules (appendix 7), Personal judgement of the WFSA shore-match organiser and CCW Fisheries Liaison Officer, and Match details. The remaining 19 anglers were not classified and their data excluded from all further analyses. The numbers of anglers classified by each data source and within each of the summer angler groups are shown in table 6 with further details in appendix 7. 10

20 Table 6. Numbers of anglers classified into summer angler groups using the different information sources. Summer Angler Group Anglers classified by questionnaires (rules) Anglers classified by questionnaires (best fit) Anglers classified by other sources Total classified 15* - WFSA shore-match Top Match 0 0 organiser & CCW Fisheries 15 Liaison Officer opinion Match fishing in OPEN matches 43 Active Annual Active Seasonal Club fishing in CLUB matches 73 Casual Novice Unknown unclassified 19 Total * Of the 15 Match anglers classified as Top Match anglers 8 completed questionnaires, 7 did not. 38 anglers who completed questionnaires were originally classified as Match anglers, 8 of these were later changed to the Top Match group leaving a total of 30 match anglers. Table 6 shows of the 284 anglers placed into a summer angler group, 212 were classified using answers to questionnaires and the angler classification rules (appendix 7); a further eight anglers were classified using questionnaire answers and best-fit to place them into an angler group; 15 Match anglers were reclassified as Top Match anglers based on the opinion of the WFSA shorematch organiser and CCW Sea Fisheries Liaison Officer; 13 anglers were classified as Match anglers because when observed they were fishing in competitive open matches and no other information was collected about them; and 36 anglers were classified as Club anglers as they were fishing in club matches when observed, and again no other information was collected about them. Further details of how the anglers were classified by summer angler group are in appendix 7. Table 7. Comparison of angler self-classification and summer RSA classification. Numbers in bold show classifications with the same result from both methods. Angler Selfclassification Total Anglers (Selfclassification) Match Active Annual Summer RSA Classification Active Seasonal Club Casual Novice % of selfclassified same as RSA Rules Specimen Match Active Annual Active Seasonal Casual Novice Total Anglers (RSA Rules) % or RSA Rules that gave the same result as angler self-classification As part of the questionnaire the anglers were given a short description of the summer angler groups (appendix 2) and asked which group they considered best described their fishing activity. Note the Top Match and Club groups were not included in the descriptions read out to the anglers. Anglers from the Top Match group were picked out from a list, as the best match anglers in Wales, by the WFSA shore match organiser and the CCW Sea Fisheries Liaison Officer. The Club angler group was initially removed from the summer angler groups and therefore was excluded at the time questionnaires were undertaken. During analysis of the questionnaire data it 11

21 became apparent that the Club group was necessary and should be included, so the group was reinstated. The self-classification allowed a comparison between the groups the anglers placed themselves into and the groups they were assigned with the classification rules. During questioning 19 anglers chose the Specimen angler group as the best fit to describe their fishing activity (table 7). Upon examination of their questionnaire answers it was not possible to create rules that adequately separated these anglers out from the other summer angler groups. Further information will need to be gathered about anglers suspected of being Specimen anglers, as the questionnaires alone did not obtain sufficient information. As a result the specimen group was not included in this pilot, and will need to be identified in future studies. 60 anglers chose the Match group to describe their fishing activity, and of these 32 (53%) were also placed into this group by the RSA classification rules (table 7). The remaining 6 anglers placed into this group either thought of themselves as Specimen (1) or Active Annual (5) as is shown in table 7. In total 38 anglers were placed into the Match group by the classification rules which represented 16.7% of the 228 anglers who completed a questionnaire. 64 anglers chose the Active Annual group and of these 16 (25%) were classified as such by the RSA rules (table 7). The remaining 12 anglers considered themselves to be either Specimen (2) anglers, Match (7), Active Seasonal (1) or Casual (2) anglers. 28 anglers were classified as Active Annual anglers which accounted for 12.2% of anglers who completed a questionnaire. 10 anglers described themselves as Active Seasonal anglers during questioning, and of these 7 (70%) were also classified as such by the RSA rules (table 7). The remaining 29 anglers who were classified as Active Seasonal anglers by the RSA rules thought of themselves as either Specimen anglers (6), Match (2), Active Annual (15), Casual (5) or Novice anglers (1). In total 36 summer anglers were classified into the Active Seasonal group by the classification rules which represented 15.8% of all anglers who completed a questionnaire. The Club angler group description was not shown to anglers during questioning because this group, at the time questionnaires were undertaken, had been excluded from the list of summer anglers groups. However the anglers classified as Club anglers by the RSA rules, thought of themselves as Specimen anglers (5), Match (18), Active Annual (13) or Novice anglers (1). In total 37 anglers were classified as Club anglers by the RSA rules which accounted for 16.2% of anglers who completed a questionnaire. 55 anglers considered themselves to be Casual anglers and of these 40 (73%) were placed into this group by the classification rules (table 7). The remaining 20 anglers making up this group self-classified as Specimen (5), Active Annual (10), Active Seasonal (2) or Novice anglers (3). In total 60 anglers were placed into the Casual group by the RSA rules, representing 26.3% of all anglers who completed a questionnaire. 20 anglers chose the Novice group as the best fit to describe their angling activity and of these 15 (75%) were placed into this group by the RSA rules (table 7). The remaining 14 anglers classified as Novice anglers by the RSA rules, thought of themselves as Match anglers (1), Active Annual (5), or Casual anglers (8). In total 29 anglers were classified as Novice anglers by the RSA rules representing 12.7% of all anglers who completed a questionnaire. 12

22 4.3 Angler and surveyor catch recording periods During the summer pilot study anglers and surveyors separately recorded angler s catch for periods of time varying from 35 minutes to 7 hours, for angler recorded periods, and between 9 minutes and 4 hours for surveyor recorded periods (figure 4). The majority of surveyor recording periods ranged from 30 to 100 minutes (figure 4), whilst angler recording periods varied considerably between 35 minutes and 270 minutes which is shown by the greater spread along the X axis in figure 4. In figure 4, the angler-recording outlier (69 recording periods of 240 minutes) was a result of angler recording periods undertaken at matches all lasting 4 hours match records (240 minutes) Angler Recording Surveyor Recording Frequency Recording periods (minutes) Figure 4. Frequency of recording-period durations (minutes) undertaken by anglers and surveyors. Tabulated values in appendix 10. A total of 369 recording periods (angler and surveyor combined) were undertaken during the summer pilot study which totalled 821 hours of recording. When periods of time recorded simultaneously by both surveyors and anglers were removed the total recording time was 638 hours. Although the survey effort was distributed approximately evenly throughout the RSA regions (table 1), the majority of the data was collected in region 2 with a total of 219 recording periods (402 hours) compared to 94 (109 hours) in region 1 and 56 (127 hours) in region 3 (figure 5). 13

23 Region 2 (n=219) Region 3 (n=56) Region 1 (n=94) 14 Top Match Match Active Annual Active Seasonal Club Casual Novice 8 Figure 5. Recording periods undertaken by anglers and surveyors and grouped by region and summer angler category. Numbers of recording periods are shown inside each pie and region totals are represented by n=. Tabulated values are shown in appendix Angling Effort As with the winter pilot study angling effort was estimated for each angler based on answers to the profiling questionnaires. Question 10 asked during an average fishing session how long the angler would fish for when pleasure, match and boat fishing. Figure 6 shows the average fishing duration for each of these fishing types varied with boat angling sessions on average the longest durations at 7.4 ( +/ Standard Error (SE)) hours; followed by pleasure angling (5.5 +/ SE hours) and match fishing sessions were the shortest at 4.3 ( +/ SE) hours in duration. Figure 6 also shows the average fishing durations did not vary greatly between the summer angler groups with the slight exception of the pleasure anglers within the active annual (6.7 +/ hours) and active seasonal (7.2 +/ hours) groups who both had slightly greater average durations than the other pleasure angler groups (ranging from 4.6 +/ to 5.2 +/ hours). 10 Pleasure fishing Match fishing Boat fishing Hours per fishing session Top Match Match Active Annual Active Seasonal Club Casual Novice Figure 6. Average (+/- standard error) duration of pleasure, match and boat fishing sessions for anglers grouped by summer angler category. The number of anglers who answered this section of the questionnaire from each category is shown below each bar. Data was collected during 228 questionnaire surveys between 23/07/08 and 18/10/08. Raw data and tabulated averages are in appendices