Investigating bias in recreational fishing surveys: Fishers listed in public telephone directories fish similarly to their unlisted counterparts

Several recent offsite recreational fishing surveys have used public landline telephone directories as a sampling frame. Sampling biases inherent in this method are recognised, but are assumed to be corrected through demographic data expansion. However, the rising prevalence of mobile-only households has potentially increased these biases by skewing raw samples towards households that maintain relatively high levels of coverage in telephone directories. For biases to be corrected through demographic expansion, both the fishing participation rate and fishing activity must be similar among listed and unlisted fishers within each demographic group. In this study, we tested for a difference in the fishing activity of listed and unlisted fishers within demographic groups by comparing their avidity (number of fishing trips per year), as well as the platform used (boat or shore) and species targeted on their most recent fishing trip. 3062 recreational fishers were interviewed at 34 tackle stores across 12 residential regions of Queensland, Australia. For each fisher, data collected included their fishing avidity, the platform used and species targeted on their most recent trip, their gender, age, residential region, and whether their household had a listed telephone number. Although the most avid fishers were younger and less likely to have a listed phone number, cumulative link models revealed that avidity was not affected by an interaction of phone listing status, age group and residential region (p > 0.05). Likewise, binomial generalized linear models revealed that there was no interaction between phone listing, age group and avidity acting on platform (p > 0.05), and platform was not affected by an interaction of phone listing status, age group, and residential region (p > 0.05). Ordination of target species using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity indices found a significant but irrelevant difference (i.e. small effect size) between listed and unlisted fishers (ANOSIM R < 0.05, p < 0.05). These results suggest that, at this time, the fishing activity of listed and unlisted fishers in Queensland is similar within demographic groups. Future research seeking to validate the assumptions of recreational fishing telephone surveys should investigate fishing participation rates of listed and unlisted fishers within demographic groups.

Nineteenth century narratives reveal historic catch rates for Australian snapper (Pagrus auratus)

Snapper (Pagrus auratus) is widely distributed throughout subtropical and temperate southern oceans and forms a significant recreational and commercial fishery in Queensland, Australia. Using data from government reports, media sources, popular publications and a government fisheries survey carried out in 1910, we compiled information on individual snapper fishing trips that took place prior to the commencement of fisherywide organized data collection, from 1871 to 1939. In addition to extracting all available quantitative data, we translated qualitative information into bounded estimates and used multiple imputation to handle missing values, forming 287 records for which catch rate (snapper fisher−1 h−1) could be derived. Uncertainty was handled through a parametric maximum likelihood framework (a transformed trivariate Gaussian), which facilitated statistical comparisons between data sources. No statistically significant differences in catch rates were found among media sources and the government fisheries survey. Catch rates remained stable throughout the time series, averaging 3.75 snapper fisher−1 h−1 (95% confidence interval, 3.42–4.09) as the fishery expanded into new grounds. In comparison, a contemporary (1993–2002) south-east Queensland charter fishery produced an average catch rate of 0.4 snapper fisher−1 h−1 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.58). These data illustrate the productivity of a fishery during its earliest years of development and represent the earliest catch rate data globally for this species. By adopting a formalized approach to address issues common to many historical records – missing data, a lack of quantitative information and reporting bias – our analysis demonstrates the potential for historical narratives to contribute to contemporary fisheries management.

Assessment of a data-limited, multi-species shark fishery in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and south-east Queensland

The status of five species of commercially exploited sharks within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) and south-east Queensland was assessed using a data-limited approach. Annual harvest rate, U, estimated empirically from tagging between 2011 and 2013, was compared with an analytically-derived proxy for optimal equilibrium harvest rate, UMSY Lim. Median estimates of U for three principal retained species, Australian blacktip shark, Carcharhinus tilstoni, spot-tail shark, Carcharhinus sorrah, and spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna, were 0.10, 0.06 and 0.07 year-1, respectively. Median U for two retained, non-target species, pigeye shark, Carcharhinus amboinensis and Australian sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon taylori, were 0.27 and 0.01 year-1, respectively. For all species except the Australian blacktip the median ratio of U/UMSY Lim was <1. The high vulnerability of this species to fishing combined with life history characteristics meant UMSY Lim was low (0.04-0.07 year-1) and that U/UMSY Lim was likely to be > 1. Harvest of the Australian blacktip shark above UMSY could place this species at a greater risk of localised depletion in parts of the GBRMP. Results of the study indicated that much higher catches, and presumably higher U, during the early 2000s were likely unsustainable. The unexpectedly high level of U on the pigeye shark indicated that output-based management controls may not have been effective in reducing harvest levels on all species, particularly those caught incidentally by other fishing sectors including the recreational sector. © 2016 Elsevier B.V.