Social, economic and ecological objectives of inland commercial and recreational fisheries

Paradigm shifts in fish conservation: moving to the ecosystem services concept

“…The objectives of these actions are essentially to address the causes of decline of the threatened and endangered species, enhance the population status and prevent further degradation through limitations to development (Table I). The dominance of these actions raises concern for a number of reasons, not least because habitat restoration and stock enhancement are reactive responses to problems that are usually deeply entrenched (Cowx & Gerdeaux, 2004; Cowx & Van Anrooy, 2010), protected areas are rarely set up with freshwater fishes as the target organism for conservation (Suski & Cooke, 2007; Kingsford et al , 2011) and often the bottleneck to recruitment of the population is not addressed. There are more fundamental concerns, however, about the contribution of each of these management initiatives in the conservation battle.…”

“…One aspect of conservation measures that is often neglected but deserves attention is targeted fisheries management practices. Traditional management of these inland fisheries is carried out on three levels: the fishery, the fish and the aquatic ecosystem (Cowx et al , 2010; Welcomme et al , 2010). By far, the most dominant management measures are regulations targeting the fishery (Welcomme et al , 2010).…”

“…The concept still remains very fisheries‐orientated and much wider interaction with other users and stakeholders remains paramount. The greatest problem encountered is valuing the contribution of the aquatic resources, and fisheries in particular, within the context of wider economic development and sustainable livelihoods (Cowx et al , 2010). In particular, there is only limited appreciation of the underlying problems created by sociopolitical override.…”

“…It is well established that freshwater fishes are among the most threatened group of vertebrates worldwide (Ricciardi & Rasmussen, 1999; Powles et al , 2000; Ormerod et al , 2010), with >35% of the evaluated species considered vulnerable or threatened (IUCN, 2010). Habitat degradation (eutrophication, acidification, sedimentation, increased turbidity, removal of riparian vegetation and channelization), contamination by toxic substances such as heavy metals, altered hydrology (dams, flow regulation and abstraction), introduction of non‐native species and transfer of diseases and pathogens are amongst the most insidious effects of human activities on freshwater fish communities (Cowx, 2002; Dudgeon et al , 2006; Gozlan et al , 2010; Welcomme et al , 2010), but overexploitation through commercial and recreational fishing has also been implicated for such declines (Cooke & Cowx, 2004; Allan et al , 2005; Arlinghaus et al , 2010; Cowx et al , 2010). Freshwater ecosystems represent some of the most altered habitats on the planet (Kennish, 2002; Malmqvist & Rundle, 2002), and in this context, non‐fishing‐related anthropogenic interactions are probably the most important drivers of global loss of fish biodiversity (Richter et al , 1997; Mack et al , 2000; Arlinghaus et al , 2002; Cowx, 2002; Cowx et al , 2010; Gozlan et al , 2010).…”

“…This is particularly important, given that the exploitation of inland fish stocks in most industrialized nations has progressively conceded to expansion of leisure fisheries in recent decades (Arlinghaus et al , 2002, 2010; Cowx et al , 2010). This trend has continued, but management objectives are increasingly targeting non‐fishery‐related conservation goals when anthropogenic changes become visible within a society (Cowx et al , 2010). Similar transitions are also beginning to evolve in developing countries, albeit at a slower pace.…”