Search

The current state of many freshwater fish stocks worldwide is largely unknown but suspected to be vulnerable to exploitation from recreational fisheries and habitat degradation. Both these factors, combined with complex ecological dynamics and the diffuse nature of inland fisheries could lead to an invisible collapse: the drastic decline in fish stocks without great public or management awareness. In this study we provide a method to address the pervasive knowledge gaps in regional rates of exploitation and habitat degradation, and demonstrate its use in one of North America's largest and most diffuse recreational freshwater fisheries (Ontario, Canada). We estimated that (1) fish stocks were highly exploited and in apparent danger of collapse in management zones close to large population centres, and (2) fish habitat was under a low but constant threat of degradation at rates comparable to deforestation in Ontario and throughout Canada. These findings confirm some commonly held, but difficult to quantify, beliefs in inland fisheries management but also provide some further insights including (1) large anthropogenic projects greater than one hectare could contribute much more to fish habitat loss on an area basis than the cumulative effect of smaller projects within one year, (2) hooking mortality from catch-and-release fisheries is likely a greater source of mortality than the harvest itself, and (3) in most northern management zones over 50% of the fisheries resources are not yet accessible to anglers. While this model primarily provides a framework to prioritize management decisions and further targeted stock assessments, we note that our regional estimates of fisheries productivity and exploitation were similar to broadscale monitoring efforts by the Province of Ontario. We discuss the policy implications from our results and extending the model to other jurisdictions and countries.

There is a common misconception among government officials that environmental regulations are bad for economic growth. Citing economic reasons, the Canadian federal government passed legislation in 2012 restricting the length of environmental reviews of new developments, even though review times were not empirically known. Using annual reports to Parliament from 2001 to 2010, we estimated using time-series analyses that review times under the Fisheries Act conformed to the new government mandated review times prior to major legislative changes to federal environmental oversight. The majority of submissions were processed within 1 year for mitigated impacts and within 2 years for authorized impacts. While it is possible that a minority of projects take longer, there is no evidence of large backlogs in the review process, and Canadian review times appear quicker than those in the United States. We highlight the need for empirical estimates of the costs of environmental regulations before governments enact substantial legislative changes that reduce environmental oversight and offer alternate recommendations for expediting environmental review times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]