Defining a Safe Operating Space for inland recreational fisheries |
| |
| Authors: | Stephen R Carpenter William A Brock Gretchen J A Hansen Jonathan F Hansen Joseph M Hennessy Daniel A Isermann Eric J Pedersen K Martin Perales Andrew L Rypel Greg G Sass Tyler D Tunney M Jake Vander Zanden |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA;2. Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin‐Madison, Madison, WI, USA;3. Department of Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA;4. Fisheries Research, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, USA;5. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, USA;6. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Madison, WI, USA;7. U. S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin‐Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA;8. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Science Services, Madison, WI, USA;9. Escanaba Lake Research Station, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Boulder Junction, WI, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | The Safe Operating Space (SOS) of a recreational fishery is the multidimensional region defined by levels of harvest, angler effort, habitat, predation and other factors in which the fishery is sustainable into the future. SOS boundaries exhibit trade‐offs such that decreases in harvest can compensate to some degree for losses of habitat, increases in predation and increasing value of fishing time to anglers. Conversely, high levels of harvest can be sustained if habitat is intact, predation is low, and value of fishing effort is moderate. The SOS approach recognizes limits in several dimensions: at overly high levels of harvest, habitat loss, predation, or value of fishing effort, the stock falls to a low equilibrium biomass. Recreational fisheries managers can influence harvest and perhaps predation, but they must cope with trends that are beyond their control such as changes in climate, loss of aquatic habitat or social factors that affect the value of fishing effort for anglers. The SOS illustrates opportunities to manage harvest or predation to maintain quality fisheries in the presence of trends in climate, social preferences or other factors that are not manageable. |
| |
| Keywords: | habitat predation rational expectations recreational fishery resilience sustainability |
|
|
