North Wales Recreational Angling pilot survey rep

[seajunky]

Dear All
Please find attached a cover letter and a copy of the CCW report 'North Wales
RSA pilot survey: Winter Results December 2007 to March 2008'.

This report pilots a method to record Recreational sea angling catches over a
winter period on North Wales beaches. A subsequent survey carried out over a
busier summer period is currently being written up and will be sent out to you
all when completed.

Regards
Rowland Sharp



Swyddog Cyswllt Pysgodfeydd Mor
Sea Fisheries Liaison Officer

Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru
Countryside Council for Wales
Maes-y-Ffynnon
Ffordd Penrhos
Bangor
LL57 2DW

Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

“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.”



ii


Report Number:
CCW Policy Research Report No. 08/14

Publication Date:
May 2009

Contract Number:
FC 73-03-271

Nominated Officers:
Rowland Sharp
Title: North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA)
pilot surveys: Winter results December 2007 to March
2008.

Authors:
H. Goudge, E.S. Morris and R. Sharp.

Restrictions: 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
National Assembly of Wales Library
National Library of Wales
British Library
Natural England Library
SNH Library

CCW West Region Library, Pembroke Dock

Distribution list (others):

Clare Eno, CCW Roger Cook, WFSA
Chris Uttley, CCW Mike Smith, CEFAS
Kate Smith, CCW Kevin Williamson, M&FA
Lucy Kay, CCW Phil Coates, SWSFC
Mike Camplin, CCW Stephen Atkins, NWNWSFC
Phil Newman, CCW Julie Fitton, DEFRA
David Donnan, SNH Anthony Hynes, DEFRA
Audrey Jones, NE Mark Lloyd, AT
Tom Blasdale, JNCC David Rowe, AT
Jo Breen, DOENI Peter Maconnell, BASS
Mike Flynn, WFSA Alan Charlton, NFSAS
Graham Rees, WAG
Daniel Burgess, WAG

Recommended citation for this report:

Goudge, H., Morris, E.S. & Sharp, R. 2009. North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys:
Winter results December 2007 to March 2008. CCW Policy Research Report No. 08/14.

iii


North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Winter


results December 2007 to March 2008.



Prepared by: Harry Goudge, Elisabeth Morris
(MES) & Rowland Sharp (CCW)
Prepared For: The Countryside Council for Wales
Date of Release: April, 2009
Primary Contact: Marine Ecological Solutions Ltd.
17 Dale Street
Menai Bridge
Isle of Anglesey
LL59 5AH
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.marine-ecosol.com

Recommended citation for this report:

Goudge, H., Morris, E.S. & Sharp, R. 2009. North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys:
Winter results December 2007 to March 2008. CCW Policy Research Report No. 08/14.

iv


Contents

Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii

Crynodeb Gweithredol ix
Executive Summary xi
1 Rationale 1
2 Project Aim 2

2.1 Survey Objectives 2

3 Methods 3

3.1 Site identification, assessment and sampling strategy 3

3.2 Angling activity and behaviour surveys 4

3.3 Angler’s Catch Recordings 5

3.4 Angling group classification and data analysis 6

4 Results 7

4.1 All Data Sources 7

4.2 RSA Pilot Survey Results 8

4.2.1 Classifying anglers by fishing frequency and behaviour 9

4.2.2 Angler and surveyor recording periods 10

4.2.3 Angling Effort 11

4.2.4 Changes in Angling Effort 12

4.2.5 Target Fish Species 13

4.2.6 Species and relative numbers of fish caught 15

4.2.7 Numbers of Fish Caught 18

4.2.8 Sizes of Fish Caught 22

4.2.9 Anglers Targeting Cod 23

4.2.10 Cod Fishing Effort 24

4.2.11 Numbers and Size of Cod Caught 25

4.2.12 Immediate Survivorship of Discarded Fish 26

4.2.13 Perceived survivorship of released fish 26

v


4.2.14 Lost or Discarded Fishing Tackle 27

5 Limitations of the data and data collection methods 28

5.1 Classification of Angler Groups by Profiling Questions and Equipment Used 28

5.2 Fishing Effort in Terms of Time Spent Fishing 29

5.3 Target Species at Survey Locations and More Widely 30

5.4 Catch per unit of Effort, Species and Size of Fish Caught 31

5.5 Cod Caught and Landed 33

5.6 Immediate Survivorship of Discarded Fish 34

5.7 Lost / Discarded Fishing Tackle 35

5.8 Evaluation of Data Collection Methods and Further Considerations 35

6 Acknowledgements 36
7 References 37
8 Appendices 38

vi


List of Figures


Figure 1. North Wales showing the three survey regions. 4
Figure 2. RSA survey locations in North Wales. 7
Figure 3. RSA surveys undertaken including short or abandoned surveys. 8
Figure 4. Composition of surveyor and angler catch recording periods from each of the 6 angler groups
used in the RSA surveys. 10
Figure 5. Average angling duration, in hours, per pleasure angling session. 11
Figure 6. Average fishing duration per angling session for pleasure, match and boat anglers. 11
Figure 7. Average angling hours per year by anglers classified into the 6 angler groups. 12
Figure 8. Composition of species targeted by anglers within the 3 RSA regions. 14
Figure 9. Composition of species targeted by anglers from different angler groups. 14
Figure 10. Proportional compositions of catches reported by anglers and surveyors from the 3 RSA
regions. 15
Figure 11. Proportional compositions of fish species, caught by anglers from different angler groups. 17
Figure 12. Average number of fish caught per hour by shore anglers of different angler groups. 18
Figure 13. Average fish caught per hour and recorded by shore anglers of different angler groups. 19
Figure 14. Relative numbers of angling sessions for each of the different RSA angler groups. 20
Figure 15. Average number of fish caught per hour by anglers, and recorded by surveyors at one fishing
venue -Tan Lan, Colwyn Bay at different states of the tide. 21
Figure 16. Average length in cm of fish caught by anglers from different angler groups, and recorded by
surveyors. 22
Figure 17. Average length in cm of fish caught and recorded by anglers of different angler groups. 22
Figure 18. Variation in estimated size of 499 whiting caught by shore anglers. 23
Figure 19. Average hours spent fishing for cod per year by anglers from different angler groups. 24
Figure 20. Estimated average number of cod caught in 2006 and 2007 by anglers from the different angler
groups. 25
Figure 21. Estimated average number of cod caught per hour of cod fishing in 2006 and 2007 by anglers
from the different RSA angler groups. 25
Figure 22. Angler’s perception of the survival of released fish during their fishing activity and grouped by
angler category. 27

vii


List of Tables

Table . Percent of anglers who said their angling activity had changed recently. 12
Table . Fish species targeted by anglers who gave an answer to question 14. 13
Table . Numbers of fish caught, and percent of total fish, recorded by both anglers and surveyors. 16
Table . Proportions of anglers who said they target cod from each angler group. 23
Table . Species and average size of fish seen to float on the surface immediately after being released. 26
Table . Top eight targeted species of fish by recreational sea anglers in Wales from three independent
studies. 30

viii


Crynodeb Gweithredol

Bu'r astudiaeth hon yn treialu dull systematig o gofnodi gweithgareddau Genweirio Môr er
Hamdden (GMH). Er bod yr astudiaeth wedi’i chyfyngu i Ogledd Cymru yn y gaeaf, dyma’r tro
cyntaf i ymdriniaeth gynhwysfawr gael ei chyflawni yn unrhyw le yn Hemisffer y Gogledd. Fel
y cyfryw ymchwiliodd i'r egwyddorion y gellid seilio methodoleg arnynt. Roedd y dull yn
foddhaol iawn a gobeithir y bydd yn sail i ragor o astudiaethau dwys a fydd yn arwain at
ddealltwriaeth gliriach o’r gweithgareddau. Ymchwiliodd i amrywiadau yn ymddygiad y
genweirwyr, gweithgareddau pysgota, ac yn benodol, niferoedd a rhywogaethau'r pysgod a
ddaliwyd rhwng genweirwyr wedi'u dosbarthu yn ôl pa mor aml yr oeddent yn genweirio môr a
pha mor brofiadol oeddent.

Treialwyd dulliau peilot o gasglu data er mwyn ymchwilio i weithgareddau a dalfeydd GMH yng
Ngogledd Cymru yn ystod tymor y gaeaf rhwng mis Rhagfyr 2007 a mis Mawrth 2008. Nod y
prosiect oedd "Treialu dulliau yng Ngogledd Cymru er mwyn: casglu gwybodaeth gywir am
weithgareddau genweirio er hamdden; casglu tystiolaeth anecdotaidd am newid ac asesu dulliau

o gasglu data am ddalfeydd oddi wrth enweirwyr”. Un o ganlyniadau pwysig yr astudiaeth oedd
ymchwilio i ddichonoldeb arolygon GMH a chyfrannu at sefydlu 'arfer gorau' ar gyfer arolygon
yn y dyfodol, yng Nghymru ac mewn mannau eraill yn y DU.
Cynhaliwyd 50 arolwg i gyd mewn 37 o leoliadau poblogaidd mewn tri rhanbarth yng Ngogledd
Cymru (Gogledd Ddwyrain Cymru, Ynys Môn a Phen Llyn). Cyfrannodd dros 150 o enweirwyr
i'r arolygon a dosbarthwyd 124 ohonynt i'r grwpiau canlynol, gan ddefnyddio pa mor aml yr
oeddent yn genweirio môr a'u profiad: 'Cystadlu Gorau', 'Cystadlu', 'Diwrnod', 'Clwb',
'Achlysurol' a 'Newyddian'.

Roedd yr arferion genweirio, y rhywogaethau a dargedwyd, y rhywogaethau a ddaliwyd a
chanfyddiad y genweirwyr yn amrywio rhwng y grwpiau o enweirwyr. Mae hyn yn pwysleisio
perygl trin genweirwyr i gyd fel un grwp unffurf wrth ddadansoddi dalfeydd neu ffurfio
tybiaethau neu allosod gwybodaeth (h.y. dalfeydd) o gyfartaleddau bras yr holl enweirwyr.
Roedd yn glir o ganlyniadau'r astudiaeth hon bod yn rhaid rhannu data GMH yn ôl profiad y
genweirwyr a grwpiau ymddygiadol er mwyn rhwystro rhai mathau o enweirwyr rhag creu tuedd
yn y canlyniadau, a’i bod yn hollbwysig dosbarthu'r grwpiau hyn yn gywir.

Dywedodd y genweirwyr a holwyd mai'r rhywogaethau a dargedwyd mwyaf oedd Penfras a Bas.
Fodd bynnag, o'r 650 o bysgod a gofnodwyd gan y genweirwyr a'r arolygwyr, dim ond dau
benfras gafodd eu dal a’u cofnodi yn ystod yr arolwg hwn. O ran a oedd y pysgod a ryddhawyd
yn goroesi, credai’r rhan fwyaf o’r genweirwyr bod dros 90% o'r pysgod a ddychwelwyd i'r môr
yn goroesi, a gostyngodd y ffigur hwn po fwyaf o brofiad oedd gan y genweiriwr.

Daethpwyd i'r casgliad bod cyfuniad o holiaduron proffilio, cynlluniau cofnodi genweirwyr ac
arsylwi'n uniongyrchol gan arolygwyr yn ffordd dda o samplu gweithgareddau GMH mewn
rhanbarth. Hefyd gellir cofnodi tueddiadau gwerthfawr o ran poblogaethau pysgodfeydd môr er
hamdden trwy gasglu cardiau cystadlaethau 'dal' a 'rhyddhau' (lle mae'r cystadleuwyr yn gwirio
dalfeydd ei gilydd), ond ni fyddai'r rhain ar eu pen eu hunain yn cyfleu'r darlun yn llawn o ran
GMH a gallent greu tuedd yn y data. Drwy ddefnyddio cyfuniad o'r dulliau hyn, gellir
amcangyfrif dalfeydd y genweirwyr a’r tueddiadau o ran nifer a maint y pysgod a ddelir mewn
ardal arbennig. Rhaid nodi y bydd amrywioldeb y dalfeydd oherwydd profiad y genweiriwr,
tymor y flwyddyn, yr adeg o’r dydd, y tywydd, y lleoliad a'r llanw yn arwain at ganlyniadau
gwahanol, felly bydd yn dibynnu ar bryd, ble ac o bwy y caiff y ddalfa ei mesur.

Bydd yr astudiaeth beilot o GMH yn ystod y gaeaf yn cael ei defnyddio i fireinio arolygon yn y
dyfodol ac i sicrhau bod yr amcanion yn realistig ac yn gyflawnadwy. Bydd y methodolegau’n
cael eu haddasu a'u profi ymhellach yn yr un ardal ac yn ystod misoedd yr haf, pan fydd mwy o
enweirwyr yn pysgota, a phan fydd yn debyg y caiff amrywiaeth fwy o rywogaethau eu dal. Bydd

ix


canlyniadau'r arolwg haf a hefyd y gwerthusiadau o'r dulliau, y casgliadau a'r argymhellion a
gesglir o'r arolygon gaeaf a haf, yn cael eu cyhoeddi ar wahân yn y ddau adroddiad canlynol:

1.
Arolygon peilot Genweirio Môr er Hamdden (GMH) Gogledd Cymru: Canlyniadau'r haf,
mis Gorffennaf hyd fis Hydref 2008.
2.
Arolygon peilot Genweirio Môr er Hamdden (GMH) Gogledd Cymru: Trafodaeth o’r
methodolegau peilot ac argymhellion ar gyfer arolygon yn y dyfodol.
x


Executive Summary

This study piloted a systematic approach to recording Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) activity.
While it was restricted to North Wales in winter it is the first time that comprehensive coverage
has been made anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. As such it explored the principles upon
which a methodology could be based. The approach was very satisfactory and will hopefully
form the basis of further intensive studies leading to clearer understanding of the activity. It
looked at variations in angler’s behaviour, fishing activity and specifically the numbers and
species of fish caught between anglers classified by their sea angling frequency and experience.

Pilot data collection methods were trialled to investigate RSA activity and catch in North Wales
during the winter season between December 2007 and March 2008. The aim of the project was

“To trial methods in North Wales to: gather accurate information on recreational angling
activity; collate anecdotal evidence of change and assess methods of gathering catch data from
anglers”. An important output of the study was to investigate the feasibility of RSA surveys and
to contribute towards establishing ‘best practice’ for future surveys both in Wales and elsewhere
in the UK.

In total, 50 surveys were undertaken at 37 popular locations in three regions of North Wales
(North East Wales, Anglesey and the Llyn Peninsula). Over 150 anglers contributed to the
surveys and 124 of these were categorised into one of the following groups using their sea
angling frequency and experience: ‘Top Match’ ‘Match’, ‘Day’, ‘Club’, ‘Casual’ and ‘Novice’.

Angling behaviour, species targeted, species caught and angler perception all differed between
angler group and this highlights the danger of ‘clumping’ anglers together during analysis of
catch or making assumptions or extrapolating information (i.e. catch) from broad averages of all
anglers. It was clear from the results of this study that RSA data must be divided by angler
experience and behavioural groups to avoid certain angler types biasing the results, and that the
correct classification of these groups is crucial.

Cod and Bass were expressed to be the species most targeted by the anglers questioned, however
out of more than 650 fish recorded by anglers and surveyors, only two cod were caught and
recorded during the current survey. In relation to the survival of released fish, the majority of
anglers believed that more than 90% of the fish returned to the sea survived, and this figure
decreased with greater angler experience.

It was concluded that a combination of profiling questionnaires, angler recording schemes and
direct surveyor observations are a good means of sampling RSA activity within a region.
Valuable trends in recreational sea fishery populations may also be recorded by the collection of
‘catch and release’ match cards (where competitors verify each other’s catch), but these alone
would not provide the full RSA picture and could bias the data. Using a combination of these
methods, angler’s catch and trends in numbers and sizes of fish caught in a certain area can be
estimated. It must be noted that variability in catch due to angler experience, season, time of day,
weather, location and state of the tide will all result in different results, so will depend upon
when, where and from whom, catch is measured.

The RSA winter pilot study will be used to refine future surveys and ensure objectives are
realistic and achievable. Methodologies will be adapted and further tested within the same area
and during the summer months, when an increased number of anglers will be fishing and also a
wider variety of species are likely to be caught. Results of the following summer survey and also
the method evaluations, conclusions and recommendations drawn from both winter and summer
surveys will be published separately in the following two reports:

3.
North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Summer results July to
October 2008.
4.
North Wales Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Discussion of the pilot
methodologies and recommendations for future surveys.
xi



Rationale

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 1999-2000 (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 a separate report: North Wales
Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot surveys: Discussion of the pilot methodologies and
recommendations for future surveys.

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

1



provide baseline information which could be used to investigate reported changes in RSA catch
and or activity.

Project Aim

The project aim was to trial methods in North Wales to gather accurate information on
recreational angling activity, collate anecdotal evidence of change and assess methods of
gathering catch data from anglers.

2.1 Survey Objectives
To fulfil the aim of the project, the brief was split into specific objectives, listed here in
chronological order rather than by priority or importance:

1. Identify and classify angler groups using profiling questions;
2. Estimate fishing effort in terms of time spent fishing for each angler group;
3. Identify target species both at survey locations and more widely;
4. Estimate numbers, species and size (length) of fish caught for each angler group;
5. Quantify catches per unit of effort for each angler group;
6. Estimate numbers and size (length) of cod caught and landed for each angler group;
7. Estimate numbers and immediate survivorship of discarded fish;
8. Observe lost or discarded fishing tackle;
9. Evaluate data collection methods.
2



Methods

A combination of pre-survey research, targeted questionnaires and direct observation of anglers
were used to fulfil the specific objectives of the project. For ease of data collection the project
objectives were grouped as follows:

•
Site identification, assessment and sampling strategy: site selection, survey planning
and initial metadata collection at the start of each survey.
•
Angling activity and behaviour surveys: profiling questionnaires to address objectives
1 – 3 and also gain the angler’s opinions for objectives 3 – 7.
•
Angler’s catch recording: surveys of catch by trained surveyors, by the anglers
themselves and from official match records to address objectives 3 – 8.
•
Angling group classification and data analysis: post survey analysis of questionnaire
answers and catch data to address objectives 1 and 9.
3.1 Site identification, assessment and sampling strategy
A combination of internet and web forum searches and discussions with anglers provided a list
of potential angling sites and also general information about each site. Information from these
searches included the type of angling site, such as a sandy beach or rock mark; an indication of
the popularity of each site; and also which state of the tide was best for fishing at the sites. The
popularity of sites and best state of tide for fishing were investigated to ensure the best time and
sites were chosen that were popular enough to give the best chance of obtaining sufficient data.

The North Wales coastline was divided into three regions (figure 1), each containing at least two
popular winter sites, where several anglers could be expected at optimal states of the tide,
together with several less popular sites where there was still a good chance of anglers being
present. The survey areas were:

1. North East Wales, from Talacre to Penmaenmawr.
2. Anglesey, including both sides of the Menai Strait.
3. The Llyn Peninsula, from Caernarfon to Porthmadog.
Additionally to the survey areas described above, charter boat surveys from Holyhead were
planned, to allow comparisons of numbers and species of fish caught between shore and boat
based anglers.

Surveys were undertaken on Fridays and Saturdays between December 2007 and March 2008.
Different survey times and durations were trialled before an optimal duration was decided.

Within each survey region a minimum of two visits were made to each popular site, and at least
one visit to four or more of the less popular sites. Additional surveys were undertaken on days
when angling clubs and organisations held shore based sea angling matches.

Occasionally, when passing angling venues, a quick check for presence or absence of anglers
was made with the aim of ‘getting a feel’ for the numbers of anglers active in the region and also
to check the popularity of sites at different times and tides.

3



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
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Figure 1. Three survey regions in North Wales, as divided for the purposes of the pilot study. Region 1 North
East Wales (from Talacre to Penmaenmawr); Region 2 Anglesey and the Menai Strait; and Region 3 Llyn
Peninsula (from Caernarfon to Porthmadog).

3.2 Angling activity and behaviour surveys
A profiling questionnaire (Appendix 1) was designed that allowed anglers to be broadly grouped
by their behaviour and fishing activity into predefined categories such as ‘match’ and ‘pleasure’
anglers i.e. those fishing in a match or those fishing simply for pleasure.

In order to accurately further classify anglers by their angling activity and to fulfil objective one
of the project, the questionnaire was divided into the following sections:

•
Experience level and angling frequency: Questions targeted the angling history, club
membership, how far he / she will travel to fish and how often they sea fish.
•
Angling effort: How many angling locations are frequented and approximately how long
will the angler fish for during an average session.
•
Catch statistics: Questioning how many fish the angler might expect to catch during
both a good and bad fishing session, identifying target species and questioning the
number of cod caught in recent years.
4



•
Other comments. An open question which usually included additional comments
regarding the questions asked, or anglers observations on fishing catch, species and
activity over recent years.
•
Unique Angler ID. Each angler was assigned a unique angler ID which was recorded in
most cases in addition to the angler’s name. On many occasions when anglers were
unwilling to provide their name the ID was used instead. The ID was written on all
recording forms and the questionnaire therefore linking all catch records to the relevant
angler even if no name was given. When the same angler was encountered on different
surveys, and when that angler provided their name, the catch records were all linked
together.
Some questions necessitated an open answer for the presentation of a structured argument or a
creative answer, whilst others were categorised multiple choice questions providing more
consistent answers and enabling a more robust analysis.

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, an agreed limit to
the number of anglers to be questioned was set, ensuring the surveyors could divide their time
equally between questioning anglers and observing the angler’s catch.

3.3 Angler’s Catch Recordings
Recording of angler’s catch was undertaken in three ways using different forms:

•
Surveyor recording: catch observed and recorded by a trained surveyor after completion
of a profiling questionnaire;
•
Angler recording: catch records undertaken by anglers themselves following completion
of a profiling questionnaire.
•
Collation of ‘catch and release’ match-cards (i.e. catch records witnessed by another
angler) from matches where surveyors were present.
To fulfil the overall aim of the project, and more specifically to accurately estimate catch,
survivorship of fish and loss of tackle for anglers within the different groups (objectives 4-9), it
was necessary to have trained surveyors present at the time and place of fishing, and for the
surveyors to observe fish being caught as well as the general angling activity and the angler’s
behaviour.

To maximise the number of catch records obtained, with the limited survey effort available, in
situ catch recording by both surveyors and anglers was undertaken. Wherever possible, after
anglers completed a questionnaire, a trained surveyor returned to the angler and observed his/her
catch using the surveyor recording form (Appendix 2). Catch and behaviour were observed and
recorded for a minimum of 40 minutes per angler. The angler’s unique ID was noted to ensure
that the angler and his/her catch was linked to the correct profiling questionnaire.

To complement surveyor recordings and obtain further catch data, anglers were asked to record
their own catches whilst they fished. After anglers completed a questionnaire they were
presented an angler recording form (Appendix 3) labelled with their unique angler ID, and asked
to record the species and size of all fish they caught. It was specified that both undersize and in-
size fish should be recorded on the form. Anglers were also asked to time their recording period
by entering a start and end time on their recording form.

5



In some cases where anglers did not complete questionnaires and classifying them into an angler
group would not be possible, the angler was asked to complete a recording form to ensure as
much catch data as possible was obtained during the surveys.

At the end of each survey a surveyor collected all the angler recording forms. 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 forms by post.

Occasionally the two recording types were undertaken simultaneously i.e. both angler and
surveyor recording catch on their separate forms. However it must be noted that to increase the
total number of catch records, 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.

When RSA surveys coincided with matches organised by a local angling club or by a more
competitive angling federation the catch records (match cards) were collected at the end of the
match. Additionally historic match cards were collected from match organisers after matches not
coinciding with RSA surveys. These additional match records date back several years however
analysis of this data was beyond the scope of this project. Only data collected when surveyors
were present was analysed as part of this report.

3.4 Angling group classification and data analysis
Angling group classification: Answers to the profiling questionnaires were analysed and a set
of rules established to classify anglers into ‘angler groups’ based on similarities of behaviour and
angling activity.

Analysis. All data was collated in a Microsoft Access database, and analysed using a series of
queries. Answers to profiling questions were used to set rules for defining angling groups.
Analysis of the catch and angling activity for each group of angler, within each site, was
undertaken using basic statistics and represented visually in maps and graphs. Catch data was
analysed to investigate variability in catch and angling behaviour depending on tide, weather,
angling group and location. Broad extrapolations or use of averages of angler’s catch were
avoided due to high variability in the data and any resulting misuse of such data.

6



Results

The area surveyed as part of the Recreational Sea Angler (RSA) pilot study stretched from the
Dee Estuary in northeast Wales on the Welsh/English border, around the North Wales coast
and down to Criccieth on the south Llyn Peninsula. Due to limited resources travelling to
angling sites south of Porthmadog was considered beyond the scope of this pilot study and will
need to be addressed in further studies.

Figure 2. RSA survey locations in North Wales. Green circles ( ) represent angling venues considered most
popular throughout winter, and red circles ( ) less popular sites but regularly fished during winter
months.
Boat survey
4.1 All Data Sources
During the course of the pilot study shore based RSA surveys were conducted primarily by staff
of Marine Ecological Solutions Ltd. (MES). In total, 49 datasets from 37 winter popular angling
locations, plus one boat angling survey (figure 2) were collated and entered into a Microsoft
Access database. These datasets included angler catch and behaviour records from the following
sources:

34 RSA surveys conducted by MES between 8/12/07 & 23/02/08 consisting of the following
survey types:

•
28 surveys of pleasure anglers (i.e. where anglers were not fishing in a match). These
further divided into:
o
4 postal angler surveys from various locations.
o
24 shore based surveys.
•
5 surveys of sea angling matches as follows:
o
3 Colwyn Bay Victoria Sea Angling Club (CBVSAC) ‘weigh-in’ matches
between 08/12/07 and 09/02/08.
7



o
2 Welsh Federation of Sea Anglers (WFSA) ‘measure and release’ matches on
12/01/08 & 03/02/08. Match cards were collected for these two matches and used
in the analysis for section 4.2.7 (figure 13).
•
A survey of recreational boat angling was undertaken off Holyhead Island in January
2008, where nine anglers were observed for up to six hours. This data was used in the
analysis for section 4.2.7 (figure 12) and section 4.2.8 (figure 16).
Match cards recorded by WFSA and CBVSAC anglers during the following matches were also
collated by MES, however these records were not analysed during the current study as no
surveyors were present during these matches, and their analysis was beyond the scope of this
report:

•
2 WFSA ‘measure and release’ matches on 24/02/08 & 02/03/08.
•
14 CBVSAC ‘weigh-in’ matches between 06/01/07 & 10/11/07.
Figure 3. RSA surveys (
X Abandoned
) undertaken, and short or abandoned surveys (X) attempted throughout the pilot

study area. The size of the green circles indicates the number of complete surveys successfully undertaken
and the red crosses indicate at least one short or abandoned survey was undertaken at the angling venue.

4.2 RSA Pilot Survey Results
A total of 51 visits to angling venues were made during the RSA pilot study. Due to poor
weather conditions making specific venues unsuitable for fishing, many of these surveys were
abandoned before the full planned duration, and an alternative site was surveyed instead.
Surveyors noted such conditions and a set of site specific survey ‘call off’ rules were developed.
As a result 34 complete RSA surveys were undertaken throughout the pilot study (figure 3)
comprising:

•
14 surveys in region 1,
•
11 survey in region 2 and
•
9 surveys in region 3.
Of these surveys a little over one third (13) had no anglers present so no data was collected.

8



159 anglers contributed to the RSA surveys either by completing questionnaires (124),
completing angler recording forms (68), completing WFSA match cards (113), allowing a
surveyor to observe their fishing activity (139) or a combination of all four.

4.2.1 Classifying anglers by fishing frequency and behaviour
Following early analysis of profiling questionnaires a set of rules was established to class anglers
into one of six angler groups. These angler groups were created after discussions with Dr Rob
Blyth-Skyrme (Natural England), Tom Blasdale (JNCC) and Clare Eno (CCW) during 2007. The
classification rules are further described in Appendices 4 and 5, however briefly summarised as:

•
Specimen: experienced anglers who target particular species of fish, often fishing in
remote locations and not generally competing in club or open matches.
•
Match: experienced anglers who fish in highly competitive matches often with prize
money.
•
Day: anglers who regularly fish for longer periods than one tidal cycle and often fish for
entire days.
•
Club: anglers who generally only fish with a club and if competing in 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 those from other groups.
Re-classifying the match angling group: During analysis and after discussions with the WFSA
shore angling match organiser it became apparent that the large group of ‘match anglers’
identified in this study included anglers who varied greatly in experience, many of whom did not
really fit within the match angler category.

It was decided to further divide the match angler group subjectively based upon the opinion of
the WFSA match organiser, who regularly fishes with the Welsh international sea angling team
and some of the best shore anglers in the UK. As a result 14 match anglers who had contributed
to the surveys were identified and re-classified into the new group ‘Top Match’ angler.

In total 121 of the anglers were classified into one of the RSA angler groups using profiling
questionnaires. Of these anglers who completed questionnaires eight were top match anglers; 36
were match anglers; 19 were day anglers; 16 club anglers; 15 casual anglers; 27 were novices
and three remained unclassified due to lack of complete profiling information. Not every angler
who contributed catch data to this study completed a questionnaire. In total 33 anglers who did
not complete questionnaires were assigned angler groups based on the limited information
collected about them. This information included whether they were fishing in a club match (club
anglers) or a more competitive WFSA match (match anglers). Further details of how the anglers
were classified into the different angler groups, and the definition of each group, can be found in
Appendices 4 and 5.

It must be noted that due to the venues and time of year of the surveys no specimen anglers were
identified therefore this group was omitted from all further analysis.

All the following data analyses used a combination of surveyor recordings, angler recordings,
information from questionnaires, and in one case WFSA match cards to fulfil the objectives of
the pilot project. However not all the anglers in the study participated in all elements of the data

9



collection so the number or anglers, or records that were used for each element of the analysis, is
always stated and often represented by the letter ‘n’.

4.2.2 Angler and surveyor recording periods
Records of fishing effort and catch within a recorded time period were collected by both
surveyors and the anglers themselves. Surveyors observed anglers for short periods of time
usually 40-60 minutes, whilst the anglers recorded their own catches generally for longer periods
ranging from 20 minutes to six hours.

When anglers were fishing for long periods greater than the duration of the survey their
recording period was usually dictated by how long the surveyors were present at the site, as all
forms were collected before the surveyors left the site. In these cases the recording period did not
reflect how long the angler intended to fish, so the duration of recording periods were not used as
a measure of fishing effort.

A total of 207 catch records were collected by either surveyors or anglers, and of these records
eight could not be assigned to an angler group so were omitted from any further analyses
involving the grouping of anglers.

Region 1 provided by far the greatest number of catch records (figure 4) when compared to the
other two regions. This result was possibly skewed by the number of club and open matches
surveyed in this region i.e. 99 catch records from matches compared to 59 records from pleasure
anglers. Ignoring records from the matches, region 1 still produced the greatest number of catch
records (n =54, compared to 32 and nine in regions 2 and 3 respectively).

On many occasions, especially in regions 2 and 3, no anglers were present during the surveys so
no catch or effort data could be collected. Consequently the majority of angler and surveyor
recordings of catch were undertaken in region 1 (figure 4). Further details of the numbers of
records collected by surveyors and anglers within the three regions, and within each of the six
angler groups, are contained in Appendix 6.

Region 1
(n=158)
Region 2
(n=32)
Region 3
(n=9)
Top Match
Match
Day
Club
Casual
Novice
Figure 4. Composition of surveyor and angler catch recording periods from each of the six angler groups
used in the RSA surveys. n = observations of catch. Data collected by both anglers and surveyors from
popular angling locations throughout the three RSA regions between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08. Further details
and the raw data can be found in Appendix 6.

10



4.2.3 Angling Effort
Question 9 of the questionnaire asked on average how long do anglers fish for when fishing for
pleasure, and also when fishing in a match. Figure 5 shows the average angling durations when
anglers were grouped by angler group and also the region they were observed fishing in. Figure 6
shows the angling group and the different types of fishing the anglers participate in i.e. pleasure
fishing, match angling or fishing from a boat. Further details of angler’s average fishing
durations can be found in Appendix 7.

14


Hours per fishing session

8
6
4
2
0

8 00

35 1 0

10 6 3

16 0 0

12 2 1

21 5 1

10
12
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3
Top Match Match Day Club Casual Novice

Figure 5. Average (+/-standard error) duration of pleasure fishing session (hours) for anglers grouped by
region and angler category. Data was collected using 124 questionnaires between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08. The
number of anglers who answered this section of the questionnaire, within each region, and for each angler
group, is shown below each bar. Further details and raw data are in Appendix 7.

12

Pleasure fishing

Match fishing

Boat fishing

10

Top Match Match Day Club Casual Novice
Hours per fishing session

8
6
4
2
0

880

36 36 1

19 1 0

16 16 2

15 3 2

27 5 4

Figure 6. Average (+/-standard error) duration of fishing session (hours) for pleasure, match and boat
anglers of the different angler groups. Data was collected using 124 questionnaires between 08/12/07 and
23/02/08. The number of anglers who answered this section of the questionnaire and who fished either for
pleasure, in matches or from boats, within each angler group, is shown below each bar. Further details and
raw data are in Appendix 8.

11



Question 6 of the questionnaire focused on angling frequency and asked approximately how
many times per year each angler goes sea fishing. Combined with answers to question 9, the
approximate hours spent fishing per year was calculated for each angler. This was then averaged
for each angler group (figure 7 and Appendix 9).

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Angling hours per year
8 36 19 16 27 15
Top Match Match Day Club Casual Novice

Figure 7. Average (+/-standard error) angling hours per year by anglers classified into the six angler groups.
Data was collected using 124 questionnaires between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08. The number of anglers who
answered this section of the questionnaire is shown below each bar. Further details are in Appendix 9.

4.2.4 Changes in Angling Effort
Of the 116 anglers who answered question 7, “has your angling activity changed?” 26 said they
fish more now than they had previously; 24 said they now fish less; and the remaining 66 said
their fishing activity had not changed.

When split by angler group (table 1) the majority of anglers from each group said there had been
no change in their angling activity except for casual anglers who, the overall majority, had said
fishing activity had increased recently.

When ignoring anglers who said there had been no change in angling activity, the majority of
anglers from the match, day and club groups had said their activity had decreased, whereas most
of the casual and novice anglers said they had increased their angling activity.

Table 1. Percent of anglers from each angler group who said their angling activity had changed recently.

Angler group
# Anglers
who
answered
% who answered an
increase in angling activity
% who answered a
decrease in angling
activity
% who answered no
Change
Top Match 8 25 13 63
Match 36 8 22 69
Day 19 21 32 47
Club 13 15 31 54
Casual 15 53 20 27
Novice 25 24 8 68
Total 116 22 21 57

12



4.2.5 Target Fish Species
Of the 122 anglers who gave an answer concerning which fish species they target when sea
angling, 79 (65%) said they targeted at least one species. The most common targeted species
were Bass and Cod which is evident in table 2. Figures 8 and 9 further break the composition of
fish species targeted by anglers from the three regions in this study (figure 8 and Appendix 10)
and by anglers from the six angler groups (figure 9 and Appendix 11).

Table 2. Fish species targeted by anglers who gave an answer to question 14 whilst completing questionnaires
between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08.

Fish Species Anglers who target species % of total
Bass 57 46.72
Cod 49 40.16
No Species Targeted 43 35.25
Whiting 13 10.66
Mackerel 11 9.02
Conger 11 9.02
Wrasse 10 8.20
Plaice 9 7.38
Dogfish (Lesser) 8 6.56
Rays 8 6.56
Smooth hound 8 6.56
Pollack 7 5.74
Flounder 6 4.92
Tope 5 4.10
Bull Huss (Greater Dogfish) 4 3.28
Skates 3 2.46
Dab 2 1.64
Flatfish 2 1.64
Bream 2 1.64
Spurdog 1 0.82
Thornback Ray 1 0.82
Mullet 1 0.82
Rockling 1 0.82
Turbot 1 0.82

13



Species of fish targeted by anglers
from the 3 RSA regions
Region 1 (n=102)
Region 2 (n=14)
Region 3 (n=5)
Bass
No fish targeted
Dogfish (Lesser)
Mackerel
Conger
Pollack
Huss (Greater Dogfish)
Mullet
Cod
Whiting
Wrasse
Plaice
Rays
Smooth hound
Other species
from the 3 RSA regions
Region 1 (n=102)
Region 2 (n=14)
Region 3 (n=5)
Bass
No fish targeted
Dogfish (Lesser)
Mackerel
Conger
Pollack
Huss (Greater Dogfish)
Mullet
Cod
Whiting
Wrasse
Plaice
Rays
Smooth hound
Other species
Figure 8. Composition of species targeted by anglers within the three RSA regions. Data collected from 124
questionnaires between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08. The number of anglers who answered this section of the
questionnaire within each region is represented by ‘n=’. Further details are in Appendix 10.

Top Match Anglers Match Anglers Day Anglers
(n=8) (n=36) (n=19)

Club Anglers
(n=16)


Casual Anglers
(n=15)


Novice Anglers
(n=17)


Whiting
Dogfish (Lesser)

Bass


Cod


No fish targeted


Plaice
Conger

Wrasse

Mackerel

Smooth hound
Huss (Greater Dogfish)

Rays

Pollack

Other species
Turbot

Flounder

Flatfish

Black Bream

Tope

Figure 9. Composition of species targeted by anglers from different angler groups. Data collected from 124
questionnaires between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08. The number of anglers who answered this section of the
questionnaire within each angler group is represented by ‘n=’. Further details are in Appendix 11.

14



4.2.6 Species and relative numbers of fish caught
Species of fish recorded by anglers and
surveyors from the 3 RSA regions
Region 1 (n=592)
Region 2 (n=24)
Region 3 (n=2)
Cod No Fish Caught
Whiting Dogfish (Lesser)
Other species Rockling
Shore Rockling Dab
Saithe Poor Cod
Figure 10. Composition of catches reported by anglers and surveyors from the three RSA regions. Data
recorded by both anglers and surveyors during RSA surveys between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08. Further details
are in Appendix 12.

Figure 10 shows the species caught within each of the three regions in the study. All but a few
fish were recorded in region 1 as this was the most popular fishing area during the surveys. Fish
caught during the boat survey were excluded from this analysis as different species and numbers
were caught from the boat compared to the shore. Further details of the fish caught within the
three regions and during the boat survey can be found in Appendix 12 and 13 respectively.

Of the 618 fish recorded throughout the study, whiting was by far the most commonly caught
species, accounting for over 75% of all fish recorded. The next most common species was
‘rockling’ which accounted for only 6 % of fish caught (table 3). It must be noted that some
anglers differentiated between rockling species whilst others grouped all rockling species
together.

15



Table 3. Numbers of fish caught, and percent of total fish, recorded by both anglers and surveyors during
RSA surveys between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08.

Species Total Total (%)
Whiting 509 75.30
No Fish Caught
51 out of 184
sessions
31.52
Rockling 43 6.36
Shore Rockling 20 2.96
Dab 15 2.22
Dogfish (Lesser) 14 2.07
Flatfish 3 0.44
Flounder 2 0.30
Cod 2 0.30
Five Bearded Rockling 1 0.15
Weaver fish 1 0.15
Saithe 7 1.04
Poor Cod 1 0.15

The catch composition of anglers split by angler group is shown in figure 11. The vast majority
of fish caught during this study were whiting (figures 10 and 11). During the shorter periods
when surveyors were recording angler’s catch (figure 11 A) fewer species of fish were recorded
than when the anglers recorded their own catches (figure 11 B). This pattern was most apparent
in the ‘novice angler’ category where only two species were recorded being caught by surveyors
compared to six species reported by the anglers themselves. This difference between surveyor
and angler recordings was probably an anomaly of the survey methodology. Anglers who
completed angler recording forms were not necessarily observed by a surveyor during their
angling session, therefore anglers could have caught many fish that were not recorded by
surveyors and vice versa surveyors could have recorded fish that were not recorded by an angler.
Some discrepancy between angler and surveyor recordings could also have been due to
misidentification of species by anglers, a problem likely to be more common with the less
experienced angler groups and those who fished less frequently.

16



A)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

B)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Surveyor Recording

n= 11 n= 41 n= 17 n= 28 n= 9 n= 14
Top Match Match

Angler Recording

Top Match Match

Cod
Flounder
Shore Rockling
Weaver fish

Day Club Casual Novice

n= 17 n= 14 n= 12 n= 8 n= 13 n= 0
Day Club Casual Novice
Whiting
Flatfish
Dab
Saithe
Dogfish (Lesser)
Rockling
Five Bearded Rockling
Poor Cod


Figure 11. Composition of fish species, caught by anglers from different angler groups, and recorded by
surveyors (A) and anglers (B) during RSA surveys from 08/12/07 to 23/02/08. Not all anglers completed both
recording types simultaneously hence the difference in species recorded by surveyors and anglers. No anglers
from the group ‘Top anglers’ completed angler recording forms hence the absence of a column for that
group. The total recording periods for each angler group (n=) are shown below each bar. Further details are
in Appendix 14 and 15.

17



During both surveyor and angler recordings it was noticed that fish species were not always
named consistently. Species such as rockling, where several similar species can be caught in the
same area, were often referred to, by the anglers, simply as rockling. However more experienced
anglers and surveyors usually divided this group further to species level: shore rockling, 3bearded
and 5-bearded rockling. Another group where difficulty in identification of species
might have led to aggregations, and therefore loss of taxonomic resolution was with flatfish.
Some anglers referred to dab, flounder and plaice etc as flatfish, or ‘flatties’, whereas others
divided them into separate species. In the current study problematic species such as rockling and
flatfish were not grouped together however in future this might be a necessary course of action to
ensure data consistency.

4.2.7 Numbers of Fish Caught
Figures 12 and 13 show numbers of fish caught for each of the angler groups. Numbers of fish
were standardised using hours of recording as a measure of effort (i.e. catches of fish per hour of
fishing). Figure 12 shows number of fish caught per hour when recorded by surveyors and figure
13 recorded by the anglers. The data was split by angler group. Top match anglers had the
highest catch per effort of all the shore anglers that were observed during the RSA surveys, with

1.71 fish per hour. This catch rate was well over the average of 1.09 fish per hour, represented by
the dashed line in figure 12. Novice shore anglers caught the least fish per unit of effort whilst
being observed by surveyors, with only 0.48 fish per hour.
It is important to note that the number of hooks and rods per angler was not recorded during this
study. However it was assumed the majority of anglers used three hooks each, as this is common
practice when fishing from beaches such as made up the majority of surveys in the winter pilot.
The rules of the WFSA matches observed during this study only allow a single rod and three
hooks to be used at any one time. Therefore it is likely the number of fish caught per hour is
comparable between the angler groups however it is also possible that any differences in catch
observed between anglers could be a result of the number of hooks and rods used rather than
differences in skill or technique.

Fish caught per hour

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

n = 11 n = 41 n =17 n = 28 n = 9 n = 14 n = 20
Top Match Match Day Club Casual Novice Novice
Boat


Figure 12. Average (+/-standard error) number of fish caught per hour by shore anglers of different angler

) during one boat survey on 19/01/08. The dashed horizontal line shows the average fish per hour

anglers (

) and recorded by surveyors during RSA surveys between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08; and novice boat

groups (

for all shore angler groups. The total recording periods for each angler group (n=) are shown below each bar.
Further details are in Appendix 16.

18



Included in figure 12 is the catch per hour for novice boat anglers observed by surveyors during
one boat survey in January 2008. The novice boat anglers caught almost four times the fish per
unit of effort (1.98 fish per hour) compared to the novice shore anglers. However it must be
noted that angling charter boats regularly move location if the fishing goes quiet so a higher
catch per hour is to be expected. Additionally boat anglers often use more than one rod at a time
and multiple hooks, although during this survey each angler only used one fishing rod. The lack
of replication of boat surveys in the RSA winter pilot study reduces the confidence we can have
in any average catch per hour being an accurate representation of boat angling. Therefore as the
data collected during one boat survey could be unusually high or low, it should be treated with
caution and not used to extrapolate further.

Figure 13. Average (+/-standard error) fish caught per hour and recorded by shore anglers of different

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Match Day Club Casual Novice Top Match Match
Fish caught per hour
n= 17 n= 14 n= 12 n= 8 n= 13 n= 40 n= 71
). The dashed horizontal

anglers on WFSA catch and release match cards between 12/01/08 and 02/03/08 (

) and by

angler groups. Data was recorded by anglers during RSA surveys between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08 (

lines show the average fish per hour for the angler groups combined. The total recording periods for each
angler group (n=) are shown below each bar. Further details are in Appendix 17.

Catch of fish per hour as recorded by the anglers (figure 13) were in all cases much higher, and
in most cases nearly double those recorded by a surveyor. The average fish per hour for all
anglers within the RSA surveys recorded by the anglers themselves (represented by the dashed
line through the blue bars in figure 13) was 1.96 fish per hour, almost double the average
recorded by the surveyors (1.09 fish per hour).

Included in figure 13 is the average fish caught per hour of fishing, recorded by anglers on match
cards by two of the RSA angler groups ‘top match’ and ‘match anglers’, from two WFSA open
matches. These figures allow comparison between data collected during the RSA surveys and
additional data from some of the top match anglers who fish in Wales. The average for all the
WFSA match anglers combined was 2.87 fish per hour, almost a third higher than anglers during
normal RSA shore surveys, whilst WFSA top match anglers caught 3.60 fish per hour on
average.

Data recorded by anglers on WFSA match cards, during matches where no surveyors were
present, were not further analysed in this report as such analysis was outside the scope of this
pilot study.

During the RSA surveys there were recording periods where anglers and surveyors recorded zero
fish being caught (‘blanks’). The number of recording periods, recorded by both surveyors and
anglers where zero fish were caught is shown in figure 14. The shorter surveyor observation

19



periods of 40 minutes resulted in far more ‘blanks’ (109) compared with the longer angler
recording periods with durations up to six hours long (47 ‘blanks’). This suggests in future, if
surveyor recording periods were longer, the occurrence of ‘blanks’ might be reduced.

% of angling sessions whereno fish were caught

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0


n=0 n=11 n=17 n=41 n=14 n=17 n=12 n=28 n=8 n=9 n=13 n=14

Top Match Match Day Club Casual Novice

) during RSA surveys
) and anglers (
Figure 14. Relative numbers (percent) of angling sessions, for each of the different RSA angler groups, where
Data recorded by surveyors ( zero fish were caught (‘blanks’).

between 08/12/07 and 23/02/08.