# Question - do we need more anglers?



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

There seems to be this underlying current in the fishing press - that we need more anglers?

What do you think? Do we? What is driving this push for recruitment into ranks?

Is it the evil retailer looking to enure his pockets are full? Or is the well intentioned conservationist who knows that anglers have a close touch point on the environment and will keep a better eye on than paid employees would?

And those who are fighting recruitment - is it snobby elitists? Or is it hard nosed realists who prefer the solitude of a quiet day on the water?

Lots of questions there

My thoughts

Just to play devils advocate and look at both sides - do we actually WANT more people fishing?

Sure, the trade do because there are financial benefits for them. Also, more user means a likelihood of more evolved and rapid product development, which of course is good for us all. It means more media exposure (magazines, blogs, TV shows), and it means more diffusion and diversification of information into the general angling mainstream e.g. 20 years ago kayak fishing would never have been a revolution in fishing and its popularity has largely been possible via the internet.

But more people fishing means more people competing for a limited resource - be it the fish themselves, the access to waters, etc. It means access to waters (both inland and ocean) may become limited or stopped due to increased traffic or liability concerns, not to mention increased regulatory involvement. It also means more people who do something because it's "cool" rather than because they have genuine love and investment in it. And like anything, the more people doing something, the higher likelihood of a bad egg spoiling it for everyone.

No right or wrong answer but I don't think there should be an automatic assumption that more is better. We've seen it in the US with the effect that "A River Runs Through It" had on fly fishing and the boom and bust cycle that followed that, where peoples dreams were fulfilled and then ruined often within a few years of each other.

There needs to be a sweet spot where there is enough interest for the sport to develop but not so much that it outstrips the resource it draws upon at risk of user weariness "Sigh, ANOTHER fishing show? Boorrring" and this isn't about elitism, but for some of us part of the thrill of fishing is doing something no-one else does, or understands, or tracking down obscure or unique tackle or accessories, and doing it in places where you don't see other people (or at least other people doing the same thing). If the sports grow, places where that can happen will naturally diminish.

Maybe the answer (if there is one) is a self-sustaining population of fisherman where the run off equals the recruitment. Irrespective of that and back to the original assumption, recruitment of the best kind comes when the person joining something does it out of a genuine interest, not a passing whim, fancy or fad. If we do want to recruit people who will stay with the sport and invest long term in it then they need to feel part of it.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm kinda in tune with with your "no we don't" arguement along the lines of more contention for a limited resource.

Slightly off on a tangent, I saw a stat today, accuracy of which I'm not sure, which is that we have 3 acres of land for every person on the planet from which to derive our food and fibre. That figure was a simple calculation of total global arable land divided by population. Very scary statistic I feel. Probably makes a furphy of the lesson I learnt at school about unequal distribution.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

I suppose what you're saying digger is, no matter what our words are, the result of our actions will be the real answer.

In other words, we can say population growth is a risk to humanity but, while we keep breeding, we don't really see it as a risk and will keep doing it until we eventually find out whether it was a risk or not.

If everyone who fished caught as many fish and the "good" fisherman do, I reckon you would struggle to find a fish.


----------



## Ocean67 (Sep 19, 2012)

Not sure we need more anglers or not, but we certainly need more responsible anglers...

Fishing is a great way to introduce people to the natural world and can be a great tool in helping promote environmental awareness, but some folk act irresponsibly and trash the joint. We've all met them, the type who think following the rules and acting decently doesn't apply to them. Chuck empty bait bags and other rubbish away where they like. Take whatever fish they like and kill and toss aside unwanted ones.

If numbers of anglers increase and it raises environmental awareness as a result, then I'm all for it. If, on the other hand, it leads to a rise in yobbos getting involved, then it will be bad for all of us.

As you can probably tell, I come at things from an environmental perspective and this is why I fish. Firstly, I like to eat seafood, but I also realise that certain commercial practices can have a devastating effect on particular fish stocks (I should know, despite some thinking me a "greenie", I spent six or seven years at sea working in several commercial fisheries). My thinking is that if I catch my own fish, then I am the one responsible for any impact that has and exactly how the fish was caught,killed,handled (I have no idea what those snow-white, cardboard fillets in my supermarket freezer even are, let alone where they came from). I would also say that the amount of unwanted by-catch I get is practically nil, and 85-95% of that would be released unharmed (I'm not even that much into catch-and-release in a way, I take what I need for my immediate needs and then usually stop fishing). If more people did like-wise and it was well-managed, it might actually have a good environmental outcome.

I'm also in the fortunate position of living within walking distance of where I most often fish, so zero food-miles involved


----------



## Ocean67 (Sep 19, 2012)

Barrabundy said:


> I suppose what you're saying digger is, no matter what our words are, the result of our actions will be the real answer.
> 
> In other words, we can say population growth is a risk to humanity but, while we keep breeding, we don't really see it as a risk and will keep doing it until we eventually find out whether it was a risk or not.
> 
> If everyone who fished caught as many fish and the "good" fisherman do, I reckon you would struggle to find a fish.


Only if they all took more than they really needed and if there wasn't a corresponding fall in demand for commercially harvested product.

The population growth issue is a good one too. Oceans cover 70% of the planet and it would be sheer madness if we don't work out how to use them properly to provide us with sustainable sources of food.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

What, 24million people in a country the size more or less of the US (well the "lower 48" anyway) and we're thinking "too many fishers"?

Man. I just don't know how to respond to this. But for me the charge is so far off beam I just don't know where to start.

Try this. We are blessed. Not a religious comment, a fishing one. Utterly blessed.


----------



## john316 (Jan 15, 2009)

Barrabundy said:


> If everyone who fished caught as many fish and the "good" fisherman do, I reckon you would struggle to find a fish.


hey bb, to parry that one I will add that when I was a "bad" fisherman I used to keep any fish that was legal. As my skills increased and I became a "good" (well better anyway) fisherman I keep very few. I haven't put fish in the freezer for years and only take what the two of us can eat fresh...

cheers

John


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

Of course we do.
Without recuitment of new fisherpeople, we will become more and more marginalised until we have political voice at all.
Look at land hunting. 50 years ago it was common and accepted. As we became wealthier, less people did it and now hunters have had a lot taken away from them and have almost no political power at all. As hunters numbers are again increasing, so is their political voice.
Sure, it would be great if there were only 21,000 people inAustralia who fished, the fishing would be awesome.
Except then they'd ban it as the antis would outnumber the pros so it would be a vote winner.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Ok, I'm selfish.

You probably have a valid point regarding the social/political licence to keep doing what we do for as long as there are enough numbers to push that barrow.

I have relatives in the US who are real outdoors action men. They dive, fish, surf, hunt and want to come over here for a holiday. I struggle to come up with a plan of hat I would do with them that would come anywhere near satisfying their lust for outdoor adventure. Last week this teenage relative of mine spent the night in a tree with bow in hand waiting for Bambi's dad to come and sample the corn bait he'd laid out. To think they live in a country with that level of population and can still go hunt in the woods is beyond my comprehension.

I wish we had the same outdoor freedom here. Maybe we DO need that weight of responsible fishing opinion here. Maybe with enough responsible anglers there would be less opportunity for the yobbo element to do what they do and ruin it for the rest of us. More eyes and ear on the water looking out for what we value.

I like it! Where do I join?


----------



## theGT58 (Nov 1, 2011)

Great post and interesting topic. Some very good points raised.

I would put it this way: I don't think we need more anglers but perhaps more dedicated anglers. I remember seeing a stat somewhere (could be wrong but I think it's close as I was surprised by the high figure) that during a year around 4 million Australians will go fishing. If even 1/4 of this number then became more dedicated fishos (more than once a year say) they would then buy more than a 3 day license and license fee's raised would be much higher, enabling more effort at conservation and more policing of the 'bad elements'. There would be greater awareness of conservation and responsibility I feel also and with much more people on the case we have a voice. Like it or not to me in the end I think we do need more of a voice out there or risk being seen as 'elitist' resource hogs who hurt animals for the sake of it. That is, I think the former is a growing opinion amongst those who do not actually know what fishing is, what fisherman do and simply want to be part of the warm fuzzy green revolution, without knowing many of us are 'green' or at least conservationists ourselves. Having said that it does appear that (of course) they're not all 'out to get us' given the recent green support of rec fishers in the Margaris issue. At the moment i'd have to say a large amount of the apparent 4 mill who fish would not really care what regulations are put in place to limit fishing or even if it were banned altogether as they do it so infrequently. A fair few probably don't even know there are size and bag limits given what I've seen on breakwalls in the summer holidays.

I'd agree that we need more responsible fisherman too, I guess the only way we get rid of the 'drink 10 bundy cans, throw bait bags all over the place, take everything' type brigade is by more policing and more responsible fishos to dob them in.

I really enjoy inducting a newby to fishing, especially when they are keen to learn and then get even more keen when they catch that first fish. Maybe we need to organise 'take a rookie fishing' days.

I guess in summary while I love that I'm often the only one up the secluded inlet arm I often fish at my local I would happily share it with a handful of others if it meant they were doing something they really enjoyed, were responsible and were dedicated to fishings survival in all respects.

Oh and with more of us about maybe we can finally get jet skis and ski boats banned from rivers and estuary's :lol:


----------

