Motivation and harvesting behaviour of fishers in a specialized fishery targeting a top predator species at risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective management of wildlife resources depends on understanding and cooperating with the human users of the resource, particularly as policies may be rejected if user satisfactions are not met. In Australia, recreational anglers can legally target a migratory top predator, the shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus , which is also a species at risk. It is assumed that most of the sharks are released and population remains minimally impacted; yet, the actual release rate of this species is unknown and little information is available about anglers that participate in this fishery. Fishing motivations and behaviours were ascertained by a web survey of recreational shark anglers from three south‐eastern Australian states. Respondents reported that ~70% of the captured makos were released, with significant geographic variation in release rates between states. Most anglers reported being motivated by the catch‐based objectives, the thrills and challenges, rather than harvest‐based motivations. However, there were significant differences in harvesting motivation among states. This could be attributed to the varying value assigned to shortfin mako as a sport fish and table fish among regions. Additionally, higher rates of release among anglers from New South Wales may be linked to increased opportunity for resource substitution (i.e. greater diversity of game fish species) and established norms driven by current catch‐and‐release fisheries in that region. Increased participation in catch‐and‐release fishing may be achieved by establishing behavioural norms by the provision of more desirable incentives to release sharks during fishing competitions. Data on regional variation in release rates yield important information for managers to target specialized fishers to incentivize catch‐and‐release fishing with an objective of changing behaviour. Many anglers understand that sharks are important to marine ecosystems and messaging may be important to deliver effective management given that most anglers are motivated by catch‐based objectives even though many enjoy harvesting makos. Information on natural resource user motivations and satisfactions, such as studied here, has the potential to guide management actions and the ways in which managers interact with resource users. A plain language summary is available for this article.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".