Pike stock management in designated brown trout fisheries: Anglers’ preferences. ESRI Research Bulletin, 2018/06
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A policy review with respect to the active management of pike stocks within lakes that are designated as wild brown trout fisheries is currently underway. This paper examines trout and pike anglers’ preferences for pike stock management. Pike stocks are controlled with the objective of protecting brown trout stocks, and a naive assumption is that trout anglers support and pike anglers oppose this management intervention. This research reveals that this is not the case and that angler preferences for pike stock control are complex and nuanced. A majority of surveyed trout anglers, at 61%, revealed preferences opposing pike stock control, and all else equal, are more likely to choose fishing sites where pike stocks are not actively managed. The converse is that a substantial minority, 39%, of trout anglers are advocates of pike control, with about one-third of these being more extreme in their preferences. Not surprisingly, surveyed pike anglers do not support pike stock control measures, though the strength of their preferences varies across pike anglers. The research found that neither easily identifiable socio-demographic characteristics such as age and education, nor angler-type attributes such as fishing club membership and angler skill levels are associated with anglers’ support or opposition to pike stock control. Consequently, we surmise that preferences on pike stock control are related to anglers’ philosophical, ecological or political beliefs related to fishing or fishery management. Some other significant results from the analysis relate to catch rates and bag limits. Pike anglers are more responsive to catch rates than trout anglers. Pike anglers are 1.6 times more likely to visit a fishing site where the average catch rate is 1 fish higher compared to 1.1 times for trout anglers. At present there is a bag limit of 4 trout per day and the majority of trout anglers are not averse to a reduction in the daily bag limit. Only 1-in-8 trout anglers are opposed to reducing the daily bag limit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.001 |
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".