STUDY PUTS RECREATIONAL ANGLERS ON HOOK.

Byline: Bill Becher Special to the Daily News

A new study by four university scientists found salt-water recreational fishing takes a bigger bite out of declining ocean fish populations than many realize and that limiting the number of sport anglers may be needed to protect fish stocks.

The peer-reviewed study, published in Science magazine, has produced a howl of criticism from recreational fishing advocates who question the data behind the study and oppose additional regulation.

``The conventional wisdom is that recreational fishing is a small proportion of the total take, so it is largely overlooked,'' said lead author Felicia Coleman of Florida State University. But recreational anglers nationally take 23 percent of the fish populations identified by the Federal government as species of concern and 59 percent of these over-fished species along the Pacific Coast, according to Coleman.

The authors say recreational fishing targets large, top-level predatory fish in the ocean. Removal of these fish can create dramatic changes in ocean food webs and cause cascading effects that alter the overall productivity and health of marine ecosystems.

``The large impacts of recreational fisheries surprised us, and they may startle many people, including fishermen, concerned about the health of our oceans,'' said Duke University's Larry Crowder, a co-author of the study. ``But if anything, our results likely underestimate the true impact of recreational fishing because we did not include fish that are discarded at sea or die from the effects of catch-and-release fishing.''

Current recreational fishing regulations aren't doing the job, the authors said.

``Bag and size limits aren't very restrictive if you don't restrict the number of individuals who are allowed to fish,'' Coleman said. ``Regulators are not restricting recreational fishing in a way that allows it to be a sustainable fishery.''

Recreational hunting on land has long relied on limited entry via lotteries and commercial fishing's impacts are controlled by restricting the number of fishermen the authors point out.

Coleman said while the total poundage of fish in the over-fished categories is limited for both recreational and commercial fishermen, sport anglers often catch more than their allocation because of the lack of timely data on take.

That good data is lacking is the only thing recreational anglers seem to agree with in the report.

``We're being overregulated because of bad data,'' said Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, a lobbying group for sport anglers. He called the report ``junk science'' and said his group would fight against more regulation.

``All they are doing is digging up the old bad data and trying to extrapolate it into recreational fishermen are somehow the cause of a big conservation problem, which we're not,'' Donofrio said.

``We have measures in place - bag, season and size limits which are in many cases over restrictive.''

Donofrio said his organization has asked Congress to open hearings into the fishery data problem. He says his group opposes any attempt to limit the number of sport anglers.

``This is public resource and we're going to fight for open access,'' he said.

Donofrio believes the study, which was funded by the Pew Foundation, is an attempt to justify more no-fishing marine reserves, a charge that Coleman disputes. She says while marine reserves have an important role for other reasons, they don't limit the impact on over-fished species because angling pressure just moves to another spot.

``It's short, sweet and kind of misleading,'' Cal State Northridge marine biology professor Larry G. Allen said of the study.

Allen also has concerns about the lack of data, saying, ``We still don't know enough about a lot of these things to make important judgments that have large economic impacts.''

Bob Fletcher, President of the Sportfishing Association of California also thinks the study is misleading.

``It talks about percentages of catch, not absolute weight,'' he said. ``Recreational anglers got 70 to 80 percent of a very low quota. But what put us in this box was the high levels of commercial fishing.''

Limiting the number of ocean anglers in California is not likely, said Deb Wilson-Vandenberg, research manager with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG).

``California's not ready to take the lead on that,'' she said.

This is partly because, while only certain species are of concern, anglers target groups of fish, not individual species.

``The DFG has been aware of the impact of recreational anglers on over fished species and had been trying to balance providing fishing opportunity in the face of some very low harvest limits,'' Wilson-Vandenberg said.