Marine Angling Tourism in Norway: The Interactions between Behavior, Management and Catch
Keno Ferter
Thesis for the Partial Fulfillment of the Degree Master of Science in Fisheries Biology and Management
Department of Biology University of Bergen Spring 2011
Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors Jon Helge Vølstad and Jeppe Kolding, who let me work independently and develop my skills during this study, but provided essential feedback and offered their expertise whenever needed. My gratitude also extends to Hans Hagen Stockhausen and Claus Reedtz Sparrevohn for taking a special interest in this study and providing many constructive comments and discussions. Next I would like to thank Axel Schudak, who spent several hours on setting up the internet study and combining the data after the survey. Similar thanks go to Silvio Hermann and Ronny Ludwig, who made it possible to conduct the survey in the two angling forums in the first place, and who distributed the access passwords to the survey participants. My gratitude also extends to Trude Borch and Jeremy Lyle, who aided in the brain storming process in the very beginning of this study, and who gave helpful advice during the composition of the on-site interview. Thanks to everyone from the Fisheries Dynamics research group for your input and support. A special thanks to Michael Pennington for the continuous statistical advice, and to Merete Nilsen and Gro Nesheim Nilsson, who were always available for practical advice, and who helped me essentially with the organization of the field study. Thanks to Tessa Bahiga Bargmann, my friends, my fellow students and my fishing mates, who, apart from providing helpful advice for this thesis, provided a social outlet and gave me the possibility to think about things other than the thesis during the last year. Finally I would like to thank the tourist angling businesses for facilitating this study, the Institute of Marine Research for financial support during the field work, and “Uwe Onken Tours” for providing a one-week fishing trip as an incentive for taking part in the internet study.
- Table of Contents -
Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Recreational fishing matters ................................................................................................... 3 1.2 The Norwegian marine recreational fisheries: some definitions ............................................ 4 1.3 Development and management of the Norwegian marine angling tourism ........................... 7 1.4 Previous studies of the Norwegian marine angling tourism ................................................... 8 1.5 Background and objectives of this thesis ............................................................................. 10 2. Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Internet survey ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 The sampled angling forums .......................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Internet survey design .................................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 Statistical methods for the analysis of the internet survey data ..................................... 15 2.2 Access-point study ................................................................................................................ 17 2.2.1 Study-areas (sampled tourist angling businesses) .......................................................... 17 2.2.2 Design of the access-point survey.................................................................................. 18 2.2.3 On-site interview procedure ........................................................................................... 19 2.2.4 Collection of biological information .............................................................................. 20 2.2.5 Statistical methods for the analysis of the access-point survey data.............................. 21 3. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Internet survey ...................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Booking modes and accommodation types .................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Mean daily catch per boat by region and accommodation type ..................................... 26 3.1.3 Age distribution of internet survey participants ............................................................. 27 3.2 Access-point study ................................................................................................................ 28 3.2.1 Catch proportions and quality check of the data ............................................................ 28 3.2.2 Capture rates and release rates in the northern and southern study-area ....................... 30 3.2.3 Motivations for releasing fish ........................................................................................ 33 3.2.4 Mean total lengths of landed cod and proportions of undersized cod in the catch ........ 35
- Table of Contents 4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 38 4.1 Comparison of the “business” and “informal” sector ........................................................... 38 4.2 Catch-and-Release and its implications ................................................................................ 40 4.2.1 Release rates in the business sector ............................................................................... 40 4.2.2 Release motivations: voluntary or regulatory? .............................................................. 41 4.2.3 Ethics and animal welfare in the context of Catch-and-Release .................................... 43 4.2.4 Implications for stock assessment and management...................................................... 45 4.3 Survey choices and data bias issues ..................................................................................... 47 4.3.1 Internet survey ............................................................................................................... 47 4.3.2 Access-point survey ....................................................................................................... 50 4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 51 4.5 Further studies ...................................................................................................................... 52 5. References ................................................................................................................................. 55 6. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 64 6.1 Appendix I: Forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen - Melding J-64-2011 (Excerpt) ........... 64 6.2 Appendix II: Questionnaire for the internet study ................................................................ 67 6.3 Appendix III: Daily catch diary, number and total weight of catches .................................. 71 6.4 Appendix IV: Explanation of study objectives to the forum members ................................ 73 6.5 Appendix V: Interview in the access-point survey ............................................................... 74 6.6 Appendix VI: Interview results from the northern study-area by fishing trip ...................... 77 6.7 Appendix VII: Interview results from the southern study-area by fishing trip .................... 79 6.8 Appendix VIII: Total length measurements for cod during the access-point survey ........... 81 6.9 Appendix IX: Example of two-stage cluster sampling in the access-point survey .............. 88
- Abstract -
Abstract The global role of recreational fisheries in the exploitation of fish stocks is increasingly recognized. In Norway, recreational angling is an important part of the tourism industry, and may contribute significantly to the fishing mortality of targeted species. Initial high estimates of up to 15,000 tons for the annual total catch of the growing marine angling tourism ten years ago caused conflicts between the commercial fisheries and the marine angling tourism industry. However, in 2009 a national survey of the business sector of the marine angling tourism estimated that only 3,335 tons of fish were landed in this sector. The study, however, did not cover the concealed informal sector of the marine angling tourism and may therefore have underestimated the total catch of the entire tourist fishery. Moreover, the study only estimated landed catch, and did not include released fish, although the practice of “Catch-and-Release” (C&R) is increasing globally. C&R fishing might lead to an unknown mortality, i.e. post-release mortality, which needs to be accounted for in assessments. An internet survey approach was tested to get information about the size and catch per unit effort (CPUE, [kg/boat day]) of the informal sector. This survey indicated that the informal sector is relatively small, and that the CPUE in this sector in Northern Norway may be smaller than the CPUE in the business sector in Northern Norway, while the CPUE in Southern Norway are similar within both sectors. Additionally, on-site interviews in two study-areas in Northern and Southern Norway were conducted during 2010 to estimate release rates for targeted fish species, and to get information on why fish were released. The onsite interviews revealed that a significant proportion of the capture is released in both study-areas, with release rates of more than 60 % for cod (Gadus morhua), saithe (Pollachius virens) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in the northern study-area. These release rates were applied to catch estimates for cod from the national survey in 2009, and showed that as much as over 1 million cod may have been released within the business sector in Northern Norway during 2009. This thesis evaluates the estimates of the national survey in 2009 using the findings of the internet study, and discusses where precautions should be taken in future assessments. Moreover, it discusses the motivations for the practice of C&R in the light of angler attitudes and the introduction of new management measures, evaluates the current management, and highlights the importance of ethical discussions and further research to understand the impacts of C&R on released species.
1
- Introduction -
1. Introduction 1.1 Recreational fishing matters Achieving sustainable exploitation of fishery resources has been an important management issue on a global scale for many years , but until recent years, the possible impact of recreational fisheries has been given little attention (Cooke and Cowx, 2004). However, the role of recreational fisheries, in particular angling, in the exploitation of global fish stocks is increasingly recognized (Coleman et al., 2004, Arlinghaus and Cooke, 2005, Lewin et al., 2006, Gray and Jordan, 2010). Ignoring the potential contribution of recreational fishing, which may account for 12% of the global fish catches, could have consequences for economically and ecologically important fish stocks, as it could contribute to overfishing (Cooke and Cowx, 2004, Cooke and Cowx, 2006, Lewin et al., 2006). In Norway, the marine fishing tourism industry has undergone a rapid expansion over the past years. Although fishing for consumption has been a legal right for local residents and a long tradition in Norway for centuries, the increase of the marine fishing tourism industry in recent years, particularly the large number of foreign fishing tourists, imposes an added pressure on the aquatic ecosystem (Borch, 2009). As the marine fishing tourism industry and the commercial fisheries target the same fish stocks in some regions, research and monitoring is needed to ensure sustainable utilization of the natural marine resources along the Norwegian coastline (Nedreaas, 2005). A national survey of the business sector of the Norwegian marine fishing tourism performed in 2009 showed that the coastal cod catches from tourists are insignificant when compared to the commercial and recreational catches of local residents (Vølstad et al., 2011a, b). That study, however, did not cover the section of the fishing tourists who choose to self-organize their trip, and stay in directly booked private cottages or motor homes during their fishing holidays. Hence, the total effort of all marine fishing tourists is still unknown. Moreover, the practice of “Catch-and-Release” (C&R) is increasing in many recreational fisheries all over the world (Cooke and Cowx, 2004, Arlinghaus et al., 2007, Policansky, 2008). This raises the question if the reported catches of marine fishing tourists in Norway are different from the actual capture, and if there is a hidden mortality (i.e. release mortality; Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005), which needs to be accounted for (Clark, 1983).
3
- Introduction -
1.2 The Norwegian marine recreational fisheries: some definitions In general, “recreational fishing” is defined by the FAO Code of Practice for Recreational Fisheries (2008) as “fishing of aquatic animals that do not constitute the individual’s primary resource to meet nutritional needs and are not generally sold or otherwise traded on export, domestic or black markets”. This definition distinguishes “recreational fishing” from “commercial fishing”, and from “subsistence fishery” where the latter is “fishing for aquatic animals that contribute substantially to meeting an individual’s nutritional needs” (FAO, 2008). Vølstad et. al (2011b) have grouped the Norwegian marine recreational fisheries based on the accommodation and residence status into several sectors (Figure 1.1).
Marine Recreational Fisheries
Marine fishing tourists Foreign and domestic marine fishing tourists traveling from home or second home to stay overnight
Business sector Tourist angling businesses and private cottages rented through booking agencies or web-portals List of businesses used by Vølstad et al. (2011b) (N=445)
Domestic marine recreational fishers Norwegians and legal residents staying overnight at home or in second home
Informal sector Private cottages, tents, motor homes etc. that cannot be booked through booking agencies or web-portals
Other businesses (N=Unknown)
Figure 1.1: The marine recreational fishery sectors in Norway based on the accommodation and resident status of recreational fishers (modified from Vølstad et al., 2011b). It should be noted that the size of the boxes does not reflect the real size of the different sectors.
4
- Introduction There are two main divisions; the “marine fishing tourists” and the “domestic marine recreational fishers”: The “domestic marine recreational fishers” include all Norwegian citizens and legal residents (immigrants with valid residence permit) who take part in marine recreational fishing, stay overnight at their home or second home, and make use of one or several fishing gears including hand held tackle, pots, gillnets and long-lines. In 2003, there were about 1.5 million domestic marine recreational fishers who fished in Norway (Hallenstvedt and Wulff, 2004). In contrast to many other European countries (Pawson et al., 2008), domestic recreational fishers in Norway are allowed to sell their catch up to a value of 50,000 NOK per year (Fiskeridirektoratet, 2011a). The selling of catch contradicts the general definition of “recreational fishing” by the FAO, but the US NOAA´s National Marine Fisheries Service notes in its website glossary, that even under the definition of recreational fishing a part of the catch can be sold, if “the monetary returns constituted an insignificant part of the person's income” (NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science and Technology, 2011). To account for the contradiction with the FAO definition but at the same time clearly distinguish recreational fishing from subsistence and commercial fishing, “marine recreational fishing” in Norway could be defined as “all marine fishing for leisure purposes which is not primarily done for commercial or subsistence purposes”. The “marine fishing tourists” include all individuals that travel from their home or second home, and stay overnight to take part in fishing for recreational purposes (Borch, 2004). This definition includes “foreign marine fishing tourists” as well as “domestic marine fishing tourists” (Norwegian citizens or legal residents). While this definition is the most encompassing and applicable, there are several other definitions of tourist fishing in the literature which, for example, include the minimum travel distance (at least 80 km one way) one has to cover for non-work purposes (Ditton et al., 2002). The marine fishing tourists stay overnight either in the “business sector” or in the “informal sector”: The “business sector” includes all registered tourist angling businesses, i.e. fishing camps and holiday complexes, and private cottages that can be rented through booking agencies or web5
- Introduction portals. Private cottages which can be rented through booking agencies or web-portals are included in this definition, as they become part of the business sector when they are advertising through one or several booking agencies or web-portals even though they are not registered businesses themselves. The “informal sector” includes all unregistered tourist angling accommodations, for example private cottages, tents and motor homes that cannot be booked through booking agencies or web-portals. “Booking agencies” include tour operators which typically sell full holiday packages combining tour and travel components, and rental management companies who mediate the rental of private cottages. Tourist angling businesses and private cottages attract mostly foreign fishing tourists (92% in the business sector) (Borch et al., in press), who are only allowed to use hand-held tackle when fishing in the sea (the use of pots, gillnets, long-lines or other professional fishing gears is forbidden for foreign fishing tourists (Fiskeridirektoratet, 2011b)). In addition, foreign fishing tourists are not allowed to sell their catch (Fiskeridirektoratet, 2011b). The tourist angling businesses and private cottages also attract a smaller number of domestic fishing tourists (8% in the business sector) (Borch et al., in press) who, likewise, mainly use hand held tackle when fishing from rental boats (Vølstad et al., 2011b). As most of the marine fishing tourists use hand held tackle, and “the activity of catching or attempting to catch fish, principally by rod and line, pole or hand-held line for non-commercial purposes” is termed “recreational angling” (EEA, 2004), it might be better to use the term “marine angling tourists” when referring to marine fishing tourists. This should be done to clearly separate marine fishing tourists from domestic marine recreational fishers, who are using a variety of fishing gears. As this thesis only deals with tourists using hand held tackle, the term “marine angling tourism” will be used henceforth, and participants in marine angling tourism will be referred to as “marine angling tourists”. Moreover, the term “capture” will be used for all fish that are captured during the angling, while the term “catch” will be used for the portion of the capture that is landed (Hall, 1996).
6
- Introduction -
1.3 Development and management of the Norwegian marine angling tourism While the first angling tourists in Norway were predominantly fishing for salmon in lakes and rivers, the number of marine angling tourists has significantly increased over the past years (Hallenstvedt and Wulff, 2001). There are several reasons for this; Norway still offers a licensefree marine fishery and good chances of catching large amounts of fish in a unique natural environment. In addition, the tourist infrastructure and housing conditions in Norway have improved markedly over the past years, offering easy and comfortable access to good fishing spots along the whole Norwegian coast. In particular, the number and quality of fishing camps along the coast has significantly improved, providing full services including accommodation, boats, guided tours and fish processing facilities (Borch, 2004). Although angling holidays in Norway are getting increasingly popular among Eastern-Europeans, most of the tourists are still German. This can partly be attributed to the high interest in angling among Germans, and to specialized marketing campaigns advertising Norway as an angling destination on the German market (Borch, 2004, Borch et al., in press). Additionally, Norway is relatively easy to reach from Germany by car and ferry. Not only has the number of marine angling tourists in Norway increased in recent years, but the angling itself has also developed. Due to technical advances including the use of GPS, echo sounder and modern fishing tackle, there has been an increase in catch efficiency. In addition, the communication between anglers concerning how and where to catch fish has improved due to the rising number of magazines and internet web pages (Borch, 2004, Cooke and Cowx, 2006). The rising number of marine angling tourists and initial high catch estimates ten years ago drew the attention of the general public and coastal stakeholders to this previously unnoticed sector. In particular, the relatively high catch estimates for foreign marine angling tourists (Hallenstvedt and Wulff, 2001), and the so called “freezer tourists” who visited Norway with motor homes, caravans or trailers equipped with freezers (Nordstrand and Holm, 2009), raised concerns and led to discussions of resource conflicts between the commercial fishery and the angling tourism industry (Gjøsæter and Sunnanå, 2005). These conflicts were reinforced by media presenting mostly the highest catch estimates to the general public (Borch, 2009). To stop the increasing and unrestricted utilization of the coastal resources, two measures restricting the marine angling tourism were introduced by the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries 7
- Introduction in 2006 and 2010, in addition to the gear limitation which had already restricted foreign angling tourists to fish with hand-held tackle only. From summer 2006, the export of sea fish caught by angling tourists was restricted to 15 kilograms filet or other fish products per person. In addition, one whole trophy fish per person can be taken out of the country (Fiskeridirektoratet, 2011b). The introduction of the 15 kg export limit was not based on any reliable data or statistics on catch amounts by tourists, and the possible consequences on coastal economies were not evaluated prior to implementation. Indeed, the implementation of the regulation resulted in cancellations of bookings by angling tourists, and caused severe problems for the angling tourism sector (Nilssen, 2006). In addition to the 15 kg export limit, minimum size regulations for selected species were implemented from January 1st 2010, which all recreational fishermen including angling tourists have to follow (Fiskeridirektoratet, 2011c). Generally, all fish which are caught in Norway have to be landed. However, this rule does not apply for fish which are under the minimum landing size, or species that are protected (e.g. spiny dogfish, European eel). If these are deemed likely to survive by the angler, they have to be released by law. Moreover, fish that legally could be kept, and are deemed likely to survive, can be released (details (in Norwegian) are given in Appendix I) (Fiskeridirektoratet, 2011).
1.4 Previous studies of the Norwegian marine angling tourism The first study specifically directed to marine angling tourism in Norway was published in 2001 by Hallenstvedt and Wulff. Many subsequent studies were based on that work (Hallenstvedt and Wulff, 2002, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, hereinafter CGE&Y, 2003, Jacobsen, 2005, Essens Management, 2005). Hallenstvedt and Wulff (2001) estimated the total annual catches of approximately 224,000 angling tourists to be in the range of 12,000 to 15,000 tons. However, CGE&Y (2003) suggested lower annual catches by marine angling tourists based on the estimates of Hallenstvedt and Wulff (2001), Norwegian statistics and a survey among 10 tourist companies and tourism related businesses. CGE&Y estimated that marine angling tourists catch about 6,000 – 9,000 tons per year, of which 22 % are taken in the three northern-most counties of Norway (Nordland, Troms and Finmark). However, the authors pointed out that these estimates were uncertain from a statistical point of view and further research would be necessary.
8
- Introduction As a comparison, the total catches by the Norwegian coastal fisheries fleet (excluding Oslofjord and Telemark) were 246,000 tons in 2001 (CGE&Y, 2003). Another issue, which has been covered by Essens Management (2005), is the exploitation of coastal cod (Gadus morhua) by marine angling tourists. Norwegian coastal cod is found in the Norwegian fjords and along the coastline of Norway and is genetically distinct from the NorthEast arctic cod (Stransky et al., 2008). There is a high risk that the stock is not harvested sustainably (Nedreaas et al., 2008), and since 2004, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has recommended that no coastal cod should be caught by the commercial fishery north of 62°N (ICES, 2010). Essens Management (2005) investigated the influence of angling tourism on coastal cod populations. Referring to earlier publications (Hallenstvedt and Wulff, 2001, CGE&Y, 2003) they concluded that the catches of marine angling tourists account for only 2-5 % of the total coastal cod catches, and that marine angling tourists were not responsible for the decline of coastal cod biomass. Nevertheless, given the available data, they could not exclude the possibility that marine angling tourists might have a negative impact on coastal cod populations in some areas along the Norwegian coast (Essens Management, 2005). Vølstad et al. (2011a) also concluded that coastal cod catches of marine angling tourists are generally insignificant compared to the commercial and recreational catches of local residents, but that local significant impacts cannot be excluded. The coastal cod catches of marine angling tourists would still be insignificant, if the actual number of tourist angling businesses was twice as large as it was assumed to be in the study (Vølstad et al., 2011b). Moreover, the economic value of the angling tourism sector has been studied (Hallenstvedt and Wulff, 2002, CGE&Y, 2003). Hallenstvedt and Wulff (2002) showed the economic importance of the angling tourism sector in Norway. They estimated that foreign marine angling tourists spend around 2,297 million NOK in Norway annually. The study by CGE&Y (2003) suggested that the generated value of one kilogram of fish caught by marine angling tourists is as much as ten times higher than the generated value of one kilogram of fish caught by traditional commercial fisheries. Nowadays, the public attitude towards the marine angling tourism sector in Norway has changed, resulting in less negative critique in the media. The sector has moved from being an external user group to being a legitimate stakeholder, and the commercial fishery and angling tourism sector cooperate to sustain coastal economies. The media also presents news related to
9
- Introduction angling tourism in Norway in a more nuanced manner than it was the case some years ago (Borch, 2009). To be able to monitor angling tourist catches cost effectively in the future, the implementation of an obligatory reporting of fish catches through tourism companies is being discussed by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. However, since such mandatory reporting has not been implemented to date, the Institute of Marine Research has developed and evaluated the use of a self reporting system for marine angling tourist catches. Vølstad et al. (2011b) evaluated the use of a probability-based sampling survey to estimate the yearly catch and effort by boat angling tourists in Norway. In that survey, a stratified random sample was selected from 445 registered tourist angling businesses, and marine angling tourists were asked to report their daily catch and fishing effort from boat using catch logbooks every sixth week, or for some selected businesses every week during 2009. The total catch of all species in the business sector during 2009 was estimated to 3,335 tons (relative standard error, RSE = 17%), of which 1,613 tons were cod (RSE = 22%) (Vølstad et al., 2011b). These estimates were considerably lower than those in earlier studies, probably because previous estimates were partly based on daily catch rates from fishing competitions, and therefore biased towards higher values. Apart from this bias, other reasons for the comparably low estimates include the general decline of coastal cod and a lower number of angling tourists due to the financial crisis in 2009. The study by Vølstad et al. (2011b) was also the first which estimated the catch by angling tourists in Norway at the species level. Cod was the most common catch north of 62°N, whereas saithe and mackerel dominated the catches south of 62°N.
1.5 Background and objectives of this thesis Vølstad et al. (2011b) provided the first probability-based estimates of the total catches by angling tourists in the business sector. The survey, however, was restricted to the business sector, and did not cover the informal sector (for definitions see section 1.2). The size and the catch rates of the informal sector are still unknown, because there is neither a complete registry of accommodations offering housing for angling tourists, nor any other information which could be used to track foreign angling tourists in Norway (e.g. by fishing licenses or a leisure boat registry). Thus, it is difficult to conduct a cost-effective survey of the entire marine angling 10
- Introduction tourism including the informal sector. This is further complicated by the very long coastline of Norway extending over 25,000 km (including fjords but excluding islands) and the free access to the sea (Vølstad et al., 2011b). For further studies, Vølstad et al. (2011b) suggested to estimate the relative size of the informal sector with respect to fishing effort, and to use these effort data in combination with the estimates of the “catch per unit effort” (CPUE, i.e. catch per boat day) from the business sector to estimate the total catch in the informal sector. Such an approach, however, would only yield reliable estimates if the actual CPUE in the informal sector was not significantly different from the CPUE in the business sector. Getting estimates for the entire marine angling tourism is essential to get an overview of the size of this sector relative to other fishing sectors in Norway, and, if necessary, to develop further management of the marine angling tourism in Norway, ensuring sustainability of important fish stocks. Another issue, which is globally increasing but has not been investigated in Norway so far, is the practice of C&R by marine angling tourists. C&R is the process of catching a fish using hook and line, and releasing it alive to the waters where it was caught, assuming that the fish will survive (Arlinghaus et al., 2007). While there are several studies dealing with the impact of C&R on Atlantic Salmon caught by anglers in Norway (Thorstad et al., 2003, Thorstad et al., 2007, Halttunen et al., 2010), no studies to date have quantified the degree or evaluated the impact of C&R practice in the marine recreational fishery in Norway. Cooke and Cowx (2004) estimated, based on Canadian recreational fisheries estimates, that roughly 60% of all global captures are released, which may be in the order of 30 billion released fish per year. Especially in the marine fishery, the proportion of C&R fishing has grown substantially over the last two decades (Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005). C&R can have several effects on fish including physiological changes, behavioral changes and ultimately mortality, and has therefore lead to many ethical discussions (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007). Therefore, it is important to develop techniques that can be used by anglers to minimize these effects (Cooke and Schramm, 2007). There is evidence from the U.S. that the increased practice of C&R and discarding (return of dead or severely injured fish) by marine recreational fishermen are mainly responses to management measures rather than a voluntary practice (Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005). For example, in the Biscayne National Park (Florida), Harper et al. (2000) showed that release rates significantly increased for regulated species after a state-wide minimum landing size and bag limits had been implemented, while there were no changes for unregulated species. C&R behavior as a response to management measures is referred to as “regulatory C&R”, in contrast to “voluntary C&R”, 11
- Introduction where fish which legally could be kept are still released. The most extreme form of C&R is “total C&R”, where all viable fish are released (Arlinghaus et al., 2007). The voluntary release of fish can have several reasons, for example ethical reasons (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007), or simply that fish are too small from the angler´s perspective, or they do not taste good (Policansky, 2008). Another reason why voluntary C&R is practiced, is to preserve the fish stock while still going fishing (Arlinghaus et al., 2007). Considering the global increase of C&R practice, and the implementations of the 15 kg export limit and the minimum length size regulation, it is necessary to investigate how many fish caught by marine angling tourists in Norway are released, and what the motivations are. If a substantial proportion of the capture is released, then survival studies, the development of methods to increase the survival of released fish, and ethical discussions about the practice will become necessary. Moreover, one will need to evaluate if the current management of the marine angling tourism is reaching its goals.
Given the lacking information about the Norwegian marine angling tourism, the goal of this study was to cover the following questions as a follow-up of the national survey in 2009 (Vølstad et al., 2011b):
1. What is the proportion of marine angling tourists staying in the informal sector during their holidays? 2. Is the catch per unit effort (catch per boat and day) of marine angling tourists staying in the informal sector different from the catch per unit effort of those staying in the business sector? 3. What proportion of the capture is released in the business sector? 4. If fish are released, what are the release motivations?
12
- Materials and Methods -
2. Materials and Methods To investigate questions 1 and 2, an internet survey (section 2.1) was tested to collect information about the informal sector. This approach was employed because there is no complete registry of accommodations offering housing for angling tourists, and alternative surveys like a roving creel survey or an aerial survey along the Norwegian coast would be too time consuming or too expensive, respectively. Since the majority of angling tourists in Norway are German (58% in the business sector) (Borch, 2004, Borch et al., in press), an online survey in two German angling forums was conducted. These two forums have a high number of members and are composed of anglers with different degrees of experience, so they were assumed to be representative for all German angling tourists travelling to Norway. The aim of the internet survey was to find the proportions of forum members that stay in the business sector compared to those that stay in the informal sector, and to get CPUE data for each sector. Questions 3 and 4 were studied by conducting an access-point study (section 2.2), where marine angling tourists were intercepted and interviewed at selected angling tourism businesses during summer 2010. These businesses were assumed to be a random sample of all accommodations in the business sectors in the counties Hordaland, Nordland and Troms. As the main aim was to estimate C&R rates in the business sector, an on-site survey combined with interviews was considered the most suitable sampling method. Due to the small time interval between the completed fishing trips and the on-site interviews, the collected data were less likely to be influence by memory recall bias, which could have been a significant problem for off-site interviews (Pollock et al., 1997). Other aims of the access-point study were to get information on why fish were released, and to estimate the proportions of undersized cod in the catch to investigate to what extent the newly introduced minimum size regulation had an influence on release rates.
2.1 Internet survey 2.1.1 The sampled angling forums From April 26th 2010 to September 30th 2010, an internet survey was conducted in two German
angling
forums
that
are
specifically 13
dealing
with
angling
in
Norway
- Materials and Methods (http://www.norwegen-angelforum.eu
(9,546
members;
August
28th
2010)
and
http://www.norwegen-angelfreunde.de (3,388 members; August 28th 2010). These forums are closely linked because many of the users are registered in both forums. The members of these forums are mostly German angling tourists travelling to Norway, which formed the study population (Jessen, 1978, Stuart, 1984).
2.1.2 Internet survey design
The internet survey consisted of two parts. One part of the survey was a questionnaire containing 17 questions that asked for travel location, means of booking, accommodation type, number of fishing days, and demographics (age, gender, nationality) (Appendix II). The participants were asked to give information about their most recent stay in Norway. The other part of the survey was a catch diary identical to the one used by Vølstad et.al (2011b), which included the species cod (Gadus morhua), ling (Molva molva), tusk (Brosme brosme), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), saithe (Pollachius virens), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), pollack (Pollachius pollachius) and Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus). Additional species could be added by the participants. In addition to catches (number and weights), the participants were asked to provide information on travel location, means of booking and accommodation type (Appendix III). After their stay, participants could choose to either send in the diary by standard mail, or to report the catch data online using an HTML form. To encourage participation in the questionnaire, participants were offered the opportunity to fill out either both parts or only one part of the survey, as filling out the catch diaries was more time consuming. One week prior to the start of the survey, the background and objectives of the study were explained in specifically opened forum threads to encourage the participation and to reduce the skepticism towards the study (Appendix IV). After this period, the questionnaire and the catch diary were made available on the website of the Institute of Marine Research. The web links to both parts of the survey were provided in the mentioned forum threads. An email reminder was sent to all registered forum members in July to ensure that all members were aware of the survey.
14
- Materials and Methods Double-response (Duda and Nobile, 2010) was minimized because a password was required to access the questionnaire and to upload a catch diary. Since anonymity was guaranteed, a password list was given to the forum administrators, who sent out one password per forum member on request. To offer an incentive for participation, all passwords which were requested via http://www.norwegen-angelforum.eu entered a raffle for a one-week angling trip to Norway. Only forum members registered before the start of the survey were eligible to enter the raffle, to avoid double registration to increase winning chances. The winner was determined by drawing one of the passwords after the survey, which was sent to the forum administrator who could track and notify the participant. This procedure allowed us to link a lottery to the survey, but still secure full anonymity of the participants, because they did not have to enter a name or email-address at the end of the questionnaire.
2.1.3 Statistical methods for the analysis of the internet survey data
The username lists of members of both forums who requested a password were compared by the administrators after the completion of the survey. It can be assumed that none of the members participated twice in the survey because none of the usernames appeared on both lists. Due to the close link between the forums, they were treated as one study population and hence, the questionnaires and catch diaries from both forums were pooled. Only questionnaires and catch diaries that were deemed reliable were included in the analysis, i.e. catch logbooks with only rough catch information were disregarded. Thus, after the discarding of 2 catch logbooks, a total of 105 questionnaires and 36 catch diaries (47 boats; 381 fishing days) were used for analysis. The data were stratified into two regions; Northern (north of 62°N) and Southern Norway (south of 62°N). One of the goals was to find the proportion of forum members staying in the informal sector during the holidays. As the survey participants were assumed to be representative for all members in the forums, the proportions of accommodation type and modes of booking the most recent stay were calculated. The proportions of forum members that stayed in the informal sector when visiting Norway were determined by calculating the proportions of participants that booked their accommodation directly or via friends, and stayed in a private cottage or on their 15
- Materials and Methods own property. However, in cases where the accommodation could have been booked via a rental management company or a tour operator, the accommodation was, by definition, assigned the business sector. For a simple check of the representativeness of the internet sample of anglers, the age distribution of the questionnaire participants was compared to the age distribution of 225 randomly interviewed angling tourists at businesses in Northern and Southern Norway during summer 2010. Mean ages of the survey participants and the randomly interviewed anglers were compared using Welch´s two sample t-test (Welch, 1947), because the F-test for comparing two variances indicated unequal variance for the mean ages (F-test, p30) even if the distribution of the underlying population is non-normal (Stuart, 1984). Hence, the parametric one-way ANOVA was used to test if the mean CPUEs differed between the business and informal sector with respect to the whole country, within Northern and Southern Norway, and between accommodation types in both regions. Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used for post hoc analysis to compare the differences of the mean CPUEs between the business and 16
- Materials and Methods informal sector within both regions, and between the different accommodation types in both regions, with the significance level set at 0.05 (95% confidence interval for differences). In contrast to the calculated CPUE based on the internet study, the CPUE estimates for the business sector by Vølstad et al. (2011b) during 2009 were based on random probability sampling. Hence, these estimates could be used as a reference, assuming that the catch rates of marine angling tourists and the proportions of species in the stock were similar between 2009 and 2010. Thus, to detect possible bias and check the quality of the self-reported data provided by the internet survey participants, the calculated CPUE for the business sector based on the internet survey were compared to the CPUE estimates for the business sector based on the national probability-based survey in 2009. Quality control of the collected data is essential because poor data, i.e. intentionally manipulated, can make a survey useless (Pollock et al., 1994)
2.2 Access-point study 2.2.1 Study-areas (sampled tourist angling businesses) Due to cost and time limitations, the number of access-points which could be visited was limited, and the study was therefore restricted to the county Hordaland because of its easy accessibility from Bergen (southern study-area), and to an area with easy access to a large number of tourist angling businesses in Nordland and Troms (northern study-area). In total, seven tourist angling businesses in the northern study-area and five businesses in the southern studyarea were visited (Figure 2.1). The selected tourist angling businesses were widespread in these two study-areas, and it was assumed that they were a random sample of all accommodations in the business sectors in Hordaland, and Nordland and Troms, respectively. These selected businesses were used as access-points where marine angling tourists could be intercepted. All selected businesses shared the characteristics that define a tourist angling business (Vølstad et al., 2011b), e.g. they rent out rooms and boats for recreational angling at sea and they offer facilities for gutting and freezing the catch. The number of available boats per business ranged from five to 32 boats per business. The businesses mostly attract foreign marine angling tourists, but they are also visited by domestic marine angling tourists. 17
- Materials and Methods a
b
Figure 2.1: Sampled tourist angling businesses in (a) the northern study-area and (b) the southern study-area during summer 2010.
The main fishing methods were the use of hand held tackle. Most of the angling tourists in the northern study-area used artificial lures, while a smaller proportion of anglers used artificial lures in the southern study-area as main fishing method. In the southern study-area, artificial lures were mainly used to target smaller fish (mostly mackerel), which were later used as bait to target larger predators. Hence, bait fishing was an additional, important fishing method in the southern study-area.
2.2.2 Design of the access-point survey
The seven selected businesses in the northern study-area were visited twice during the main tourist season (June 2010 and July 2010). Due to the large distance between the businesses in Nordland and Troms (Figure 2.1), the sampling days were not randomly chosen for logistical reasons. Instead, sampling days were determined prior to the field work in such a manner that all businesses could be visited and sampled for at least 24 hours within a time frame of three weeks. The sampling duration per business ranged from 24 hours to 72 hours, depending on fishing effort and weather conditions. The goal was to sample at least one fishing trip for each group of 18
- Materials and Methods angling tourists that were present on the first sampling day. Hence, if the business had five boats available for rent, but only four boats were rented out for fishing on the first sampling day, the aim was to sample each trip of the four angler groups that had rented a boat at least once. When fishing was prohibited due to bad weather conditions, a second or third sampling day was added. If none or only one of the available boats were rented out on the first sampling day, a second sampling day was added to secure samples from more than one group of anglers. The five selected businesses in the southern study-area were visited one to three times between July 2010 and September 2010. Due to time limitations, the sampling days had to be limited to certain time periods. After the sampling days were scheduled, the businesses to be sampled on a selected day were randomly selected with replacement (Pollock et al., 1994), i.e. after a site had been selected for sampling, it was returned to the sampling pool and had an equal chance to be selected again. The sampling duration per business was about 8 hours, and the goal was to sample at least one fishing trip for each group of angling tourists that were present on the sampling day.
2.2.3 On-site interview procedure
A scripted questionnaire containing 13 questions (Appendix V) was used for the on-site interviews. The questions asked about fishing effort (trip duration and number of anglers), targeted species, number of fish kept and released, reasons for release (if applicable), knowledge of minimum size regulations, and demographic information (age, gender and staying duration). To make the interview attractive and thereby increase participation, the questionnaire started with questions about the fishing trip, and demographic information was collected at the end of the interview. Furthermore, to minimize participation refusal and to avoid missing other incoming boats during periods of heavy activity, the interview duration was limited to about 3-5 minutes. The interviews were conducted in English, Norwegian, or German immediately after the fishing trip was completed, and only one interview per angler group was conducted. Therefore, if the same group of anglers had more than one fishing trip during the sampling day, they were not interviewed about the second fishing trip. This was done because the interview might have influenced their C&R practice on the second fishing trip. As the main purpose of the interviews 19
- Materials and Methods was to estimate release rates per boat, either the entire angler group was interviewed, or one spokesperson for the group was selected. In total, 54 fishing parties in the northern study-area (Appendix VI) and 54 fishing parties in the southern study-area (Appendix VII) were interviewed. This corresponds to a coverage of 71% and 90% of all boats that were rented out during the visits at the tourist angling businesses in the northern and southern study-area, respectively. The response rate was 100% for all the angling parties that were asked to participate in the interview, and boats not sampled were due to periods of heavy activity or due to language problems.
2.2.4 Collection of biological information
The goal was to sample the catches of all fishing trips during the visit. Hence, if the same group of anglers went on more than one fishing trip during the visit, the catches of the second or third trip were also sampled. It was assumed that the measured fish were a random sample of the whole catch during the sampling period in the visited tourist angling business. The field sampling protocol of the Institute of Marine Research was followed (Mjanger et al., 2007). After the landed fish had been sorted by species, the total length (TL) of every fish in the catch was measured in centimeters. While the TL of mackerel was measured from the tip of the snout to the tip of the folded caudal fin, the TL of all other species was measured from the tip of the snout to the tip of the caudal fin in natural position. All measurements were recorded to the nearest lower centimeter, i.e. for a fish with a length of 45.9 cm a length of 45 cm was noted. Additionally, the weights of 458 landed cod were measured using an electronic scale (Electronic Fishing Scale, Lawson, Norway) and the otoliths of these cod were collected and the sex was recorded. The otoliths were sent to a specialist at the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen for further processing (i.e. age reading) for later analysis. The analysis and comparison of the length measurements for all the sampled species and the age readings for cod go beyond the aims of this thesis. However, because of the current situation of the Norwegian coastal cod stock (see section 1.4) and the newly implemented minimum size regulation for this species, the length measurements of this species were further analyzed. This allowed estimation of the proportions of undersized cod in the catch, and an 20
- Materials and Methods investigation of how the minimum size regulation influences release rates for this species. In total, the lengths of 600 cod were used in the analysis (Appendix VIII).
2.2.5 Statistical methods for the analysis of the access-point survey data It was assumed that the selected tourist angling businesses (n=7 for the northern studyarea and n=5 for the southern study-area) were a random sample of a defined set of N primary units (N=163 for the northern study-area and N=26 for the southern study-area) (Vølstad et al., 2011b). These selected businesses formed the primary sampling units (PSUs). In the interview analysis, the sampled fishing trips formed the secondary sampling units (SSUs), while the measured cod formed the SSUs in the analysis of cod lengths (Cochran, 1977). It was assumed that for the ith PSU (i = 1,..., n) the sample of 𝑚𝑖 fishing trips or cod, respectively, was a random sample from a set of 𝑀𝑖 subunits (see example in Appendix IX). In the interview analysis, Mi was the total number of fishing trips during June and July 2010 (northern study-area) or from July to September 2010 (southern study-area) in the ith PSU (linearly extrapolated from sampling days with one fishing trip per boat day). In the length analysis, Mi was the total number of cod that were caught during June and July 2010 (northern study-area) or from July to September 2010 (southern study-area) in the ith PSU (linearly extrapolated from sampling days with one fishing trip per boat day). As the number of SSUs differed among the PSUs, a ratio estimator (Cochran, 1977) was used to estimate population proportions, e.g. proportions of released fish, and means, e.g. mean length of cod.
To estimate the true mean µ (e.g. mean release proportion, mean length of cod) over all 𝑁 𝑖=1 𝑀𝑖
subunits the following formula was used:
𝑥= where 𝑥𝑖 =
1 𝑚𝑖
𝑚𝑖 𝑗 =1 𝑥𝑖𝑗
𝑛 𝑖=1 𝑀𝑖 𝑥 𝑖 𝑛 𝑀 𝑖=1 𝑖
(2.1)
is an estimate of the true mean µi per SSU in the ith primary sampling
unit, and 𝑥𝑖𝑗 is the mean (e.g. release proportion) on the jth fishing trip or the length of the jth cod in the ith PSU, respectively (Gilbert, 1987). 21
- Materials and Methods The variance of 𝑥 was estimated by computing
𝑠2 𝑥 =
1−(𝑛/𝑁) 𝑀 2 𝑛(𝑛−1)
2 where 𝑠2𝑖 =
and 𝑀 =
1
𝑚𝑖 𝑗 =1(𝑥𝑖𝑗
𝑚 𝑖 −1
𝑛 𝑀𝑖 𝑖=1 𝑛
𝑛 2 𝑖=1 𝑀𝑖 (𝑥𝑖
− 𝑥 )² +
1 𝑛𝑁 𝑀 ²
2 𝑛 2 (1−𝑚 𝑖 /𝑀 𝑖 )𝑠2𝑖 𝑀 𝑖=1 𝑖 𝑚𝑖
(2.2)
− 𝑥𝑖 )²
.
The first term of equation (2.2) estimates the variation between PSUs, while the second term estimates the variation between SSUs (Gilbert, 1987). The finite population corrections for the first and secondary sampling stage, respectively, are 𝑓𝑝𝑐1 = 1 − (𝑛/𝑁) and 𝑓𝑝𝑐2 = (1 − 𝑚𝑖 /𝑀𝑖 ). The survey package (Lumley, 2010) in R (version 2.11.1, R Development Core Team, 2010) was used to analyze the survey data. The analysis was done separately for the northern and the southern study-area, and the survey design was specified as two-stage cluster sampling (Lumley, 2005a). To estimate population proportions the svyratio function of the package was used, and to estimate population means the svymean function was used (Lumley, 2005b). All estimates were based on the weighted means (equation 2.1). Weighting was important, as it assured that businesses with a larger total number of fishing trips/caught cod during the season got more weight in the analysis than businesses with a lower number of fishing trips/caught cod, independent of the number of samples. The weights were calculated by the survey package from n and mi, and from N and Mi (Lumley, 2004). To check if the sampled fishing trips in the northern and southern study area could be assumed to be representative for Northern and Southern Norway, respectively, the estimated proportions of the most abundant fish species in the total catch (number of landed fish), based on the interviews, were compared to the calculated proportions of these species in the total catch (number of landed fish), based on the estimates from the national survey in 2009 (Vølstad et al., 2011b).
22
- Materials and Methods The capture rates (number of captured fish per angler and hour) and the release rates (release proportions) for cod, ling, tusk, saithe and haddock were estimated for both the northern and the southern study-area. The capture rates and the release rates for pollack and mackerel were only estimated for the southern study-area, because only a few individuals of these two species were landed in the northern-study area during the sampling. The relative standard error (RSE [%] = 100*(standard error/estimated release rate)) was calculated as a measure of precision of the release rate estimates (Jessen, 1978). To test the statistical significance of the differences between the estimated capture and release rates for all analyzed species in the northern and southern study-area, the “standard method” (Schenker and Gentleman, 2001) was used. This method tests the null hypothesis that two estimates are equal (E1-E2=0) by examining whether the nominal 95% confidence interval contains zero. If the interval does not contain zero, the null hypothesis is rejected, i.e. there is a significant difference between the estimates. The nominal 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two estimates is given by:
𝐸1 − 𝐸2 ± 1.96 𝑆𝐸12 + 𝑆𝐸22 ,
(2.3)
where E1 and E2 denote the estimated released rates for the northern and southern study-area, respectively. 𝑆𝐸 1 and 𝑆𝐸 2 are the respective estimated standard errors.
The distributions of release motivations were estimated for all species except haddock and ling in the southern study-area, which were excluded from this analysis because both species were only released on one fishing trip each. The proportions of anglers that knew about the minimum landing size regulation in general, and that knew the minimum size for cod in particular, were estimated for those who had released at least one cod during their previous fishing trip. The estimation was restricted to angling tourists in the northern study-area, because the sample size in the southern study-area was too low to be able to draw further conclusions. To test if the mean length estimates and the estimated proportions of undersized cod in the catch were significantly different between the northern and southern study-area, the “standard method” (formula 2.3) was used.
23
- Materials and Methods Within each of the tourist angling businesses, the arithmetic mean lengths of cod, and the associated standard errors were calculated. In accordance with the central limit theorem, the sample sizes at each of the businesses in the northern study-area were large enough (n>30) to assume an approximately normal sampling distribution of the means (Stuart, 1984). Hence, parametric tests were used for comparison of the calculated mean lengths at each of the PSUs. One-way ANOVA was used to test if the mean length differed by business. Tukey´s multiple comparison test was used for post hoc analysis to compare the differences of the mean lengths between businesses in the northern study-area. Due to the small number of sampled cod (n=22 and n=7) in the southern study-area, the difference in mean lengths between the two sites was not statistically assessed, because the samples could not be considered to be representative.
24
- Results -
3. Results 3.1 Internet survey 3.1.1 Booking modes and accommodation types More than half of the German angling tourists registered in one of the two forums booked their fishing vacations in Northern Norway via a tour operator (56%), while only 27% of forum members chose this booking mode for their fishing vacation in Southern Norway (Figure 3.1). The main choice for booking an accommodation in Southern Norway was via a rental management company (38%) followed by direct booking (31%). In contrast, only 14% chose to book their accommodation in Northern Norway via a rental management company. 28% booked their accommodation in Northern Norway directly, which was similar to Southern Norway. For both regions, 2% of the forum members chose to organize the fishing vacations via friends or relatives. For Southern Norway, 2% refused to reveal how they booked their stay.
2%
Tour operator
2% 2%
28%
27%
31%
Rental management company Direct booking
56% 14% 38%
Private No answer
a
b
Figure 3.1: Modes of booking the accommodation in (a) Northern Norway and (b) Southern Norway.
In Northern Norway, 51% stayed in fishing camps, whereas in Southern Norway only 29% stayed in fishing camps (Figure 3.2). In Southern Norway, most of the forum members (61%) stayed in private cottages, while 40% stayed in private cottages in Northern Norway. In both regions only a small proportion of forum members stayed in holiday complexes (9% in
25
- Results Northern Norway and 8% in Southern Norway). Additionally, 2% stayed in their own properties in Southern Norway.
2% Fishing camp
29% 40%
Holiday complex
51% 8%
61% 9%
Private cottage Own property
a
b
Figure 3.2: Type of accommodation in (a) Northern Norway and (b) Southern Norway
Although a large proportion of the forum members stayed in private cottages, both in Northern and Southern Norway, many of these cottages were booked via tour operators or rental management companies. As a result, relatively small proportions of the accommodations were assigned the informal sector, i.e. accommodations that cannot be found in any register. In Southern Norway 16.6% of the forum members stayed in the informal sector, and in Northern Norway 10.5% stayed in the informal sector.
3.1.2 Mean daily catch per boat by region and accommodation type All estimates refer to the catch, i.e. the portion of the capture that is landed, and do not include fish that were released or discarded at sea. With respect to whole Norway, the CPUE in the business sector (24.8 kg/boat day) was higher than in the informal sector (18.9 kg/boat day) but the difference was not significant (one-way ANOVA, p=0.167) (Table 3.1). Generally, the CPUE was higher in Northern Norway than in Southern Norway. In Northern Norway, the CPUE in the business sector (30.8 kg/boat day) was higher than in the informal sector (21.7 kg/boat day), but the difference was not significant (Tukey’s multiple
26
- Results comparison, p=0.459), which was probably due to the small sample size for the informal sector and the resulting high standard error. In Southern Norway, however, the CPUE was similar between the business sector (14.4 kg/boat day) and the informal sector (16.9 kg/boat day). One-way ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in CPUE between the different accommodation types (p Karte (von Wikipedia) 3. Wie hast Du Deinen Aufenthalt gebucht? Über einen Angelreiseveranstalter Über einen Hütten - bzw. Ferienhausvermittler / Andere: Direktbuchung beim Vermieter NUR BEI DIREKTBUCHUNG BEIM VERMIETER: Ist diese Unterkunft über einen Reiseveranstalter oder Ferienhausvermittler buchbar? Ja: / Andere: Nein Weiß nicht Ich bin privat untergekommen (z.B. Wohnmobil, Freunde) Keine Angabe
67
- Appendices 4. In welcher Art von Unterkunft hast Du Deinen Aufenthalt überwiegend verbracht? Angelanlage (z.B. Rorbu-Zentrum) (auf Angler ausgerichtet) Ferienhaussiedlung (mehr als ein Ferienhaus), Hotel oder Campingplatz (nicht speziell auf Angler ausgerichtet, aber mit Bootsverleih) Ferienhaussiedlung (mehr als ein Ferienhaus), Hotel oder Campingplatz (nicht speziell auf Angler ausgerichtet, ohne Bootsverleih) Privates Ferienhaus mit Boot Privates Ferienhaus ohne Boot Eigene Unterkunft (Eigene Wohnung, Wohnmobil, bei Freunden oder Bekannten) Keine Angabe
TEIL II - ANGELTAGE
Bitte gib an, ob die Angaben zur Anzahl der Aufenthalts- und Angeltage in Frage 5, 7, 8 und 9 geschätzt (aus Erinnerung) oder aus Aufzeichnungen entnommen sind (Urlaubstagebuch etc.): Schätzung (aus Erinnerung) Exakte Angabe (aus Aufzeichnung entnommen)
5. Wie lange hat der Aufenthalt gedauert (Anzahl der Tage)? Tage Keine Angabe 6. War der Aufenthalt zum täglichen MEERESangeln gedacht? Ja Nein (Familienurlaub, Sightseeing, Angeltage im Süßwasser etc.) 7. Wie viele Angeltage im Meer waren ungefähr für den Aufenthalt eingeplant (Jeder Tag, an dem geangelt werde sollte, gilt als ein Angeltag)? Geplante Angeltage: Ich hatte keine Angeltage eingeplant Keine Angabe 8. Wie viele Tage hast Du VOM BOOT aus im Meer geangelt (Jeder Tag, an dem du mit dem Boot zum Angeln ausgefahren bist, gilt als ein Bootsangeltag)? Tage Keine Angabe
68
- Appendices -
9. Wie viele Tage hast du VOM UFER aus im Meer geangelt (Jeder Tag, an dem vom Ufer im Meer geangelt wurde, gilt als ein Angeltag)? Tage Keine Angabe
TEIL III - BOOTSTAGE 10. Wie viele Boote konnten insgesamt an Deiner Unterkunft bzw. Mietstelle gemietet werden (Gesamtzahl ALLER Mietboote)? Geschätzte Gesamtzahl der Mietboote Exakte Gesamtzahl der Mietboote Keine Ahnung 11. Bitte schätze: Wie viele der verfügbaren Boote wurden täglich vermietet? Weniger als die Hälfte Etwa die Hälfte Mehr als die Hälfte Alle Die Anzahl der ausgeliehenen Boote variierte stark von Tag zu Tag Keine Ahnung
TEIL IV - PERSÖNLICHE ANGABEN 12. In welchem Jahr bist du geboren (z.B. 1970)? Keine Angaben 13. Geschlecht? männlich weiblich
69
- Appendices 14. Welche Nationalität besitzt Du? Deutsch Österreichisch Schweizerisch Andere Keine Angabe
15. Wurdest Du von Deinem Vermieter gebeten, eine Fangliste für ein Forschungsprojekt des Institutes of Marine Research auszufüllen? Ja, ich wurde gebeten eine Fangliste des IMR während meines Aufenthaltes zu führen Ja, ich wurde gebeten eine Fangliste zu führen, weiß aber nicht, wofür bzw. von wem diese verwendet wurde Nein
Vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme an dieser Umfrage. Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Bergen, Keno (Ferter) Wichtig! Nach dem "Abschicken" bestätigt das Programm die Speicherung der Daten. Fehlt diese Bestätigung (d.h. die Folgeseite ist leer), dann gehe bitte mit dem Browser zurück auf diese Seite und schicke die Daten nochmal ab! Danke!
70
- Appendices -
6.3 Appendix III: Daily catch diary, number and total weight of catches
71
- Appendices -
72
- Appendices -
6.4 Appendix IV: Explanation of study objectives to the forum members Bergen, April 2010 Hallo, wie schon im Forum angekündigt, kommt jetzt der Fragebogen. Bitte nehmt Euch einen Moment Zeit für mein Anliegen. Dies ist eine einmalige Chance für Euch als Angler, aktiv zu einer verlässlichen Fangmengenberechnung und einer guten Kooperation zwischen Anglern und Wissenschaftlern beizutragen. Bitte füllt den Fragebogen auch dann aus, wenn ihr meint es würde sich nicht wirklich lohnen, beispielsweise, weil ihr wetterbedingt kaum mit dem Boot ’rausgekommen seid. Falls nur diejenigen teilnehmen würden, die immer im Urlaub zum Angeln ’raus konnten, könnte dies zu einer Überschätzung der Angeltage bzw. Fänge führen. Das Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Bergen (NO) hat exzellente Programme, um Fangdaten der Hochseefischerei in Norwegen zu registrieren. Eine umfangreiche und verlässliche Datenerfassung konnte nur durch eine sehr gute Kooperation zwischen dem Institut und der Fischereiflotte erreicht werden, wie beispielsweise durch das regelmäßige Ausfüllen von Fangbüchern seitens der Fischer. Die jährlichen Schwankungen der gemeldeten Fänge sind ein Zeichen für den aktuellen Zustand der Fischbestände. Leider ist immer noch recht wenig über die Fänge von Anglern in Norwegen bekannt und ob bzw. welchen Einfluss Angler auf die küstennahen Fischbestände nehmen. Eine ebensolche Kooperation mit Anglern, wie sie bereits mit den kommerziellen Fischern besteht, würde den derzeitigen Wissensstand der Wissenschaft ungemein erweitern und dabei helfen, die Fischerei und Angelei nachhaltig zu sichern. Im vergangenen Jahr wurden in 90 Angelanlagen und Ferienhäusern entlang der norwegischen Küste Fanglisten verteilt und die Belegung und Nutzung der Boote registriert. Da sich die Datenerfassung ausschließlich auf kommerzielle Angelanlagen und registrierte Ferienhäuser beschränkt hat und wir auf eine Rückmeldung der Betreiber bezüglich der Bootsnutzung angewiesen waren, sind zwei Punkte, die für eine zuverlässige Bestandsberechnung unbedingt notwendig sind, weitestgehend ungeklärt: Verbringt der Haupteil der Angeltouristen seinen Urlaub in kommerziellen Angelanlagen oder registrierten Ferienhäusern und ist der private Sektor deswegen in den Berechnungen zu vernachlässigen? Wie hoch ist die tatsächliche Anzahl an Angel- bzw Ausfahrtagen innerhalb einer Urlaubswoche? Der folgende Fragebogen soll bei der Beantwortung dieser Fragen weiterhelfen. Bitte nehmt Euch einen Moment Zeit, um diesen auszufüllen. Um auch noch in ein paar Jahren ausreichend Fisch fangen zu können, was uns allen wichtig ist, ist es unerlässlich herauszufinden, wie Fischbestände auf die Fischerei und Angelei reagieren. Falls Fragen bestehen, könnt ihr mich jederzeit per PM, E-mail oder Telefon erreichen. Vielen Dank für Eure Mithilfe!
73
- Appendices -
6.5 Appendix V: Interview in the access-point survey Interview Nr.:
Number of people interviewed:
Name of business:______________
Date:(___/___/2010)
Die letzte Tour / the most recent trip 1. Wie viele Angler haben auf der letzten Bootstour geangelt? How many people actually fished on this trip? _______anglers 2. Wie viele Stunden haben Sie auf der letzten Bootstour geangelt? How many hours did you fish on this trip? _______hours 3. Welche Fischart haben Sie beangelt? Weitere Arten? Warum? Which fish species did you target on the last trip? Anything else? Why? Dorsch/Cod Köhler/Saithe Schellfisch/Haddock Heilbutt/Halibut Makrele/Mackerel Leng/Ling Lumb/Tusk Pollack/Pollack Gestreifter Seewolf/Atlantic Wolffish ____________________ 4. Haben Sie etwas gefangen? Wie viele Fische haben Sie entnommen? Haben Sie Fische zurückgesetzt? Wie viele Fische wurden entnommen (T=taken)/released(R=Released)? Weiter Arten? Did you catch anything? How many did you keep? Did you release any? How many of each? Anything else? Dorsch/Cod Köhler/Saithe Schellfisch/Haddock Heilbutt/Halibut Makrele/Mackerel Leng/Ling Lumb/Tusk Pollack/Pollack Gestreifter Seewolf/Atlantic Wolffish
74
- Appendices 5. Warum haben Sie Fische released? Why did you release any fish? Dorsch/Cod Köhler/Saithe Schellfisch/Haddock Heilbutt/Halibut Makrele/Mackerel Leng/Ling Lumb/Tusk Pollack/Pollack Gestreifter Seewolf/Atlantic Wolffish ____________________ MLS – minimum length size, TS – too small, TM – too many, DL – don’t like, C&R – catch and release 6. Gibt es Mindestmaße in Norwegen, die für Angeltouristen gelten? Are you aware of any minimum size regulations in Norway which are relevant for tourist anglers? Yes
No
Don’t know
7. Was ist das Mindestmaß für Dorsch? What is the minimum size for cod? ________cm
Don’t know
Have tools on board Personal minimum size 8. Falls deutschsprachig: Kennen Sie das Norwegen-Angelforum bzw. NorwegenAngelfreunde? If German speaking: Do you know the Norwegen-Angelforum or Norwegen-Angelfreunde? Yes
No
9. Sind Sie in mindestens einem dieser Foren registriert? Are you registered in at least one of these forums?
Yes
No
75
- Appendices Profiling: 1. Wie lange dauert Ihr Aufenthalt insgesamt in dieser Anlage? What is the duration of your stay in this business? ________nights 2. Wann sind Sie an dieser Anlage angekommen? Which date did you arrive at this business? (___/___/2010) 3. Wie viele Tage haben Sie davon bis jetzt in dieser Anlage geangelt? How many days have you gone fishing until now at this business? _________days 4. Wie viele Angelausfahrten haben Sie am Vortag unternommen? How many fishing trips did you do yesterday? _________trips
Nationality:_____________________
Age(s):_____________________
Gender(s):______________________
76
- Appendices -
6.6 Appendix VI: Interview results from the northern study-area by fishing trip 1
(k): number of kept fish (r): number of released fish including release motivation (“TS”=Too small, “TM”=Too many fish, “MLS”=Minimum length size, “DL”=Do not like, “CR”= Catch-and-Release) 3 Total catch including rarely caught species. 4 Mi: Number of fishing trips in June and July 2010 (linearly extrapolated from sampling days with one fishing trip per boat day) 2
Trip
Date
Business
Saithe (k)1
Saithe (r)2
Cod (k)
Cod (r)
Haddock (k)
Haddock (r)
Ling (k)
Ling (r)
Tusk (k)
Tusk (r)
Total catch3
Knew about MLS
Knew Cod MLS
Mi4
1
14/06/10
Helnessund
2
35 (TS)
5
10 (MLS)
1
0
1
0
0
0
9
Yes
No
549
2
14/06/10
Helnessund
0
40 (TS)
10
25 (TS)
0
2 (TS)
0
1 (TS)
0
0
10
Yes
Yes
549
3
14/06/10
Helnessund
0
5 (CR)
0
20 (CR)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
No
549
4
14/06/10
Helnessund
0
20 CR)
0
50 (CR)
0
5 (CR)
0
1 (TS)
0
0
0
No
No
549
5
15/06/10
Helnessund
0
30 (TS)
4
10 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
10 (DL)
4
Yes
Yes
549
6
15/06/10
Helnessund
0
50 (DL)
20
10 (TS)
0
0
0
1 (TS)
0
4 (DL)
20
Yes
No
549
7
15/06/10
Helnessund
0
40 (TS)
7
5 (TS)
0
0
1
0
6
10 (TM)
14
No
No
549
8
16/06/10
Saltstraumen
11
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Yes
No
320.5
9
16/06/10
Saltstraumen
16
5 (TS)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Yes
Yes
320.5
10
16/06/10
Saltstraumen
0
7 (TS)
11
15 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Yes
No
320.5
11
18/06/10
Værøy
0
3 (DL)
5
8 (TM)
0
1 (DL)
0
0
0
0
5
No
No
145.5
12
20/06/10
Værøy
0
2 (TS)
9
2 (TS)
0
0
0
2 (TS)
0
2 (DL)
9
Yes
No
145.5
13
20/06/10
Værøy
0
0 (TS)
5
15 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
5 (DL)
5
Yes
No
145.5
14
20/06/10
Værøy
0
10 (TS)
11
0
0
1 (TS)
0
0
0
0
12
Yes
No
145.5
15
21/06/10
Kræmmervika
0
6 (TS)
20
3 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
No
No
146
16
23/06/10
Kræmmervika
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Yes
Yes
146
17
24/06/10
Lyngen
0
1 (TS)
2
10 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Yes
Yes
349
18
25/06/10
Lyngen
1
5 (TS)
4
15 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
1 (TS)
5
Yes
Yes
349
19
25/06/10
Lyngen
6
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
26
Yes
No
349
20
25/06/10
Lyngen
0
0
0
6 (MLS)
0
0
0
0
1
4 (DL)
4
Yes
Yes
349
21
25/06/10
Lyngen
3
5 (TS)
8
20 (MLS)
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
Yes
Yes
349
22
26/06/10
Koppangen
9
12 (TS)
4
10 (TS)
0
0
2
5 (TS)
4
2 (TS)
19
Yes
No
183
23
26/06/10
Koppangen
0
0
6
8 (TS)
0
0
0
0
10
0
16
Yes
No
183
24
28/06/10
Lauklines
15
15 (TM)
0
10 (CR)
0
0
0
0
0
0
115
Yes
Yes
441.5
25
28/06/10
Lauklines
10
50 (TS)
2
30 (TS)
0
2 (TS)
0
0
0
0
13
Yes
No
441.5
77
- Appendices 26
28/06/10
Lauklines
0
0
4
3 (TS)
4
10 (TM)
0
2 (TS)
0
0
8
Yes
Yes
441.5
27
28/06/10
Lauklines
0
25 (CR)
0
20 (CR)
0
10 (CR)
0
1 (CR)
0
0
0
Yes
Yes
441.5
28
28/06/10
Lauklines
1
0
7
10 (MLS)
2
0
0
0
0
1 (TS)
10
Yes
Yes
441.5
29
28/06/10
Lauklines
0
0
32
10 (TS)
0
20 (DL)
0
0
0
8 (DL)
32
Yes
Yes
441.5
30
12/07/10
Helnessund
4
150 (TS)
15
100 (TS)
1
0
0
0
0
0
20
Yes
No
549
31
13/07/10
Helnessund
1
50 (TS)
30
50 (TS)
3
0
0
0
0
0
38
Yes
No
549
32
13/07/10
Helnessund
5
20 (DL)
10
2 (TS)
4
0
0
0
1
0
21
Yes
No
549
33
13/07/10
Helnessund
0
50 (TS)
1
5 (TS)
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
Yes
No
549
34
13/07/10
Helnessund
4
40 (TS)
4
30 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Yes
No
549
35
13/07/10
Helnessund
0
0
1
0
1
3 (TS)
0
0
1
3 (TS)
3
Yes
No
549
36
14/07/10
Saltstraumen
70
3 (TS)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
Yes
No
320.5
37
14/07/10
Saltstraumen
3
30 (TM)
3
5 (TM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Yes
No
320.5
38
14/07/10
Saltstraumen
4
20 (TS)
2
6 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Yes
Yes
320.5
39
14/07/10
Saltstraumen
2
2 (TS)
8
1 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
No
No
320.5
40
14/07/10
Saltstraumen
5
10 (TS)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
No
No
320.5
41
16/07/10
Værøy
1
20 (TS)
9
1 (TS)
12
0
0
0
0
0
22
No
No
145.5
42
16/07/10
Værøy
0
25 (TS)
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
No
No
145.5
43
16/07/10
Værøy
0
15 (CR)
0
5 (CR)
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Yes
No
145.5
44
20/07/10
Kræmmervika
0
2 (TS)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Yes
No
146
45
21/07/10
Kræmmervika
6
50 (TS)
0
15 (DL)
0
3 (DL)
0
1 (TS)
0
0
7
Yes
No
146
46
21/07/10
Kræmmervika
0
1 (TS)
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
No
No
146
47
21/07/10
Koppangen
1
2 (TM)
5
3 (TS)
0
0
1
0
1
0
10
Yes
Yes
183
48
24/07/10
Lyngen
0
1 (TS)
1
4 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Yes
No
349
49
24/07/10
Lyngen
0
1 (TS)
1
2 (TS)
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
Yes
No
349
50
24/07/10
Lyngen
10
10 (TS)
5
5 (TS)
6
5 (TS)
0
0
3
0
25
No
No
349
51
24/07/10
Lyngen
2
15 (TS)
4
10 (MLS)
0
3 (MLS)
2
0
2
2 (TS)
11
Yes
Yes
349
52
26/07/10
Lauklines
0
5 (TS)
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
4
Yes
No
441.5
53
26/07/10
Lauklines
0
10 (CR)
4
20 (CR)
0
2 (CR)
0
0
0
0
4
Yes
Yes
441.5
54
26/07/10
Lauklines
1
20 (TS)
5
20 (CR)
1
10 (CR)
0
0
0
0
8
Yes
No
441.5
Sum
-
-
193
918
324
609
41
77
9
14
35
52
722
-
-
-
78
- Appendices -
6.7 Appendix VII: Interview results from the southern study-area by fishing trip 1
(k): number of kept fish (r): number of released fish including release motivation (“TS”=Too small, “TM”=Too many fish, “MLS”=Minimum length size, “DL”=Do not like) 3 Total catch including rarely caught species. 4 Mi: Number of fishing trips from July 2010 to September 2010 (linearly extrapolated from sampling days with one fishing trip per boat day) 2
Trip
Date
Business
Saithe (k)
1
06/07/10
Kvernepollen
2
06/07/10
3
06/07/10
4
1
2
3
4
Saithe (r)
Cod (k)
Cod (r)
Haddock (k)
Haddock (r)
Ling (k)
Ling (r)
Tusk (k)
Tusk (r)
Mackerel (k)
Mackerel (r)
Pollack (k)
Pollack (r)
Total catch
Mi
30
20 (TS)
3
2 (MLS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
30 (TS)
0
0
48
735
Kvernepollen
11
50 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
735
Kvernepollen
1
3 (TS)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
3 (TS)
6
0
20
735
06/07/10
Kvernepollen
8
25 (TS)
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
14
735
5
06/07/10
Kvernepollen
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
9
735
6
06/07/10
Kvernepollen
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1 (TS)
3
0
5
735
7
06/07/10
Kvernepollen
0
7 (TS)
1
5 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
20 (TM)
1
0
11
735
8
04/08/10
Kvernepollen
0
2 (TS)
0
2 (TS)
1
0
2
0
0
0
10
0
1
0
14
735
9
04/08/10
Kvernepollen
0
3 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
4
735
10
04/08/10
Kvernepollen
0
2 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
735
11
04/08/10
Kvernepollen
0
2 (TS)
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2 (TS)
4
4 (TM)
1
8 (TS)
7
735
12
04/08/10
Kvernepollen
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
10 (TS)
10
735
13
04/08/10
Kvernepollen
1
0
0
3 (TS)
1
0
1
0
2
0
6
0
0
1 (TS)
11
735
14
04/08/10
Kvernepollen
0
10 (TS)
1
1 (TS)
1
0
0
0
2
4 (TS)
20
0
0
0
24
735
15
17/08/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
413.5
16
17/08/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
413.5
17
17/08/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (TS)
4
413.5
18
18/08/10
Langenuen
2
1 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3 (TS)
0
0
4
459
19
18/08/10
Langenuen
2
3 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
10 (TS)
1
1 (TS)
9
459
20
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
1
0
6
3 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
25 (TS)
0
10 (TS)
86
735
21
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
2
3 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
16
4 (TM)
0
0
25
735
22
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
2
0
20
735
23
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
1
10 (TS)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
10 (TS)
0
0
5
735
24
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
7
5 (TS)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
24
735
25
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
24
20 (TS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
30 (TS)
1
0
173
735
79
- Appendices 26
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
1
9 (TS)
1
20 (TS)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
30 (DL)
0
6 (TS)
3
735
27
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
0
10 (TS)
1
5 (MLS)
4
0
3
1 (TS)
0
2 (DL)
30
0
1
10 (TS)
39
735
28
01/09/10
Kvernepollen
0
5 (TS)
1
3 (TS)
1
0
0
0
0
0
25
5 (TS)
1
0
29
735
29
04/09/10
Herdla
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
20 (TM)
1
0
19
920
30
04/09/10
Herdla
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10 (TM)
0
0
3
920
31
04/09/10
Herdla
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
20
920
32
04/09/10
Herdla
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
29
920
33
04/09/10
Herdla
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
1
0
11
920
34
04/09/10
Herdla
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
6 (TS)
0
0
62
920
35
04/09/10
Herdla
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
9
0
0
0
15
920
36
04/09/10
Herdla
3
2 (TS)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
31
920
37
05/09/10
Langenuen
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
459
38
05/09/10
Langenuen
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2 (TS)
1
0
7
459
39
05/09/10
Langenuen
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
8
459
40
05/09/10
Langenuen
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2 (TS)
0
0
1
459
41
05/09/10
Langenuen
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
459
42
05/09/10
Langenuen
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
459
43
06/09/10
Glesvær
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2 (TS)
0
0
6
644
44
06/09/10
Glesvær
2
6 (TS)
1
2 (TS)
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
10
644
45
06/09/10
Glesvær
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
25
0
9
0
1
0
40
644
46
06/09/10
Glesvær
13
10 (TS)
1
0
2
0
3
0
15
8 (TS)
15
0
0
0
49
644
47
06/09/10
Glesvær
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
9
2 (TS)
12
0
0
0
27
644
48
06/09/10
Glesvær
0
3 (TS)
1
0
1
2 (TS)
1
0
4
0
15
0
0
0
23
644
49
06/09/10
Glesvær
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
15
0
15
0
0
0
36
644
50
22/09/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
413.5
51
22/09/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
413.5
52
22/09/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
413.5
53
22/09/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
8
413.5
54
22/09/10
Hardanger Fjordhytter
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
9
413.5
Sum
-
-
128
211
27
46
19
2
34
1
85
18
659
217
32
47
1035
-
80
- Appendices -
6.8 Appendix VIII: Total length measurements for cod during the access-point survey 1
Mi: Total number of cod caught during June and July 2010 (Northern study-area) and from July to September 2010 (Southern study-area) (extrapolated from sampling days) Fish number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
Study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area
Business Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund
Month June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July
Year 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
81
Species cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod
TL [cm] 46 48 55 55 55 56 57 59 59 59 66 66 69 71 73 74 76 77 93 100 36 39 39 41 41 42 42 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 52
1
Mi 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9
- Appendices 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168
Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area
Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Helnessund Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen
July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
82
cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod
53 53 53 53 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 55 55 56 56 56 57 57 57 58 58 59 60 60 60 61 61 61 62 63 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 69 69 70 71 73 74 74 75 79 85 86 105 46 47 47 48 48 48 49 50 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 54 55 56 57 57 61 68 73 39 44 44 48 48 48 48 48
7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 7191.9 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4
- Appendices 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258
Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area
Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Saltstraumen Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy
July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
83
cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod
49 50 52 52 53 53 60 62 62 65 67 69 71 80 80 85 101 51 53 57 57 58 59 60 61 61 63 63 64 65 65 67 68 68 69 69 70 72 72 73 74 75 83 83 90 93 104 110 111 55 56 58 59 59 59 60 61 61 63 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 69 69 70 71 71 71 72 73 73 75 76 76 76 77 77
1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 1573.4 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1
- Appendices 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348
Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area
Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Værøy Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Kræmmervika Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen
July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July June June June June June June June June June June June June June June
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
84
cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod
77 78 78 79 80 82 83 85 86 86 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 90 90 90 90 91 92 95 96 97 100 102 103 106 109 44 45 48 48 49 50 51 53 55 59 59 61 61 61 61 63 65 65 66 67 67 69 70 88 89 44 44 46 46 46 50 51 53 54 55 55 57 58 59 60 61 64 66 72 78 35 37 39 45 45 46 46 47 48 49 49 49 49 50
890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 890.1 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 469.3 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8
- Appendices 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438
Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area
Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen
June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
85
cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod
50 52 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 60 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 68 69 70 73 74 74 75 77 77 78 80 80 87 88 96 96 25 36 38 40 41 42 43 45 45 46 46 47 47 49 49 50 51 52 55 61 61 61 66 66 67 69 70 71 72 72 75 75 76 76 77 77 77 78 79 81 83
2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8
- Appendices 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528
Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area
Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Lyngen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Koppangen Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines
July July July July July July July July July June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
86
cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod
84 84 85 88 100 106 107 110 117 38 40 40 41 43 43 44 45 45 46 46 46 54 56 56 57 57 60 60 75 78 100 32 37 38 39 41 41 42 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 55 55 56 62 64 67 83 87 107 123 47 47 48 50 51 52 55 55 55 56 56 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 64 64 65
2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 2319.8 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 606.2 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7
- Appendices 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Northern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area Southern study-area
Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Lauklines Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Kvernepollen Glesvær Glesvær Glesvær Glesvær Glesvær Glesvær Glesvær
June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July August August September September September September September September September September September September September September September September September September
87
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod cod
65 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 71 73 76 76 76 76 77 78 79 86 56 59 60 60 60 62 63 64 64 65 66 67 67 68 68 70 72 73 73 74 74 75 80 86 110 26 30 35 37 42 47 51 55 57 59 67 51 104 34 35 39 39 40 44 53 60 63 46 49 51 51 64 71 80
3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 3134.7 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 898.3 644 644 644 644 644 644 644
- Appendices -
6.9 Appendix IX: Example of two-stage cluster sampling in the access-point survey
88
Errata – 27.06.2011 S. 4 (Figure 1.1): “Forgein” corrected to “Foreign” S. 16: “formal” changed to “business” S. 16: ”formal” changed to “business” S. 27 (Table 3.1): “formal” changed to “business” S. 29: “grey gurnard (Eutrigla gurnadus)” corrected to grey gurnard (Eutrigla gurnardus) S. 48: “formal” changed to “business” S. 50: “from a randomly chosen sample of tourist angling businesses” changed to “from a sample of tourist angling businesses assumed to be random” S. 79: removed: “linearly extrapolated from sampling days”
89
