Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Relationship between Fishing Regulations and Angler Compliance in Virginia

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate geographical awareness, species identification, and recognition of seasonal legal variations are typical constructs of fishing regulations. The combination of these factors makes understanding regulations a challenge, thus, making it difficult for anglers to abide by the law. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the relationship between angler fishing specialization, knowledge of fishing regulations, and compliance on two popular waterways in Virginia. An online survey was used to collect data from a sample of 326 licensed Virginia anglers. Two hypotheses were tested based on the regulatory knowledge of the anglers, their fishing specialization, and the likelihood they would comply with fishing regulations. Contrary to the hypothesized relationship, it was found that more specialized anglers had less regulatory knowledge. However, support was found between regulatory knowledge and angler likelihood of compliance. Limitations of this study, future research, and policy implications are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Contact corresponding author.

Notes

  1. This time frame is arbitrary and was used as part of a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) by the authors to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

  2. Fishing without a license is illegal and a form of poaching. Ideally this is a target population for wildlife research. However, the population is difficult to identify and observe for research. Instead, in the present research, licensed anglers are examined to measure their understanding of the regulations and likelihood they comply with the regulations.

  3. Included in the final samples for each research hypothesis are the participants which completed the full survey. Partial survey attempts are not included in these samples due to issues with list-wise deletion.

  4. Some questions were included as measures to report to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries while others were highly skewed in the observations observed and, therefore, not appropriate for the chosen analyses.

  5. Current fisheries regulations from the specified sampling timeframe were used to test the likelihood which the participants would comply. It should be noted that regulations change frequently, and the questions used in this research instrument may no longer be adequate.

  6. A test for collinearity among three variables used in the logistic regression, 1) knowledge, 2) familiarity lake, and 3) familiarity river was conducted. The VIF values for each variable were below 5 indicating that no issue with collinearity exists among the variables.

  7. While McFadden’s pseudo R2 is not directly comparable to R2 values for linear regression, McFadden’s pseudo R2 is one of the better comparisons (Long and Freese, 2014).

References

  • Allan, J. D., Abell, R., Hogan, Z., Revenga, C., Taylor, B. W., Welcomme, R. L., & Winemiller, K. (2005). Overfishing of inland waters. Bioscience, 55, 1041–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus, R., & Cooke, S. J. (2009). Recreational fisheries: Socioeconomic importance, conservation issues and management challenges. In D. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods: Science and practice (pp. 39–58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S. J., & Potts, W. (2013). Towards resilient recreational fisheries on a global scale through improved understanding of fish and fisher behaviour. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 20, 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, K. H., Giles Jr., R. H., & Cowles, C. J. (1977). Lack of research in wildlife law enforcement. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 5, 170–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Daneke, D. (1988). Effects of agricultural, industrial, and recreational expansion on frequency of wildlife law violations in the central Rocky Mountains, USA. Conservation Biology, 2, 283–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout anglers. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 174–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, B. D., & Helfrich, L. A. (1988). Recreational specializations and motivations of Virginia river anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 8, 390–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow, M. S., Shelley, T. O., & Stretesky, P. B. (2013). Camouflage-collar crime: An examination of wildlife crime and characteristics of offenders in Florida. Deviant Behavior, 34, 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curcione, N. (1992). Deviance as delight: Party-boat poaching in southern California. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, C. P., & Wilkins, B. T. (1981). Motivations of New York and Virginia marine boat anglers and their preferences for potential fishing constraints. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 1, 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys. The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliason, S. L. (2003a). Illegal hunting and angling: The neutralization of wildlife law violators. Society and Animals, 11, 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliason, S. L. (2003b). Throwing the book versus cutting some slack: Factors influencing the use of discretion by game wardens in Kentucky. Deviant Behavior, 24, 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliason, S. L. (2004). Accounts of wildlife law violators: Motivations and rationalizations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filteau, M. R. (2012). Deterring defiance: Don’t give a poacher a reason to poach. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 1, 236–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, C. J. (1994). Bookers and peacemakers: Types of game wardens. Sociological Spectrum, 14, 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, C. J., & Forsyth, Y. A. (2009). Dire and sequestered meetings: The work of game wardens. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, C. J., & Marckese, T. A. (1993). Folk outlaws: Vocabularies of motives. International Review of Modern Sociology, 23, 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigliotti, L. M., & Taylor, W. W. (1990). The effect of illegal harvest on recreational fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 10, 106–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. D., & Maughan, E. (1984). Angler compliance with length limits on largemouth bass in an Oklahoma reservoir. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4, 457–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, T., Yang, Z., & Hardin, J. W. (2012). Modeling underdispersed count data with generalized Poisson regression. The Stata Journal, 12, 736–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. M., Arlinghaus, R., & Martinez, P. J. (2009). Are we doing all we can to stem the tide of illegal fish stocking? Fisheries, 38, 389–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, F. D., Beardmore, B., & Arlinghaus, R. (2015). Optimal management of recreational fisheries in the presence of hooking mortality and noncompliance – Predictions form a bioeconomic model of incorporating a mechanistic model of angler behavior. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 72, 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux, A. M. (2014). Situational prevention of poaching. London, UK: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux, A. M., & Clarke, R. V. (2009). The international ban on ivory sales and its effects on elephant poaching in Africa. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 451–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. R., Prachiel, B. M., DeBoer, J. A., Wilde, G. R., & Pope, K. L. (2012). Using the internet to understand angler behavior in the information age. Fisheries, 37, 458–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayers, D. A. (1988). Effects of three years of minimum and slot length limit regulations for largemouth bass (Master’s thesis). University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

  • Minnaar, A., & Herbig, F. (2018). The impact of conservation crime on the south African rural economy: A case study of rhino poaching. Act Criminological: Southern African Journal of Criminology, 31, 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mkuna, E., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. (2019). Determinants of Nile perch (Lates niloticus) overfishing and its intensity in Lake Victoria, Tanzania: A double-hurdle model approach. Hydrobiologia, 835, 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogollón, B., & Villamagna, A. M. (2014). Updating the manager’s toolbox: Mapping spatio-temporal trends in freshwater fishing. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7-8, 89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreto, W. D. (2019). Provoked poachers? Applying a situational precipitator framework to examine the nexus between human-wildlife conflict, retaliatory killings, and poaching. Criminal Justice Studies, 32, 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreto, W. D., & Lemieux, A. (2015). From CRAVED to CAPTURED: Introducing a product-based framework to examine illegal wildlife markets. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 21, 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreto, W. D., & Pires, S. F. (2018). Wildlife crime. An environmental criminology and crime science perspective. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muth, R. M., & Bowe, J. F. (1998). Illegal harvest or renewable natural resources in North America: Toward a typology of the motivations for poaching. Society & Natural Resources, 11, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. (2008, Jan. 4). Agencies nationwide hope new strategy will increase fishing license sales. News-tribune. https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/2369884-agencies-nationwide-hope-new-strategy-will-increase-fishing-license-sales.

  • National Geographic. (n.d.). Freshwater threats. National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/freshwater-threats/

  • Neuharth, S. (2019, Nov. 5). Ask a warden: Why are reg books so complicated? Meateater. https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/policy-and-legislation/ask-a-warden-why-are-reg-books-so-complicated.

  • Nielson, J. R., & Mathiesen, C. (2003). Important factors influencing rule compliance in fisheries lessons from Denmark. Marine Policy, 27, 409–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez, C., & Jonker, S. A. (2008). Attitudes toward wildlife and conservation across Africa: A review of survey research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13, 47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurse, A. (2015). Policing wildlife: Perspectives on the enforcement of wildlife legislation. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Page, K. S., & Radomski, P. (2006). Compliance with sport fishery regulations in Minnesota as related to regulation awareness. Fisheries, 31, 166–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paragamian, V. L. (1984). Angler compliance with 12.0-inch minimum length limit for smallmouth bass in Iowa streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4, 228–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R. B., & Tomcko, C. M. (1998). Angler compliance with slot length limits for northern pike in five small Minnesota lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18, 720–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pires, S. F. (2015). A CRAVED analysis of multiple illicit parrot markets in Peru and Bolivia. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21, 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. R. (2013). Resilient recreational fisheries or prone to collapse? A decade of research on the science and management of recreational fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 20, 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radomski, P. J., Grant, G. C., Jacobson, P. C., & Cook, M. F. (2001). Visions for recreational fishing regulations. Fisheries, 26, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau, B. (2017). Wildlife politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rott, N. (2018, March 20). Decline in hunters threatens how U.S. pays for conservation. National public radio. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation

  • Schill, D. I., & Kline, P. A. (1995). Use of random response to estimate angler noncompliance with fishing regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15, 721–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonneveld, B., Thoto, F., Houessou, D., & van Wesenbeeck, L. (2019). The tragedy of inland lakes. International Journal of the Commons, 13, 609–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 37, 513–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. S., Gavin, M. C., & Milfont, T. L. (2015). Estimating non-compliance among recreational fishers: Insights into factors affecting the usefulness of the randomized response and item count techniques. Biological Conservation, 189, 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tibbetts, S. G., & Gibson, C. L. (2012). Individual propensities and rational decision-making: Recent findings and promising approaches. In A. R. Piquero & S. G. Tibbetts (Eds.), Rational choice and criminal behavior: Recent research and future challenges (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travers, H., Archer, L. J., Mwedde, G., Roe, D., Baker, J., Plumptre, A. J., Rwetsiba, A., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2019). Understanding complex drivers of wildlife crime to design effective conservation interventions. Conservation Biology, 33, 1296–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018). 2016 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation (Report No. FHW/16-NAT(RV). https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw-16-nat.html

  • Vosoogi, S. (2019). Panic-based overfishing in transboundary fisheries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 73, 1287–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widenmann, J., & Jensen, O. P. (2019). Could recent overfishing of New England groundfish have been prevented? A retrospective evaluation of alternative management strategies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76, 1006–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilberg, M. J. (2009). Estimation of recreational bag limit noncompliance using contact creel survey data. Fisheries Research, 99, 239–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    M. Dylan Spencer

  2. Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

    Egan K. Green & Riane M. Bolin

Authors
  1. M. Dylan Spencer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Egan K. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Riane M. Bolin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Dylan Spencer.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Contact corresponding author.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Body of water names and locations within the instrument have been censored to protect participant privacy

  1. 1.

    Have you ever fished Lake or the River in Virginia?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  2. 2.

    How confident are you in identifying the upstream boundary of Lake?

  3. 3.

    How did you learn how to fish? Check the most influential option.

    1. a.

      Self-taught

    2. b.

      Friend

    3. c.

      Family member (please specify which one)

    4. d.

      Fishing guide or business

    5. e.

      Other (please specify)

  4. 4.

    How often do you fish? Choose the answer that is closest for you.

    1. a.

      Never

    2. b.

      Every few years

    3. c.

      Once a year

    4. d.

      Several times a year

    5. e.

      Several times a month

    6. f.

      Several times a week

    7. g.

      Daily

  5. 5.

    Which method of fishing do you do most often?

    1. a.

      Spin fishing

    2. b.

      Bait cast

    3. c.

      Fly fishing

    4. d.

      Cane pole

    5. e.

      Trolling

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  6. 6.

    What species of fish do you try catching most often?

  7. 7.

    How familiar are you with the fishing regulations in the River and Lake?

 

Not familiar at all

Slightly familiar

Moderately familiar

Very familiar

Extremely familiar

River

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Lake

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

  1. 8.

    How well of a job do you think the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries does of making the fishing regulations for the River and Lake known?

 

Poor job

Bad job

Decent job

Good job

Excellent job

River

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Lake

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

  1. 9.

    With regard to fishing regulations in the River and Lake, there are ______ (of) fishing regulations

 

Too few

The right amount

Too many

River

◯

◯

◯

Lake

◯

◯

◯

  1. 10.

    Which state is upstream from Lake?

    1. a.

      North Carolina

    2. b.

      West Virginia

  2. 11.

    How likely are you to keep the specified catches in the River?

 

Extremely unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Somewhat likely

Extremely likely

Keep a 13-in. Largemouth or Smallmouth Bass

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Keep a 15-in. Largemouth or Smallmouth Bass

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

  1. 12.

    How likely are you to keep the specified catches in Lake?

 

Extremely unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Somewhat likely

Extremely likely

Keep a 13-in. Largemouth or Smallmouth Bass

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Keep a 15-in. Largemouth or Smallmouth Bass

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Keep a 19-in. Walleye or Saugeye downstream from Lake Dam

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Keep a 19-in. Walleye or Saugeye on June 1

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Keep a 19-in. Walleye or Saugeye on May 31

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Keep an 18-in. Walleye or Saugeye downstream of Dam in County to Lake Dam during February.

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

  1. 13.

    How many times have you accidentally or intentionally broken fishing laws in the River and Lake?

 

River

 

Lake

 
 

Never

1–5

6–10

11–15

16+

I don’t know

Never

1–5

6–10

11–15

16+

I don’t know

Accidentally broken fishing laws

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Intentionally broken fishing laws

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

  1. 14.

    Mark whether or not the following scenarios are legal or illegal for the River and Lake

 

River

Lake

 

Legal

Illegal

I don’t know

Legal

Illegal

I don’t know

Keeping a 13-in. Largemouth or Smallmouth Bass

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

Keeping a 15-in. Largemouth or Smallmouth Bass

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

◯

  1. 15.

    Mark whether or not the following scenarios are legal or illegal

 

Legal

Illegal

I don’t know

Keeping a 19-in. Walleye or Saugeye downstream from Lake Dam

◯

◯

◯

Keeping a 19-in. Walleye or Saugeye caught in Lake on May 31

◯

◯

◯

Keeping a 19-in. Walleye or Saugeye caught in Lake on June 1

◯

◯

◯

Keeping an 18-in. Walleye or Saugeye caught in the River downstream of Dam in County or in Lake during February

◯

◯

◯

  1. 16.

    What is your age?

  2. 17.

    What is your sex?

    1. a.

      Male

    2. b.

      Female

  3. 18.

    What is your race?

    1. a.

      White

    2. b.

      Black or African American

    3. c.

      American Indian or Alaska Native

    4. d.

      Asian

    5. e.

      Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  4. 19.

    What is your income?

    1. a.

      Less than $10,000

    2. b.

      $10,000–$29,999

    3. c.

      $30,000–$49,999

    4. d.

      $50,000–$69,000

    5. e.

      $70,000–$89,000

    6. f.

      $90,000–$149,999

    7. g.

      More than $150,000

  5. 20.

    What is your highest level of education you have completed?

    1. a.

      Did not complete High School

    2. b.

      High School/GED

    3. c.

      Associate’s Degree

    4. d.

      Bachelor’s Degree

    5. e.

      Master’s Degree

    6. f.

      Advanced Degree (J.D. or Ph.D.)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spencer, M.D., Green, E.K. & Bolin, R.M. Exploring the Relationship between Fishing Regulations and Angler Compliance in Virginia. Am J Crim Just 46, 815–836 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09576-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09576-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation