Marine recreational fishing (MRF) is a high‐participation activity with large economic value and social benefits globally, and it impacts on some fish stocks. Although reporting MRF catches is a European Union legislative requirement, estimates are only available for some countries. Here, data on numbers of fishers, participation rates, days fished, expenditures, and catches of two widely targeted species were synthesized to provide European estimates of MRF and placed in the global context. Uncertainty assessment was not possible due to incomplete knowledge of error distributions; instead, a semi‐quantitative bias assessment was made. There were an estimated 8.7 million European recreational sea fishers corresponding to a participation rate of 1.6%. An estimated 77.6 million days were fished, and expenditure was €5.9 billion annually. There were higher participation, numbers of fishers, days fished and expenditure in the Atlantic than the Mediterranean, but the Mediterranean estimates were generally less robust. Comparisons with other regions showed that European MRF participation rates and expenditure were in the mid‐range, with higher participation in Oceania and the United States, higher expenditure in the United States, and lower participation and expenditure in South America and Africa. For both northern European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax, Moronidae) and western Baltic cod (Gadus morhua, Gadidae) stocks, MRF represented 27% of the total removals. This study highlights the importance of MRF and the need for bespoke, regular and statistically sound data collection to underpin European fisheries management. Solutions are proposed for future MRF data collection in Europe and other regions to support sustainable fisheries management.

Marine recreational fishing (MRF) is a popular activity that involves millions of people worldwide. While the impacts of recreational fishing on freshwater ecosystems received increasing attention in recent decades, the consequences of MRF takes place mainly on marine fish and ecosystems are largely unstudied. MRF takes mainly in coastal areas where most of its impacts concentrate. This review identified and ranked the activities and potential risks associated with MRF using a risk assessment matrix based on ecological and fisheries-related literature. The majority of the impacts were rated to be of minor importance (impacts that occur locally, are reversible, and comparably easy to manage on local scales). Three impacts were ranked as high-risk impacts (severe impacts that are difficult to reverse and to manage, and that may require management measures on a broad spatial scale): (1) the direct and indirect impacts of high and selective fishing mortality (truncation of the natural age and size structure, depensatory mechanisms, loss of genetic variability, evolutionary changes, and food web changes) because they potentially contribute to the decline of fish stocks and undermine biodiversity and ecological resilience, (2) the use of live bait organisms that originate from water bodies elsewhere because released or lost live bait organisms potentially impact the genetic, species, and ultimately ecosystem diversity, and (3) the loss of lead containing fishing tackle that potentially causes environmental contamination. The separation of MRF-induced impacts from other anthropogenic impacts is difficult and the impacts vary according to country-specific fishing practices, legislation, and cultural backgrounds. It can nonetheless be concluded that MRF can impact fish populations and coastal environments. In particular, the high-risk impacts require further investigations as information on their effects on marine fish stocks and ecosystems are generally sparse. Finally, the review outlines management implications for sustainable marine recreational fisheries that match the temporal and spatial scale of both the marine environment affected and the recreational fishing effort and proposes areas for future research.

Marine recreational fishing (MRF) has been shown to substantially contribute to fishing mortality of marine fish. However, European MRF catches are only quantified for a small number of stocks, so it is unclear whether a significant part of fishing mortality is excluded from stock assessments. This study estimated: (i) European MRF removals, which were defined as landings plus dead releases; and (ii) impact at stock level by comparing the percentage contribution to total removal by MRF and commercial fishing. As MRF data were limited for some European countries, catches were reconstructed using a mixture of average release proportions, average fish weights, and extrapolation using the catch per fisher of the nearest country providing catch estimates. Where catch reconstructions exceeded 50%, data were excluded from further analysis. Furthermore, as MRF survey methodology can be variable, semi-quantitative estimates of bias and error were calculated for each stock. Only 10 of the 20 stocks assessed in this study had sufficient MRF data for full reliable estimates. Percentage contribution to total removals (MRF + commercial removals) by MRF ranged between 2% for Atlantic mackerel in the North Sea and Skagerrak and 43% for Atlantic pollack in the Celtic Seas and English Channel. The biomass removed ranged between 297 (± 116) tonnes (Atlantic cod in the western English Channel and southern Celtic seas) and 4820 (± 1889) tonnes (Atlantic mackerel in the North Sea and Skagerrak), but the errors were substantial. Additionally, the bias in the estimated removals was low for most stocks, with some positive biases found. The present study indicates that removals by MRF can represent a high proportion of the total removals for some European marine fish stocks, so inclusion in stock assessments should be routine. To achieve this, regular surveys of MRF are required to collect data essential for stock assessments.

Smartphone applications (apps) that target recreational fishers are growing in abundance. These apps have the potential to provide data useful for management of recreational fisheries. We surveyed expert opinion in 20, mostly European, countries to assess the current and future status of app use in marine recreational fisheries. The survey revealed that a few countries already use app data to support existing data collection, and that this number is likely to increase within 5–10 years. The strongest barriers to use app data were a scarcity of useful apps and concern over data quality, especially biases due to the opt-in nature of app use. Experts generally agreed that apps were unlikely to be a “stand-alone” method, at least in the short term, but could be of immediate use as a novel approach to collect supporting data such as, fisheries-specific temporal and spatial distributions of fishing effort, and aspects of fisher behaviour. This survey highlighted the growing interest in app data among researchers and managers, but also the need for government agencies and other managers/researchers to coordinate their efforts with the support of survey statisticians to develop and assess apps in ways that will ensure standardisation, data quality, and utility.

This is the first study that estimates sea bass recreational catches in the Basque Country including fishers from shore, boat, and spearfishing. Three different offsite survey methods were used (e-mail, phone, and post) and their performance was compared. Estimates were different depending on the survey method used. Total catch estimates for shore fishing were 129, 156, and 351 tonnes for e-mail, phone, and post surveys, respectively. For boat fishing, estimates varied from 5 tonnes (phone) to 13 tonnes (e-mail and post). For spearfishing, only e-mail surveys were performed and total catch was estimated in 13 tonnes. Potential representation and measurement bias of each survey method were analysed. It was concluded that post surveys assured a full coverage of the target population, but showed very low response rates. Telephone surveys presented the highest response rates, but lower coverage of the target population. E-mail surveys had a low coverage and a low response rate, but it was the cheapest method, and allowed the largest sample size. All surveys methods were affected by recall bias. Recommendations are made about how to improve the surveys (increasing coverage, reducing non-response, and recall bias) to set up a routine cost-effective monitoring programme for Basque recreational fisheries. Results show that estimated sea bass recreational catches are comparable to commercial catches, which emphasize the relevance of sampling recreational fishing on a routine basis and including this information into the stock assessment and management processes.