Risks of shifting baselines highlighted by anecdotal accounts of New Zealand's snapper (Pagrus auratus) fishery

Abstract

Anecdotal data sources may constitute an important component of the information available about an exploited species, as record keeping may not have occurred until after exploitation began. Here, we aimed to fill any gaps in the exploitative history of the sparid snapper (Pagrus auratus), using social and historical research methods. Social research consisted of interviews with recreational fishers, focusing on the most and largest snapper they had caught. In addition, the diary‐logs of two recreational fishers were analysed. Historical research consisted of investigation of old books, photos, archives and unpublished sources unconventional to fishery science. Interviews with fishers demonstrated no or weak trends in snapper abundance or size, and were likely impeded by a lack of ability to detect change in a fish stock that may still be considered abundant. The fishers’ perception of change, however, largely reflected recent experiences (last c. 10 years), when biomass is understood to have increased, and mostly did not consider experiences before the 1980s. Alternatively, diary‐logs of fisher catch rates produced a pattern that matched formal stock assessments of snapper biomass, suggesting declines in abundance up until the 1990s and an increase in biomass after that time. Historical research, although more qualitative, had the ability to investigate periods where formal records were not kept and described a fishery vastly different from the current one. Snapper were easily caught, in great abundance and in unusual locations. Localised depletion of snapper was first noticed in the early 20th century, despite spectacular catches of snapper occurring after that time. Snapper behaviour was also likely different, with visual sightings of snapper by onlookers a common occurrence. Although predictions from stock assessment models are consistent with that of the anecdotes listed here (i.e., high biomass in the past), these anecdotes are valuable as they explain lost biomass in a perspective meaningful to all. This perspective may be valuable for managers trying to consider the non‐financial value of a shared fishery but, if unrecognised, represents a shifting baseline.