Contrasting Global Game Fish and Non‐Game Fish Species

• Published in: Fisheries 2011-08, Vol.36 (8), p.385-397
• Main Authors: Donaldson, Michael R., O'Connor, Connie M., Thompson, Lisa A., Gingerich, Andrew J., Danylchuk, Sascha E., Duplain, René R., Cooke, Steven J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Conservation; Endangered & extinct species; Fish; Fish migration; Freshwater; Freshwater fish; Game fishes; Geographical distribution; Habitat selection; Inland water environment; Length; Migratory species; Nature conservation; Sport fishing; Threatened species; Trophic levels
• ISSN: 0363-2415; 1548-8446; 1548-8675
• DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2011.597672

We compared biological and ecological traits between global game fish and non‐game fish species using an analysis with randomly chosen fish species from each group and an analysis where species were matched by body length. We used data from the International Game Fish Association (IGFA), FishBase, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. Game fish species were defined as being present in the IGFA world record list. The random comparison revealed that on average game fish were significantly larger (155.0 ± 121.5 versus 34.1± 59.5 cm), occupied shallower minimum depths (19.4 ± 58.8 versus 130.0± 359.0 m), had a broader latitudinal range (51°.2 ± 29.4° versus 31.1°± 25.9°), and significantly higher trophic levels (4.1 ±0.1 versus 3.4± 0.1 trophic units) than non‐game fish species. The length‐matched analysis simüarly identified that game fish species occupied higher trophic levels than non‐game fish (3.9 ± 0.4 versus 3.6± 0.6 trophic units), but latitudinal range and depth associations did not differ between groups. Both the random and length‐matched analyses revealed that game fish were more commonly found in freshwater than non‐game fish. Both analyses found that game fish species were more migratory and that both groups differed in their geographical distributions. The random comparison revealed that game fish were significantly more targeted by commercial fisheries, less resilient, and more threatened relative to non‐game fish. Caution must be exercised when synthesizing data from broad data sources, yet this study identifies important differences between game fish and non‐game fish species, which are relevant to management and conservation initiatives.