An Assessment of Spearfishing Catches along the Eastern Adriatic Coast

Abstract

The impact of recreational fishing on fish stocks was neglected for many years as it was considered minor and insignificant. Despite the increasing assessment of the impact of recreational fishing, little effort is made to effectively and systematically collect catch and effort data from recreational fishing and integrate them into official fishery statistics. The aim of this study is to provide the first empirical investigation to quantify the impact of spearfishing on coastal fish communities in the eastern Adriatic. In Croatia, continuous monitoring of spearfishing competitions started in 2005, but, in 2012, the rules for the competitions were changed, and the species and quantities per species were restricted. For the purpose of this analysis, only data collected during the seven-year period from 2005 to 2011 were used, which included a total of 46 competitions in which spearfishers fished without any limitations, as later data were not comparable. These data can provide a robust estimation of the impact of spearfishing on coastal communities. Instead of a general approach, future studies should adopt a species-specific approach. Compared to the results on the impacts of other fishing methods, the obtained results are useful for researchers, managers, and also policy makers to sustainably manage coastal ecosystems and the associated ecosystems services.

1. Introduction

The use of ocean and marine resources is increasing, while marine fisheries’ catches and landings are decreasing and fish stocks are declining. A recent analysis from 2019 [1], based on two criteria (1. level of exploitation, measured by fishing mortality, and 2. reproductive capacity), shows that, of the 188 stocks assessed in European waters, only 22% are in good status according to both criteria. The status of commercial stocks is particularly critical in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, where only 12% of the units assessed are in good status according to a single criterion (8 of 60 in the Mediterranean and 0 of 7 in the Black Sea) and none are in good status according to both criteria [1]. It should be noted, however, that the analysis is primarily based on data from commercial fisheries, while the impacts of other fishing activities that affect stocks, such as recreational fishing, have not been analyzed. For many years, the impact of recreational fishing on fish stocks was neglected because it was considered small and insignificant. Recently, this general opinion has begun to change, as it is now known that recreational fishing involves millions of people worldwide. According to estimates by Hyder et al. [2], the total number of European recreational marine fishers is about 8.7 million, of whom 5.9 million are in the Atlantic and 2.8 million are in the Mediterranean. The great economic, sociocultural, and environmental importance of recreational fisheries is thus increasingly recognized as an essential component of global capture fisheries [3,4,5,6,7]. Despite the increasing attention given to the assessment of recreational fishing, very little effort is made to collect data that could be used for management purposes. This poses a major challenge to fishery managers and researchers to effectively integrate catch and effort data from recreational fishing into official fishery statistics that can be used to assess the status of fish stocks.

While maintaining healthy, productive, and resilient marine ecosystems is essential to protect the marine environment and conserve its resources, the lack of reliable data from recreational fisheries results in stock assessments whose level of accuracy is unknown. This is particularly true for coastal fish communities, as some studies have already found that recreational fishing catches in some regions are as high as or higher than those of commercial fishing [8,9]. Recreational fishing, especially unmanaged and unregulated fishing, brings another problem, namely the increasing conflict between commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen. Today, many commercial fishermen complain about the unfairness that their activities are heavily regulated and subject to a series of administrative procedures, while recreational fishing is poorly regulated and controlled and the number of licenses is not limited. Comprehensive fishery management is therefore urgently needed, especially because of the social and economic conflicts that arise and may be exacerbated by the decline in accessible fish resources.

Unfortunately, scientific evidence, especially on recreational spearfishing, is still limited. Studies investigating the impact of recreational fishing on the Mediterranean marine ecosystem focus mainly on angling [5,10,11,12,13,14], while there are few studies on spearfishing [8,15,16,17]. The likely reason for the greater attention to anglers is the share of spearfishers in total recreational fishing, where they represent only a small part of fishing activities. According to calculations by Sbragaglia et al. [18], spearfishers represent less than 5% of marine recreational fishermen in several European countries.

Spearfishing is one of the oldest fishing techniques and can be broadly defined as the pursuing and catching of fish underwater without the aid of artificial breathing devices. It involves the use of harpoon gear that depends solely on the physical strength of the diver holding his breath. The spearfisher is thus restricted to shallow waters and can be highly selective, targeting only certain species and sizes and avoiding the negative effects of other fishing techniques such as bycatch, loss of gear, or damage to habitat. However, this fishing technique remains controversial, as not only are there few studies on the effects of spearfishing on fish communities, but the results are also inconsistent. Smith and Nakaya [19] consider spearfishing in Australia to be ecologically sustainable. In north-western Spain, Pita and Freire [20] found that the overall impact of spearfishing on fish populations was limited and that most species caught were not highly vulnerable to fishing pressure. For the Azores, Diogo et al. [21] proposed a ban or strict limitation on the catch of highly vulnerable species by spearfishing, as the impact of spearfishing on these species was evident, although the ecological impact of spearfishing could not be assessed without a reference point for evaluating the proportion of biomass caught by spearfishing. Similar conclusions were derived from a study in the Mediterranean [8], as the results support the assumption that spearfishing can induce changes in both the trophic structure and the intrinsic vulnerability of taxa in the catch.

In Croatia, spearfishing is a popular recreational activity practiced at both individual and competitive levels. Croatian legislation distinguishes between sport and recreational fishing as fishing for sporting purposes and fishing for recreational purposes, respectively [5,14]. Recreational fishing is best described as a purely recreational hobby for personal entertainment and consumption, while sport fishing is competitive. However, all sport fishermen practice spearfishing outside of competitions, so this activity can be considered recreational fishing. Both categories of fishing are carried out on the basis of the mandatory fee-based license for sport or recreational fishing, and most fishing regulations are identical. However, spearfishers in Croatia are legally obliged to obtain a sport fishing license, while holders of a recreational fishing license are not allowed to practice spearfishing. Sport fishing licenses are issued by sport fishing clubs approved by the Croatian Marine Sport Fishing Association and the national administration.

Many spearfishers participate in competitions, which are an interesting component of recreational marine spearfishing. In addition, recent studies show that spearfishing competitions can contribute to the local economies [17,22]. Spearfishing competitions benefit the general knowledge on spearfishing’s impacts because such competitions allow data collection under highly standardized conditions. Although the data from competitions can be somewhat biased because they are subject to certain rules (e.g., minimum landing size, limited competition zones, and time periods), in many cases, they can provide a robust estimation of the impact of spearfishing on coastal communities [17].

Considering that it is very important to obtain information on the impacts of spearfishing in order to comprehensively manage marine ecosystems through the development of integrated coastal management plans, the aim of this study is to provide the first empirical investigation to quantify the impacts of spearfishing on coastal fish communities in the eastern Adriatic Sea in situ (through field surveys and interviews). The results of this study will be compared with the results of previous studies on the impacts of other recreational fishing methods (boat and shore based) in order to provide information that can be useful in decision-making for the management of coastal ecosystems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Survey and Data Collection

On-site sampling of spearfishing competitions was conducted at various locations along the eastern Adriatic coast (Figure 1). Continuous monitoring of the competitions started in 2005 and continues, but, in 2012, the rules for the competitions were changed, and the species and quantities per species were restricted. Considering that spearfishers practice spearfishing out of competitions without such restrictions, for the purpose of this analysis, only data collected during the seven-year period from 2005 to 2011 were used, which included a total of 46 competitions in which spearfishers fished without any limitations, as the later data were not comparable.

The fishing zones were selected by the local organizers (sport fishing clubs) and approved by the Croatian Marine Sport Fishing Association. Each spearfisher used a speedboat and was accompanied by an additional person who acted as a skipper and helper. All the competitions lasted five hours and started at 8 a.m. According to the general regulations, spearfishers were allowed to check the fishing zone for 10 days before the competition, except for the last day before the start. Except for the minimum landing sizes specified in the national/EU regulations, no fish under 400 g in weight was considered valid. In addition, the minimum weight for all cartilaginous fish, as well as for the European conger Conger conger (Linnaeus, 1758) and the Mediterranean moray Muraena helena (Linnaeus, 1758), was 2500 g. The total weight of fish caught by all participating spearfishers was used to calculate the average weight of fish caught per spearfisher per hour, and it was defined in this study as the nominal CPUE (catch per unit effort; g/spearfisher/hour). After each competition, the spearfishers were briefly interviewed about their fishing tactics and their maximum and average depth when fishing.

2.2. Data Analyses

The catches were analyzed, with each fish identified to species level, measured (total length, to the nearest mm), and weighed (accuracy 0.1 g). Species were classified into spatial categories (demersal, pelagic–neritic, pelagic–oceanic, reef-associated, benthopelagic, and bathydemersal), trophic categories (carnivorous and omnivorous), and categories according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species for the Mediterranean and Black Sea Marine Region (except for Diplodus sargus and Balistes capriscus, for which the IUCN Red List for Europe was used) [23,24,25]. The data on the spatial and trophic categories for most species are from Fishbase for Croatia [23] and, for some species (marked with * in

Table 1. Taxonomic composition of catches including spatial (benthopelagic (BP), bathydemersal (BD), demersal (D), pelagic–neritic (PN), pelagic–oceanic (PO), reef-associated (RA)), trophic (omnivorous (O) and carnivorous (C)), and IUCN Red List category (not evaluated (NE), data deficient (DD), least concern (LC), near threatened (NT), vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR)), total number (N), frequency (RN, %), total weight (W, g), and relative weight (RW, %) of each species caught during the observed seven-year period.

Family/Species	Spatial Category	Trophic Category	IUCN Category	N	RN (%)	W (g)	RW (%)
Sparidae
Boops boops	D	O	LC	1	0.019	160	0.002
Dentex dentex	BP	C	VU	65	1.263	164,684	2.345
Diplodus puntazzo	BP	O	LC	109	2.117	44,524	0.634
Diplodus sargus	D	C	LC	1087	21.115	456,906	6.507
Diplodus vulgaris	BP	O	LC	164	3.186	70,201	1.000
Lithognathus mormyrus	D	C	LC	6	0.117	2484	0.035
Oblada melanura	BP	O	LC	6	0.117	1679	0.024
Pagellus erythrinus	BP	O	LC	2	0.039	884	0.013
Sarpa salpa	BP	O	LC	107	2.078	72,481	1.032
Sparus aurata	D	O	LC	257	4.992	143,121	2.038
Spicara maena	PN	C	LC	1	0.019	340	0.005
Spondyliosoma cantharus	BP	O	LC	6	0.117	3715	0.053
Labridae
Labrus merula	RA	C	LC	797	15.482	435,074	6.196
Labrus mixtus	BP	C	LC	25	0.486	10,772	0.153
Sparisoma cretense *	RA	O	LC	1	0.019	320	0.005
Symphodus tinca	RA	C	LC	170	3.302	60,970	0.868
Zeiidae
Zeus faber	BP	C	LC	2	0.039	2818	0.040
Mugilidae
Chelon auratus *	PN	O	LC	111	2.156	49,629	0.707
Chelon labrosus	D	O	LC	24	0.466	9551	0.136
Chelon ramada *	PN	O	LC	21	0.408	12,638	0.180
Mugil cephalus *	BP	O	LC	6	0.117	3204	0.046
Scorpaenidae
Scorpaena porcus	D	C	LC	114	2.214	41,164	0.586
Scorpaena scrofa	D	C	LC	361	7.012	203,786	2.902
Serranidae
Epinephelus aeneus	D	C	NT	6	0.117	37,385	0.532
Epinephelus marginatus	BP	C	EN	5	0.097	19,530	0.278
Serranus cabrilla	D	C	LC	1	0.019	226	0.003
Serranus scriba	D	C	LC	3	0.058	722	0.010
Carangidae
Seriola dumerili	RA	C	LC	27	0.524	24,558	0.350
Scombridae
Sarda sarda	PN	C	LC	10	0.194	27,909	0.397
Gadidae
Phycis phycis	BP	C	LC	152	2.953	122,257	1.741
Mullidae
Mullus surmuletus	D	C	LC	15	0.291	5551	0.079
Congridae
Conger conger	D	C	LC	1131	21.970	4,342,105	61.840
Sciaenidae
Sciaena umbra	D	C	VU	95	1.845	61,183	0.871
Moronidae
Dicentrarchus labrax	D	C	NT	114	2.214	88,009	1.253
Triglidae
Chelidonichthys lucerna *	D	C	LC	1	0.019	181	0.003
Lophidae
Lophius piscatorius	BD	C	LC	1	0.019	3405	0.048
Muraenidae
Muraena helena	RA	C	LC	17	0.330	52,157	0.743
Sphyraenidae
Sphyraena sphyraena *	PN	C	LC	1	0.019	1065	0.015
Balistidae
Balistes capriscus *	RA	C	DD	2	0.039	2040	0.029
Belonidae
Belone belone	PO	C	LC	1	0.019	414	0.006
Scyliorhinidae
Scyliorhinus stellaris	RA	C	NT	87	1.690	210,981	3.005
Torpedinidae
Torpedo marmorata	RA	C	LC	12	0.233	18,136	0.258
Myliobatidae
Myliobatis aquila	BP	C	VU	18	0.350	130,061	1.852
Dasyatidae
Dasyatis pastinaca	D	C	VU	6	0.117	82,537	1.175
TOTAL				5148	100	7,021,517	100

* Data from Fishbase refer to the larger area (not from Fishbase for Croatia) [24].

), from Fishbase related to the larger area [24].

3. Results

During the 46 spearfishing competitions monitored, a total of 5148 fish weighing 7021.52 kg were caught and analyzed. A total of 44 species, 40 bony fish (Osteichthyes) and 4 cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes), from 24 families were recorded in the catches of the spearfishing competitions (Table 1). Most species were found in the family Sparidae with 12 species, followed by Labridae, Mugilidae, and Serranidae with 4 species each.

In terms of spatial category, demersal species dominated with 36.36%, ahead of benthopelagic (29.55%), reef-associated (18.18%), and pelagic–neritic (11.36%) (Table 1). There was only one bathydemersal and one pelagic–oceanic species. In terms of trophic category, most species (70%) were carnivorous. Within the 44 caught species, 4 were classified as vulnerable (Dentex dentex (Linnaeus, 1758), Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, Myliobatis aquila (Linnaeus, 1758), Dasyatis pastinaca (Linnaeus, 1758)) and 1 as endangered (Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834)).

Figure 2 shows the relative frequencies for all species over the entire observed seven-year period, as well as the changes in relative frequency over time for the seven most frequently caught species. The seven species that dominated in the total number and relative frequency of fish caught (over 77%) were Conger conger (Linnaeus, 1758) (1131 specimens; 21.97%), Diplodus sargus (Linnaeus, 1758) (1087 specimens; 21.11%), Labrus merula Linnaeus, 1758 (797 specimens; 15.48%), Scorpena scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 (361 specimens; 7.01%), Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758 (257 specimens; 4.99%), Symphodus tinca (Linnaeus, 1758) (170 specimens; 3.30%), and Diplodus vulgaris (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1817) (164 specimens; 3.19%) (Table 1). Of the 5148 specimens caught, 189 (3.11%) belonged to the five threatened species.

Table 1 also shows the total weight (g) and relative weight (%) of each species caught during the seven years observed. C. conger accounted for 61.84% (4,342,105 g) of the total weight of all species caught. Besides C. conger, the following species accounted for more than 2%: D. sargus 6.51% (456,906 g), L. merula 6.20% (435,074 g), Scyliorhinus stellaris (Linnaeus, 1758) 3.00% (210,981 g), S. scrofa 2.90% (203,786 g), D. dentex 2.35% (164,684 g), and Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758 with 2.04% (143,121 g). The five threatened species accounted for 5.37% of the total catch weight.

Figure 3 shows the mean length and standard deviation of the seven most frequently caught species. The length ranged from 21 cm (D. vulgaris) to 157 cm (C. conger). The mean length of the fish caught was greater than the length at maturity for all species observed.

The average annual CPUE shown in Figure 4 was calculated for each competition and for each year during the study period and is based on the average weight of fish caught per spearfisher per hour.

4. Discussion

The list of species caught in this study is consistent with similar studies in the Mediterranean [8,15,17,33], although the list of dominant species is somewhat different in terms of frequency and biomass. On the other hand, the number of species caught in this study is significantly higher than in other similar studies, e.g., 44 species versus 33 from the Italian coast [17] versus 31 and 29 from the Balearic Islands [15,33] versus 20 on the Spanish NW Mediterranean coast [8], respectively. In some cases, this could be explained by a longer study period, but some studies lasted longer, so this explanation cannot justify such a difference. Considering that the rules of the monitored competitions and the fish biodiversity in the study areas were quite similar in all the studies, it can be assumed that the main reason for this difference was the specific characteristics of the Adriatic Sea. The benthic littoral species, which are the main target of spearfishers, are the most numerous fishes in the Adriatic Sea, accounting for 40% of the total species richness [34]. The results of this study in terms of trophic levels of species targeted by spearfishers indicate that spearfishers mainly target carnivorous mid-trophic-level fishes, which coincides with other studies from the Mediterranean [8,21].

Compared to other recreational fishing techniques in the study area, the number of species caught by spearfishing (44) is lower than the number caught by boat anglers (45) and shore anglers (55) according to Soldo [14]. This could easily be explained by a difference in technique, as spearfishers are interested in larger specimens that they can visually identify, while boat and shore anglers also target smaller and short-lived species, such as the Mediterranean rainbow wrasse, Coris julis (Linnaeus, 1758), or annular seabream, Diplodus annularis (Linnaeus, 1758) [14], which are of no interest to spearfishers. Hence, in the same period, the monitoring of boat and shore angling competitions was conducted [35,36,37,38,39,40,41], and Figure 5 shows a comparison of the average CPUE obtained by all three recreational fishing techniques. From Figure 5, it is clear that the average CPUE was considerably higher than CPUE obtained by recreational fishers practicing boat and, especially, shore angling. The difference in techniques could be easily used even here for the explanation of these results as spearfishers visually target larger fish while shore and boat anglers are more interested in the quantity of fish than in their size as indicated by Soldo [14]. In this study, the three most dominant species were C. conger, D. sargus, and L. merula, constituting 58.56% of the total number of fish caught. On the other hand, Soldo [14], who conducted the study on recreational shore and boat angling, reported that the three most dominant species in shore angling are C. julis, D. annularis, and S. tinca (which account for 67.80% of total caught fish), while, in boat angling, the most dominant are Pagellus erythrinus (Linnaeus, 1758), C. julis, and Spicara flexuosum Rafinesque, 1810, which represent 59.53% of the total fish caught. Therefore, it is obvious that spearfishers compared to shore and boat anglers are targeting different species. However, while spearfishers are practicing the same technique during and out of competitions, the shore and boat anglers are, during competitions, interested in catching a higher overall weight, while, during their recreational time, they target larger fish for their own consumption; therefore, the fishing techniques and gear are different [14]. When comparing the average length of species caught in boat angling during competition and out of the competition, Soldo [14] found that the average length for D. vulgaris caught out of the competition is higher than that of those caught during the competition (22.99 cm vs. 17.91 cm), which was also true for S. aurata (25.86 cm vs. 24.33 cm). Results from this study show that, for both species, the average lengths were considerably higher in spearfishing (27.86 cm and 32.60 cm, respectively) than in boat angling.

The overall average CPUE for all competitions during the study period was 0.98 kg/spearfisher/h, which is more than double that in Italy, where an overall CPUE of 0.47 kg was reported [17]. The highest CPUE recorded in Italian competitions was 0.86 kg, while, in this study, the highest value was 1.59 kg/spearfisher/h. Similar results, albeit at a slightly lower level, are observed when comparing this study with the CPUE values of spearfishers along the Spanish NW Mediterranean coast, where the reported average CPUE is 1.37 kg [8]. It has to be noted that the average CPUE gradually increased during the study period, which is in accordance with the recent results from the Italian coast [17] but contrary to what was shown by Coll et al. [15] for the period 1975–2001. It is hard to believe that the reason for the increase in average CPUE is the greater availability of fish, since it is a common fact that Mediterranean populations, especially coastal ones, which are under the highest fishing pressure, are becoming increasingly depleted. On the contrary, the main factor for this increase is probably the change in fishing tactics by spearfishers who, according to their testimonies during the interviews conducted, fish deeper than before and spend more time surveying the fishing area before competitions. Compared to the beginning of the 21st century, when spearfishers in the Adriatic usually fished at a depth of 20 to 30 m, today, the best spearfishers fish almost exclusively at depths of 30 to 40 m due to their expressed opinion that there are fewer accessible fish in shallow waters. Such a fishing tactic, unfortunately, is followed also by unwanted and very serious side effects, such as taravana, a disease that affects breath-hold divers who perform deep dives many times in close succession. It seems that taravana is a form of neurological decompression sickness (DCI) prevalent in repeated breath-hold diving. The authors of this paper observed four spearfishers affected by it since the beginning of competition monitoring. All of them were treated afterward in a hyperbaric chamber due to the diagnosed decompression sickness symptoms.

The CPUE obtained by spearfishers was also higher than the CPUE recorded in boat and shore angling from the same area (0.63 kg and 0.22 kg per hour, respectively [14], which contrasts with the results obtained by monitoring different categories of recreational fishing along the Spanish coast. In that area, Gordoa et al. [6] reported that the highest catch rates were always obtained by boat anglers, while spearfishers’ catches were second in weight, ahead of shore anglers’ catches.

This study shows that spearfishing is a selective method in terms of the body size of the targeted species, as spearfishers can visually identify their potential catch and select larger fish, unlike in other fishing techniques. The mean lengths of the seven most frequently caught species showed that all of them were larger than their respective lengths at first maturity (Figure 3). The percentage of threatened species in the catch was also relatively low, as most of the dominant species are classified as non-threatened by frequency and quantity. Also important from a management point of view is the fact that spearfishing, by its very nature, is a fishing technique that generates very little, if any, discards, as the spearfishers can choose the target directly. Furthermore, compared to other coastal fishing techniques, spearfishing is restricted to areas and times at which the water is clear enough to visually detect fish, and it is also more dependent on meteorological conditions than other techniques. Therefore, the number of fishing days per year is lower than for other recreational fishing categories or small-scale fisheries.

Along with the small proportion of spearfishers in the total number of participants engaging in various coastal fishing activities, all the aforementioned factors can point to the presumption that the negative effect of spearfishing on coastal fish populations is relatively low. However, the number of licenses for recreational fishing is not limited, and the number of recreational fishers, including spearfishers, is constantly increasing. Although the regulation of a daily allowable catch limit of 5 kg is in force, it is known to be neglected by an unknown proportion of recreational fishers. Another problem is that some spearfishers and other recreational fishers [14], driven by the high demand for the targeted species, especially during the summer (touristic) season, sell their catch even though this is illegal. Apart from the fact that such activities and perceptions contribute to the rising conflicts between commercial and recreational fisheries fishing in the same areas and competing for the same species, this shows that the assumption that the overall impact of spearfishing on coastal fish communities is small should be considered with great caution.

This study shows that the CPUE of spearfishers is highest in recreational fisheries, while the targeted species are considered to be most valuable commercially. Other studies have shown that the biomass removed by recreational spearfishing can range from negligible to highly relevant compared to commercial fishing [8,18]. Hence, spearfishers’ size-selective fishing can thus trigger changes in the life history and behavior of the targeted populations, similar to other fishing activities [42]. Along with the selective harvesting of some species, this could result in ecological effects that are not yet sufficiently characterized and quantified [18]. Considering the already evident competition between recreational and commercial fisheries, Soldo [14] suggested that the catches of recreational fishing in the Adriatic appear to be far from negligible and therefore urgently require comprehensive management in the Mediterranean, particularly because of the social and economic conflicts that could arise and be intensified by the decline of accessible coastal fish resources. A particular problem lies in the fact that there is no agreed definition for any category of recreational fisheries. There is no European law to enforce recreational fishery legislation nor is there any standardization of regulatory objectives between countries in Europe or the Mediterranean. One of the consequences of this state is that the impacts of spearfishing, as with any other category of recreational fisheries, are not properly assessed. Therefore, instead of a general approach, future studies focusing on the evaluation of spearfishing’s effect on the communities of coastal marine organisms should adopt a species-specific approach that reveals the precise impact of spearfishing on particular species.

5. Conclusions

Spearfishing is a fishing method that is highly selective in terms of species and body size due to its technique because spearfishers visually identify their potential catch and thus can select the species and its size, which, consequently, also results in very little, if any, discards, unlike other fishing techniques. Hence, taking into account the lower number of available fishing days per year than for other recreational fishing categories or small-scale fisheries and the fact that the proportion of spearfishers in total recreational fishing is small, it can be assumed that the overall impact of spearfishing on coastal fish communities is small. However, the CPUE of spearfishers is much higher than in other recreational fishing activities while some studies have shown that the biomass of the targeted species removed by recreational spearfishing can be highly relevant compared to commercial fishing. Thus, instead of evaluating the general impact of spearfishing on the coastal fish and other marine organism communities, future studies should focus more on a species-specific approach that will result in a better understanding of the exact impact of spearfishing on particular species.