Oklahoma Bowfishing Values and Perspectives toward Nongame Fishes and Their Management

METHODS

Demographics

The respondent sample was 73% male and 27% female (n = 1,182), which closely approximated the sex ratio within the population of resident fishing licenses sold (72% male and 28% female). Among those respondents who bowfished, 90% were male; among non-bowfishers, 68% were male. The respondent average age was 48; the average age of the license holder population was 43. No significant differences were found between bowfishers and non-bowfishers in income (χ² = 9.56, df = 7, P = 0.22) or race/ethnicity (χ² = 7.01, df = 8, P = 0.54). Among bowfishers (mean age = 45.4), 56% had lifetime angling licenses, whereas only 34% of non-bowfishers (mean age = 48.2) had lifetime licenses (χ² = 44.37, P < 0.001).

Bowfishing Activity and Importance

Twenty-four percent of all respondents had bowfished in Oklahoma at some point in their life (n = 1,364). Of those that had bowfished in the past, only 38% (101 bowfishers) had bowfished in the most recent 12-month period; therefore, an estimated 9.1% of licensed resident anglers in 2020 had bowfished in the most recent 12-month period. The most popular fishing method used in the most recent 12-month period by those that had bowfished was, in order: (1) rod and reel, (2) bowfishing, and (3) juglines. Among those that had bowfished in the most recent 12-month period, only 6% said that bowfishing was their most commonly practiced fishing method. Bowfishers more commonly used a greater diversity of fishing methods (excluding bowfishing) in a year compared to non-bowfishers (e.g., more juglines, noodling, trotlines, and limblines; χ² = 48.03, df = 4, P < 0.001; Figure 1). For all subsequent analyses, all bowfishers, whether they had participated in the past 12 months or not, were included in results. In terms of the importance of bowfishing when compared to other fishing activities, only 6% of bowfishers said that bowfishing was more important, 35% said that it was equally important, and 59% said that it was less important.

Bowfishing Skill and Experience

Bowfishers reported participating in the sport an average of 10 d/year compared to an average of 56 d participating in any fishing method. When asked to self-rate their skill in bowfishing (n = 263), only 8% of bowfishers rated themselves as advanced, 43% rated themselves as intermediate, and 49% rated themselves as beginners. Too few respondents self-rated as advanced to allow confidence in prediction from this group. Therefore, intermediate and advanced categories were thereafter combined into an “experienced” category (50.6% of bowfisher respondents) for comparison against the beginner category (49.4% of bowfisher respondents).

Number of years of bowfishing experience was examined as an indirect rating of participation and avidity. The number of years bowfished was evenly distributed, with 27% reporting as having bowfished less than 1 year, 30% reporting 1–3 years, 18% reporting 4–10 years, and 24% reporting more than 10 years (Figure 2). Years of experience in bowfishing was not necessarily correlated with a bowfisher's self-assessment of skill; 96% of those who had bowfished less than 1 year rated themselves as beginners, whereas only 23% of those who had bowfished more than 10 years rated themselves as advanced.

Information on Bowfishing Trips

Bowfishing participants reported traveling an average of 51 km one way for their fishing trips. The highest months of participation were May, June, and July. Fifty-four percent of bowfishers participated mainly during the day, 29% participated mainly at night, and 16% participated about equally during day and night. Bowfishers who rated themselves as beginners reported bowfishing more commonly during the day (61%) compared to only 48% of experienced bowfishers (χ² = 8.86, P = 0.01). Forty-nine percent of participants reported bowfishing mainly from the shore, 35% reported bowfishing mainly from a boat, and the remainder reported bowfishing about equally from shore and from a boat. Beginners were more likely to bowfish from the shore (61%), whereas experienced individuals bowfished from the shore or from a boat equally (each 38%). Most night bowfishing was done from a boat (76%), whereas most day bowfishing was done from the shore (76%). When asked if they primarily bowfished recreationally or competitively, 92% of bowfishers only bowfished recreationally, 6% occasionally bowfished competitively, and 3% bowfished recreationally and competitively about equally. Bowfishers most commonly fished rivers and streams (67% of respondents), followed by reservoirs (53%), ponds (27%), and tailwaters below dams (26%). More night bowfishing was done in reservoirs (66% of respondents selected this option) than in rivers (54%); rivers were bowfished more during the day (74%) than reservoirs (43%).

Locations of the most frequently reported bowfishing sites in the state were categorized into five regions: northeast (NE), southeast (SE), southwest (SW), and northwest (NW), with additional locations within the Oklahoma City metropolitan area classified as “Central.” A slight majority of response locations were clustered in the NE (51%), and a vast majority of responses were in the eastern half of the state (NE and SE combined; 83%), which can be associated with the more numerous large reservoirs in eastern Oklahoma and matches the general trend of fishing pressure in Oklahoma. The most popular locations identified by bowfishers were all reservoirs: Fort Gibson Lake (21 responses), Grand Lake (20), Lake Texoma (16), and Lake Eufaula (16). The most popular rivers identified were the Arkansas River (13 responses) and the Red River (10). However, many rivers in Oklahoma span multiple regions of the state so the responses on usage of rivers could not be categorized by region.

Bowfishing Species Preference and Take

When respondents were asked which one or more of three species groups (carps, gars, or buffalofishes) they typically targeted while bowfishing, 85% of respondents selected carps, 74% selected gars, and 36% selected buffalofishes. In Oklahoma, the following species may be encountered within the carp, gar, and buffalofish groups, respectively: Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, Black Carp Mylopharyngodon piceus, Common Carp, Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, and Silver Carp H. molitrix; Alligator Gar, Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus, Shortnose Gar L. platostomus, and Spotted Gar L. oculatus; and Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus, Black Buffalo I. niger, and Smallmouth Buffalo I. bubalus. Two respondents wrote in responses for Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens, and one person wrote in catfish (Ictaluridae), of which only Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris can be legally taken with bowfishing in Oklahoma. When asked to select which species group they most preferred to target, 46% of respondents selected gars, 44% selected carps, and 8% selected buffalofishes. A follow-up question asked respondents which species group they most often ended up shooting/attempting to shoot. Forty-eight percent selected carps, 41% selected gars, and 8% selected buffalofishes (Figure 3). When experienced and beginner bowfishers were compared, both groups tended to prefer similar species, with beginners slightly preferring carps and experienced bowfishers narrowly preferring gars, but results did not meet statistical significance (χ² = 6.57, P = 0.09). Experienced bowfishers also showed a greater preference (11%) than beginners (4%) for buffalofishes (Table 2).

In comparing the type of water body and the species group most preferred, gars tended to be more highly targeted by bowfishers in rivers and tailwaters below dams. In ponds and reservoirs, bowfishers targeted gars and carps similarly (Table 3). Carps were more preferred by daytime bowfishers, whereas gars were more preferred by night bowfishers, but results did not meet statistical significance (χ² = 9.74, P = 0.14).

The mean take of fish per species group per bowfishing trip, across all water body types, was 4.03 gars, 4.21 buffalofishes, 5.14 carps, and 1.67 fish whose species identification was uncertain (i.e., reported as “unsure of species” by bowfishers; Table 3). Although the total daily individual take reported by bowfishers ranged as high as 95 fish, including 45 gars, 35 buffalofishes, and 15 carps, only 8% of bowfishers reported taking more than 20 fish, 15% reported taking 15 or more fish, and 30% reported taking 10 or more fish in an average trip. While the number of bowfishers who reported participating in competitive bowfishing tournaments was low (n = 21; 8%), these individuals reported higher estimated daily take (16.5 fish) than recreational bowfishers (8.4 fish).

A Successful Trip: Motivations and Desired Outcomes

Both bowfishers and non-bowfishers were queried on the characteristics of a successful fishing or bowfishing trip. Bowfishers were asked to rank seven proposed factors about both bowfishing and non-bowfishing trips from 1 (most important) to 7 (least important; Table 4), whereas non-bowfishers were asked only to rank the same factors about non-bowfishing trips. For both groups, “time spent with family and/or friends” was consistently ranked as the most important factor, followed by “being outside.” Bowfishers ranked “challenging fish to shoot” as the reason least likely to contribute to a successful fishing trip. For non-bowfishers, “catching a lot of fish” was the factor related to fishing that rated highest, while catching a trophy fish was rated lowest. Responses generally indicated that both bowfishers and non-bowfishers prioritized more intrinsic aspects of their fishing activities rather than actual or quantifiable fishing achievements (Table 4).

Acceptable Outcomes for Fish Taken by Bowfishing

Bowfishers were asked to select all of the typical outcomes of shot fish after their bowfishing trip. Thirty-five percent said animal consumption, 33% said fertilizer use, 32% said human consumption, 20% said return of fish to the water, and 15% said burial. Only four respondents said that they burned fish or discarded them at the boat ramp. Some bowfishers also wrote in responses that they gave away their shot fish to those that would eat them or they used fish taken as cut bait for catching other species. To explore potential differences in perceptions of acceptable outcomes of taken fish between bowfishers and non-bowfishers, we asked both groups what they generally believed were acceptable outcomes for six different types of fish, including game fishes (black basses Micropterus spp., catfishes, and trouts) and nongame fishes (carps, gars, and buffalofishes). Bowfishers typically selected a more diverse spread of acceptable outcomes, particularly for the nongame species targeted by bowfishing (Figure 4). Bowfishers and non-bowfishers tended to agree that the acceptable outcomes for black basses, catfishes, and trouts included human consumption or return of fish to the water (presumably an immediate, live release, as is typical in catch-and-release fisheries). An interesting result was that human consumption of black basses was regarded as an acceptable outcome for bowfishers but less so for non-bowfishers (Figure 4). Additional examination of acceptable outcomes was provided through the aggregation of species into different groups or subgroups: game (black basses, catfish, and trout); nongame (buffalofishes, carps, and gars); native, nongame (buffalofishes and gars); and nonnative, invasive (carps). Both bowfishers and non-bowfishers reported that game fishes were more acceptable for human consumption than nongame fishes (χ² = 323.43, P < 0.0001 and χ² = 2,035.91, P < 0.0001, respectively), with the latter reported as more likely to be buried or used as fertilizer (Figure 5). However, responses of both bowfishers (χ² = 6.95, P < 0.01) and non-bowfishers (χ² = 13.79, P < 0.001) indicated that burial or use as fertilizer was more acceptable for nonnative, invasive species than for native, nongame species. Neither group preferred native, nongame species more than nonnative invasives for human consumption (Figure 5).

Trust, Regulations, and Regulation Impacts

Eighty-six percent of bowfishers said that they trusted ODWC to appropriately manage native, nongame fishes targeted by bowfishers, while 8% said that ODWC should do more and 6% said that ODWC should do less. Among experienced bowfishers, 84% expressed trust in ODWC, whereas 88% of beginners expressed trust. Of those that did not bowfish, 94% trusted ODWC management, while 4% said that ODWC should do more and 2% said that ODWC should do less.

When bowfishers were asked whether they would support or oppose bowfishing regulations for native, nongame species, the most selected answer was neutral (36%), followed by oppose (35%) and support (29%). There was no significant difference in support or opposition based on bowfishers' most preferred species group target (χ² = 12.00, df = 12, P = 0.45). Beginners were more neutral on regulations than experienced bowfishers (42% and 31%, respectively); experienced bowfishers tended to have more opposition toward regulations on native, nongame species compared to beginners (40% and 30%, respectively). Those that fished more days per year also tended to have stronger opposition to regulations (opposed respondents bowfished an average of 16.2 d; supportive respondents bowfished on average 5.8 d). Finally, those that had bowfished in the most recent 12-month period tended to have stronger opposition to regulations (50% of active bowfishers opposed regulations compared to 35% of respondents who had bowfished but not in the past 12 months).

When Oklahoma anglers were asked how regulations on native, nongame species would affect their future participation in bowfishing, 70% of bowfishers stated that there would be no change in their activity, 23% said that they would bowfish less, 6% said that they would quit bowfishing altogether, and 2% said that they would bowfish more. Experienced bowfishers claimed a higher potential change in bowfishing under regulations than beginners; 28% of experienced respondents said they would bowfish less, whereas only 17% of beginner respondents made the same claim. Of those bowfishers that trusted ODWC to manage native, nongame fish (n = 223; 86% of bowfishers), 33% opposed regulations for native, nongame species and 20% would bowfish less if there were regulations in place.

Future of Bowfishing

Thirty-two percent of respondents that had not bowfished in the past said that they would be interested in participating in bowfishing in the future. Men were slightly more interested in bowfishing than women (37% and 24%, respectively), and women indicated that they were unsure about future bowfishing participation significantly more often than men (29% and 23%, respectively; χ² = 15.41, P < 0.01). Future interest by license type (e.g., lifetime, annual, senior) was relatively similar except for senior license holders, only 27% of whom were interested in bowfishing. By contrast, 36% of annual license holders were interested. When those expressing interest in bowfishing in the future were asked what had prevented them from trying it in the past, a lack of knowledge (52%) was the reason most often reported, followed by not knowing anyone who bowfishes (44%) and not knowing where to go (39%). Thirty-one percent of respondents said that they lacked the time for bowfishing, and another 20% listed a range of other reasons, including the lack of equipment.

There were no apparent differences in barriers to bowfishing by age (average age ranged from 37.6 to 40.5 for each selected barrier), but lack of knowledge was selected most often by females (70%), whereas lack of time was selected most often by males (34%). Not knowing someone who bowfished or where to bowfish were responses selected equally across gender.

A Baseline Survey of Bowfishers

This first in-depth survey of Oklahoma bowfishers is one of the few such surveys in the United States that have provided some baseline information and quantitative insights into the poorly documented sport of bowfishing and its broader constituency. However, as in all surveys, results must be interpreted with regard to the constituency queried and response rates. For example, our survey covered a broad spectrum of license holders from non-bowfishers (68% male) through advanced bowfishers (95% male). In contrast, the study by Bennett et al. (2015) involved a more focused sample of 15 tournament bowfishers for Alligator Gars and 82 members of the Texas Bowfishing Association (97% male). Those respondents would be expected to be a more specialized demographic that is more immersed in the sport (i.e., more likely advanced bowfishers) than the average bowfisher respondent from Oklahoma. Results support this expectation. Whereas 79% of the Texas sample of bowfishers reported that bowfishing was their most important fishing activity and 44% indicated that it was their most important outdoor activity of any kind, the sample of Oklahoma bowfishers in our study was less focused. Only 6% of the Oklahoma bowfishers indicated that it was their most commonly practiced fishing method, and 59% indicated that bowfishing was less important than other fishing methods. Seventy-one percent of respondents from the Texas study (Bennett et al. 2015) had bowfished in a tournament during the previous 12-month period, whereas only 36% of the Oklahoma bowfishers had bowfished in any manner (tournament or not) during the previous 12 months. Mean age of bowfishers was older in the Oklahoma sample (48 years) versus the Texas sample (34 years), suggesting that the Texas sample consisted of a higher percentage of more youthful, almost exclusively male enthusiasts who were more driven to tournament involvement. Such enthusiasts may more likely belong to organized groups, such as bowfishing associations.

These differences in sampling approaches and the different characteristics of respondents corresponded to some other notable differences in responses between our study and that of Bennett et al. (2015). Bowfishing from shore was the most common approach used by the Oklahoma bowfishers, as was fishing in rivers, whereas the Texas bowfishers fished nearly exclusively by boat (86% of fishing days) and fished more often in reservoirs. A higher level of involvement among the Texas bowfishers sampled was therefore associated with a large investment in equipment. Bennett et al. (2015:12) concluded that the bowfishers in their study “appeared to be a dedicated constituency with specialized boats and equipment.” With that higher investment in equipment perhaps comes a higher expectation for take. The Texas bowfishers that were queried most commonly sought buffalofishes, whereas Oklahoma bowfishers most commonly sought and took carps and gars.

The differences between our study of Oklahoma bowfishers and the Bennett et al. (2015) study involving a different demographic of Texas bowfishers underscore the critical importance for managers of identifying the constituency that they are querying and, as accurately as possible, the composition of the “public” for whom management is being conducted and regulations enacted. Ultimately, long-term conservation of native species and sustainable management of bowfishing under the public trust doctrine for the public as a whole must take precedence over the different preferences of component user groups (Scarnecchia et al. 2021).

Other, more specific results of our study deserve interpretation. For example, shore fishing during daytime predominated among Oklahoma bowfishers, even with recent advances in lighting systems in boats that have greatly increased the opportunities and safety for night bowfishing (Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020). Shore fishing during daytime may cost less and require less planning, favoring participation by more casual bowfishers. In our study, lakes and reservoirs were also fished more at night than were rivers. Peden et al. (2020) found that general safety issues (e.g., danger of drowning) are of substantially greater concern for boaters on rivers than on lakes. Bowfishing at night on lakes and reservoirs, as opposed to rivers, is consistent with the safer and more relaxing conditions more commonly encountered, especially during the calm conditions that are most favorable for successful bowfishing. Night fishing with all gears and on all waters also presents special challenges for managers in monitoring and enforcement (Cooke et al. 2017), sometimes resulting in fishery closures at night to reduce illegal take and improve stock assessments. Under the current near absence of regulation of bowfisheries, however, night fishing may be primarily chosen when targeting species that are more available to being taken at night, rather than to circumvent regulations. The higher preference for carps by daytime bowfishers in contrast to the higher preference for gars by night bowfishers may be driven by the movement patterns and habitat usage of these species groups. Common Carp are often accessible by day, whereas gars are preferentially more active at night, associated with increased feeding (Goodyear 1967; Snedden et al. 1999). Various future limits on take, if implemented, may also be expected to change participation, for example, in rates of day versus night bowfishing. Our new knowledge of bowfisher preferences regarding preferred bowfishing locations, day versus night bowfishing, and species sought and taken may provide bases for improving the design of fisheries and creel surveys of this constituency.

Value of Native, Nongame Fishes

The differences in perceptions, opinions, and social value toward native, nongame species expressed by Oklahoma bowfishers versus non-bowfishers provided some new insights. Prior to this study, bowfisher opinions in social media postings indicated to us that bowfishers generally have held native, nongame fish in low regard (Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020). In this study, however, non-bowfishers expressed even less recognition than bowfishers of the suitability of nongame species for human consumption. Among the acceptable outcomes presented to survey respondents, we held human consumption as the option representative of the greatest social value, although the questions were not specifically articulated in this manner. Bowfishers in our study were twice as likely as non-bowfishers to view native, nongame fishes as edible (Figure 5). Reasons for this difference are unstudied but may relate to the lower exposure of non-bowfishers to these species. Many native, nongame species, such as gars and buffalofishes, are not commonly targeted (and their incidental capture may be rare) or preferred by anglers (York 2019); bowfishers may therefore more often encounter these species. Humans have a long history of testing novel fish for consumption (Morgan and Ho 2018; House 2019); unusual fish, especially large ones, more commonly taken by bowfishers might be much more likely to be evaluated by them for edibility. The perception of the two groups toward the nongame species might therefore differ, as perception and familiarity play large roles in acceptance of new foods, including fish (Tuorila and Hartmann 2020).

Acceptable outcomes of native, nongame species differed in other ways between bowfishers and non-bowfishers. Bowfishers indicated that they were still more likely to bury native, nongame species or use them as fertilizer than to eat them, whereas non-bowfishers reported that they were most likely to return nongame fish to the water. Comparisons of the two groups utilizing the outcome “returned to water” require caution, however, as it was not specified in the survey whether the fish was returned alive, as would be typical in catch-and-release angling for black basses and other game species (Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Brownscombe et al. 2017; Maynard et al. 2017), as opposed to being returned dead or severely injured, which would be typical for buffalofishes captured by bowfishing (Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020). “Return to water” may have two distinctly different meanings and outcomes for different respondents. Additional caution may be warranted in interpreting responses regarding animal consumption. Animal consumption could mean consumption by pets or other domesticated animals (Charlebois et al. 2010), which could be considered a beneficial use of shot fish. Alternatively, animal consumption may mean consumption (scavenging) by wild animals, such as aquatic turtles, vultures, or raccoons. Outcomes of returning the fish to the water or discarding the fish at the boat ramp (an illegal method of disposal in Oklahoma) or elsewhere would then be similar. More refinement in questions on these topics is needed on future surveys.

One specific regulatory action that could change the perceived low value of native, nongame fish, as shown in social media comments and in the comments in this survey (York and Schooley 2021), would be to create regulations preventing the immediate release of shot native, nongame fishes, most of which would presumably die from their wounds. The fate of fish released by bowfishers therefore differs from the documented low mortality rate of catch-and-release angling for multiple game species, such as the black basses (Maynard et al. 2017). By allowing the immediate release of shot fish, agencies reinforce the perception of the low value of these species to the public (Scarnecchia et al. 2021). The practice of “shoot and release” is prohibited in 42 states as of February 2021 (A. Lackmann, University of Minnesota, personal communication). In the eight states where this practice is legal, half of them (Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Wyoming) relegate the practice only to certain waters or certain species (e.g., Common Carp). The remaining four states (Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee) have no restrictions on waters, and native, nongame fishes are regulated similarly to nonnative invasives. Agencies can assist in species conservation by placing a higher value on their beneficial use. Ultimately, agencies have a responsibility to ensure the sustainable take of native, nongame species within the philosophies of the public trust doctrine and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (https://www.fishwildlife.org/landing/north-american-model-wildlife-conservation) to use or dispose of any remains in a legal and ethical manner.

Informational campaigns by management agencies such as ODWC can raise awareness and appreciation for native, nongame species and can help to dispel the outmoded notion of the native species as inedible, rough, or “trash” fish in need of eradication (Scarnecchia 1992; Adams et al. 2019; Rypel et al. 2021). Our survey results may indicate a lack of public knowledge and/or exposure to the ecosystem benefits of native, nongame fish. The important role of native species in aquatic ecosystems and in maintaining species balance in fish communities, and thereby aiding sportfishing, has long been known (Scarnecchia 1992). Further, these species are highly edible when taken and handled in a responsible and sustainable way. Awareness campaigns, such as Adams et al. (2019) for #GARWEEK and subsequent efforts by ODWC, reinforce that native, nongame fishes are valuable and play important roles within their aquatic communities. These targeted campaigns can demonstrate that the removal of native, nongame species with the aim of benefiting other, more traditionally preferred species is harmful rather than beneficial (Rypel et al. 2021).

Regulations and Their Impacts

Although a large majority of bowfishers (86%) and non-bowfishers (94%) indicated that they trusted the state management agency (ODWC) to effectively manage native, nongame species targeted by bowfishing, as of 2022 bowfishing is largely unregulated in Oklahoma and in states nationwide (Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020). In Oklahoma, species that are commonly targeted—both native, nongame species, such as gars (except the Alligator Gar) and suckers (Catostomidae), and nonnative invasives, such as carps—have no daily bag limits or size limits (Schooley and Scarnecchia 2021). Under favorable circumstances of timing, habitat, and species behavior, the take of large numbers of fish within a single bowfishing outing is not only possible but legal. While these circumstances may be rare, the glorification of some high-take bowfishing outings can be observed on social media, often portrayed in a similar, heroic manner as the take of a single trophy fish, with numbers of fish used as a surrogate for fish size (Scarnecchia and Schooley, in press). Although unlimited take of nonnative, invasive species is likely beneficial for native aquatic communities and habitats and may be a sound management strategy in a well-designed fishery, unlimited take of native, nongame fishes may be detrimental to local stocks (Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020; Scarnecchia et al. 2021). Contemporary research on the life history of native, nongame species indicates long life spans and uneven recruitment for many of these species (Lackmann et al. 2019; reviewed by Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020), necessitating judicious regulation of bowfishing take of native species. Although more detailed evidence is needed from studies in Oklahoma waters and on the impacts of bowfishing on Oklahoma native, nongame species, the great longevity and episodic recruitment described from research on buffalofishes and gars in other states can be expected to apply to the same species in Oklahoma waters.

This survey also provided insights on the general types of potential regulatory measures that may be effective if needed for native species conservation and how such regulations might impact bowfishing participation and opportunity for take. Experienced bowfishers reported more than twice the average take of native and nonnative species combined (12 fish/trip) relative to beginners (5 fish/trip). Had a bowfishing aggregate bag limit (all species, native and nonnative) been in place at the time of this survey, aggregate daily limits of 10, 15, or 20 fish of all species would have impacted only 30, 15, and 8% of bowfishers. In all cases, a majority of bowfishers would not be affected. However, any bag limits (species specific or aggregate) enacted for native species conservation need not include nonnative, invasive species, potentially resulting in considerable bowfishing opportunity while limiting take of native species as needed. Despite the rationale for this general approach (Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020; Rypel et al. 2021), our survey results indicate that any regulation, regardless of its impacts on a minority of bowfishers or bowfishing trips, will likely inspire some opposition from tenured bowfishers. One of the attractions of bowfishing has historically been the ability to take larger numbers of fish than might be possible when taking many terrestrial species. Even for a scarce species, such as the Alligator Gar, Bennett et al. (2015) found that 43% of Texas tournament bowfishers considered the one-fish bag limit too restrictive. Ultimately, support of bowfishers for native species conservation would be critical to the success of any regulations enacted.

The Future of Bowfishing and Its Management

Results of this study show an increase in interest and participation in bowfishing consistent with the nationwide ascendance of the sport (Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020). In the 2019 Oklahoma angler survey, only 4% of licensed anglers reported bowfishing in the previous 12 months (York 2019). The doubling in bowfishing participation reported in this study since then (9.1%)—that is, a doubling of participation in bowfishing from license year 2018 to license year 2020—is not unexpected. It may accurately represent increasing popularity or may also represent higher general participation in fishing of all kinds, perhaps associated with the COVID-19 pandemic or related factors (Midway et al. 2021). Additional insights were obtained that bowfishers, as a constituency, appeared to have a higher participation level in fishing overall than non-bowfishers. Not only were they twice as likely to use their license privileges in the previous 12 months, they also reported participating in a wider diversity of fishing activities (e.g., limblines, noodling, trotlines), at times two- to threefold more, than non-bowfishers. Our finding that more bowfishers than non-bowfishers were lifetime license holders may be indicative of a greater commitment to fishing. Deeper analyses of the license-buying histories of bowfishers and non-bowfishers may provide insights on whether bowfishers are indeed more active and committed to all types of fishing in Oklahoma and elsewhere. The creation, management, and promotion of sustainable bowfishing opportunities in various states may serve to recruit license buyers while encouraging bowfishers to target nonnative, invasive fishes (Quinn 2010; Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020).

The number of current active bowfishers as well as the high rate of potential interest from those that have not bowfished provides a strong indication that this survey and other efforts related to native, nongame species targets of the sport are appropriately timed. In alignment with a growing sport, many bowfishers surveyed were new to the sport (57% had bowfished fewer than 3 years) or rated themselves as beginners (49%). While only 24% of respondents had ever bowfished and only 9.1% were active participants (i.e., had bowfished in the past year), nearly one-third of the non-bowfishing respondents indicated an interest in trying bowfishing. Inasmuch as all three of the reported barriers to bowfishing relate to inadequate information, barriers to bowfishing could be lowered with a concerted outreach and education program.

In the future, fisheries design, appropriate regulations, and adequate monitoring will be important aspects of sustainable bowfishing management. Attempts to enhance and promote growth of bowfishing must emphasize nonnative invasives and should coincide with appropriate management protections for the native, nongame species potentially impacted by bowfishing (Hilsabeck et al. 2017; Scarnecchia and Schooley 2020). In Oklahoma and nationally, very few native, nongame species are managed by harvest regulations. To monitor the expansion of bowfishing, it would also be prudent for ODWC and other state agencies to develop targeted surveys like ours and to repeat them at regular intervals of no greater than 3–5 years. It may also be beneficial to target different bowfishing and angler populations in more detail (i.e., messaging that is targeted to beginners or youths). To aid in information exchange, the development of focus groups mentioned in survey question 29 is expected to be a valuable resource for managers. Such groups can be used to fill any knowledge gaps of surveys, allow collaboration with constituency leaders, and enhance methodologies for data collection from nontournament bowfishers.