The Social Image of Inland Angling in Poland Within the Concept of Sustainability: A Factual and Stereotypical Analysis

Abstract

Social perception of fishing is dichotomous and is perceived through the prism of stereotypes or intuitive ideas. Popularity of angling and its importance for the environment and the economy force the necessity to examine this issue to improve public acceptance of anglers and optimalisation of sustainable recreational area management. The study is based on a survey of Polish anglers and other people who undertake recreational activities on inland waters. Research aimed to assess the prevalence of stereotypes regarding angling and to verify them based on the preferences and self-reported behaviors indicated by anglers. Most non-anglers (88.6%) do not have a negative opinion of anglers. People with neutral attitudes are more like those with positive opinions. Part of the public (21.7–39.7%), despite associating anglers with negative connotations, does not have a negative opinion of them. Negative opinions are mainly related to concerns about sustainability and other environmental impacts from overharvesting, plus welfare of the captured fish, which was expressed as “torture”. Many of the stereotypes examined were verified as untrue; however, stereotypes concerning the costs and time spent are accurate and show the positive impact of fishing on the economy.

1. Introduction

1.1. Literature Review on Angling as a Source of Stereotypes

Angling is a popular recreational activity, attracting between 220 and 700 million people worldwide [1,2]. In the broadly defined “Western world” approximately 118 million people, or roughly 10.5%, fish recreationally [3]. In Poland, the number of active anglers is estimated at around 1.5 million [4], which represent approximately 4.5% of the population over the age of 14 [5]. However, in statistical surveys conducted by the Polish Central Statistical Office [6], 11.6% of citizens (21.8% of men and 2.8% of women) indicated that they had fishing skills, with 16.5% of households reporting that they owned fishing equipment. This constitutes a group of up to 5 million people who may be interested in angling. This group has the potential to exert a significant influence on all aspects of sustainable development, including economic, social and environmental dimensions. It is essential to undertake comprehensive research exploring the various contexts in which this large social group operates and its interactions with non-anglers. These non-anglers may form diverse relationships or encounter various conflicts with anglers.

Angling is a distinctive activity in the realm of wildlife, characterized by its profound connection to the environment, facilitated by the presence of fish. The concept of ecosystem services provides a pertinent example of this phenomenon. Angling, for instance, is recognized as a recreational activity within the domain of cultural services, whilst simultaneously exhibiting characteristics of a provisioning service. However, it should be noted that the intensity of these interactions is not constant and is subject to variation among individual anglers [7,8,9]. Such dependence on animals is rarely observed, with the exception of hunting, another wildlife activity [10,11]. Both generate numerous social conflicts and ethical and social controversies resulting from their nature, which involves the use of living organisms for recreational purposes. Attitudes towards the utilization of fish for any purpose have undergone a historical metamorphosis.

Initially, an anthropocentric approach prevailed, first in terms of subsistence and subsequently in terms of economics. Even though the activity was initially less recreational in nature, humans played a central role in this relationship [12,13]. In modern times, ecological issues began to emerge, initially manifesting as a form of practical resource management. The earliest known legal regulations regarding fishing limits in England were documented in the 13th century [14]. In the 14th-century Treatyse of Fysshynge with an Angle, one of the earliest texts on angling, the author advised anglers to limit their catches, as there might not be enough fish left for other anglers. This reference highlights the importance of sustainable resource management [15].

A comprehensive approach to fishing, covering its many aspects in relation to the environment, people and the economy emerged in the latter half of the 20th century. This period is characterized by significant development and specialization in angling. It was reflected in technological progress, including fishing equipment, accessories, lures and means of transport, as well as novel fishing techniques [16,17]. The 21st century has witnessed a further alignment between humans and animals, both through the development of the concept of a coupled socio-ecological system [18] and the pursuit of symmetry between humans and the environment in the “more-than-human” trend, which places humans on an equal footing with animals and plants (non-human beings), bringing the ethical aspect to the fore [19,20]. The potential negative impact is associated with the degradation of aquatic and riparian environments, including the introduction of nutrient substances or non-native species into the water [21,22]. It is important to note that social pathology in the context of angling is a rarely discussed topic in scientific literature. This includes alcohol consumption, which is often considered a typically male pastime, and alienation from the family [9,23]. Nevertheless, the most frequently raised issues concern the release of caught fish. The objective of this concept was to establish a more sustainable approach to fish management by enabling the practice of catching and subsequently releasing fish on multiple occasions (i.e., the catch-and-release model). Over the course of recent decades, this concept has gained global popularity [12,14,17]. According to the existing literature, the fish pain and mortality in angling is not evidently negative and can be mitigated by enhancing angler’s expertise, equipment, and the conditions in which the fish is captured and kept [24,25,26].

The controversies are counterbalanced by the positive values associated with angling. These values stem from the specific characteristics and diversity of experiences that are difficult to find in other forms of recreation. In addition to the previously mentioned provisioning benefits, cultural values such as the satisfaction of needs through angling are often mentioned. The most frequently reported needs are related to nature, escaping from everyday life, social interaction, isolation, relaxation, physical activity, catching and/or eating fish, emotions and experiences, learning, and exploration [27,28,29,30]. A multitude of benefits have been identified in the practice of angling, including its impact on human health, particularly in terms of mental well-being [31,32,33]. Anglers represent a substantial social group that is acutely aware of the necessity for environmental education. Their elevated environmental awareness positions them as a group that is highly conducive to environmental sustainability [9,34]. They are close to nature, observe it, and are therefore often the first to raise the alarm about environmental disturbances or ecological disasters [35]. The economic benefits of the fishing industry are also substantial and well known [36,37].

In addition to measurable factors such as time, money and fish resources, angling has a number of immeasurable and non-obvious characteristics. For example, it is associated with primitive human behavior. While these characteristics can make angling seem like a calling, they can also be viewed as inhumane [38]. For those lacking experience with angling, this can foster perceptions that are more rooted in myth than fact. Stereotypes and various types of generalizations emerge in our minds as a heuristic device to reduce the amount of data required to understand reality. It is an inherent property of the human brain to generate simplifications. Literature suggests that stereotypes can form in the absence of knowledge and persist despite inaccuracy [39,40,41]. The formation of stereotypes is also influenced by emotional attitudes, which are in turn related to the culture in which individuals are raised and the social “bubble” in which those individuals live. It is possible that we may unintentionally perceive specific characteristics in others that are not objectively observable [42]. Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of such stereotypes can be mitigated through exposure to the given group. According to the research, in such circumstances, there is a possibility that our opinion of them may improve [39,40]. The aim of this work is twofold: to familiarize non-anglers with anglers and to perhaps improve their opinion of them.

1.2. Research Objectives

As demonstrated in the preceding review of the literature, there are valid arguments on both sides and various, often conflicting opinions about anglers. Given the wide array of opinions on this matter, the sustainable development of angling and recreational areas appears to be a highly challenging yet significant issue. The primary objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of stereotypes regarding fishing and to verify them based on the preferences and self-reported behaviors indicated by anglers. Achieving this objective will facilitate the development of optimal two-way communication and education between anglers and non-anglers. Another objective was to conduct a multidimensional analysis of recreational activity, economic, socio-demographic, motivational, and engagement factors that influence the perception of anglers, determining whether this perception is positive or negative. It is critical to understand which aspects of anglers’ behavior are most controversial and, consequently, which issues should be considered when improving the image of angling. To verify these objectives, the following research questions were formulated: (1) How do anglers’ perceptions of angling differ from those of the rest of society? (2) Will negative/positive stereotypes always be overestimated by people with a negative/positive attitude towards angling? (3) Which factors have the greatest influence on the creation of negative and positive opinions about angling?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Design of the Survey

The data set under study consisted of a survey that was conducted throughout 2024 (September to November). The study comprised a total of 1245 participants, including 605 anglers and 640 non-anglers. To ensure a consistent legal, cultural and social context, the respondents were exclusively from Poland. The anonymous questionnaires were limited only by age (18 years old or more). The items used in the study fell under a broader research project that covered a wide range of questions and opinions on both angling and other water-based activities. The time required to respond to all questions, as well as those not covered by this study, ranged from 9 to 22 min.

The survey was disseminated using CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) methodology. CAWI research is classified as quantitative research, a method that facilitates the rapid survey of a very large group of respondents. Disadvantages of CAWI relate to its limited ability to reach respondents who do not use the Internet. However, the advantages of CAWI clearly outweigh any limitations [43,44]. The data was collected by a survey company specializing in public opinion polls (Ariadna, Warszawa, Poland—panelariadna.pl). The reliability and credibility of research conducted on the Ariadna panel are confirmed by numerous letters of reference and regular cooperation with leading research centers and universities (Ariadna 2025 [44]).

The sample for the study was selected by asking questions about engaging in angling and other recreational activities on inland waters in Ariadna’s internal preliminary survey, which is a weekly event. This pre-survey was conducted on a representative quota sample aged 18 or over and the quotas were based on gender, age, and the size of the place of residence. A negative answer excluded them from the survey, while a positive answer led to a question about the forms of recreation practiced on inland waters. The list included the most popular forms of water and land recreation. There was also an option to enter additional forms and sort them from most to least frequently practiced. Based on this question, respondents were divided into two groups: anglers and non-anglers. The questionnaire consisted of questions on many aspects, including socioeconomic status, demographics, motivation and involvement in recreation, social preferences, etc. Non-anglers were also asked for their opinions on and associations with angling. These covered various topics, such as leisure and sport, costs, environmental and ethical issues. Anglers were also asked about issues that allowed us to verify these opinions and associations. Due to the sensitive nature of some topics (alcohol consumption and littering) authors considered it socially inappropriate to ask anglers directly or even indirectly about them. These associations were used in the further part of the study to identify the main reasons for negative or positive opinions about angling.

Respondents answered demographic and socioeconomic questions by selecting one of the response options given or entering the exact value. Preferences, opinions, and activities were measured using binominal yes/no answers and a 5-point frequency Likert scale ranging from “never” to “always.”. The Likert scale is widely used in social sciences to express preferences and opinions, also in the context of angling (e.g., [30,45]). Respondents were instructed on how to interpret the relevant points on the Likert scale: 5—“always”, means that the statement is true in at least 90% of cases; 4—“often”, means 60–90% of cases; 3—“sometimes”, means 40–60%; 2—“rarely”, means 10–40%; 1—“never”, means situations in which, if they do so, it is no more than 10% of cases. To simplify interpretation in verifying the social stereotypes and associations, responses 4 and 5 (at least “often”) were interpreted as clearly positive attitudes toward a given item. To exclude forced and possibly incorrect answers, in some cases (stereotypes, associations and frequency) respondents also had the option of answering “I have no opinion” or “I don’t know,” which excluded them from the analysis on a given issue. Consequently, the number of respondents on several topics is smaller than the total number. A detailed description of all items used in the survey, together with references to the analyses in which they were used and the corresponding coding, is provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1). Study questionnaires combined had the margin of sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence level, indicating MoE ± 3.98% for anglers and ±3.87% for non-anglers. The smaller the errors, the more confident the results are [46]. Most researchers, as a rule of thumb, accept MoE up to 8% at a 95% confidence level [47].

2.2. Statistical Data Analysis

To check the statistical significance of differences between opinions and associations two different tests were used. Two-tailed difference between two proportions test was used regarding stereotypes. For associations nonparametric 2-tailed Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA by ranks test for independent samples (p < 0.05) with multiple comparisons correction was used. All statistical significance tests were performed using STATISTICA version 13.3 software. Logistic multinomial regression (NOMREG) was used to determine which angling characteristics have a decisive influence on negative or positive opinions about anglers. The regression model fit was explained by the Nagelkerke pseudo-R² coefficient and the statistical significance of the chi-square (χ²) test. Wald’s statistics for multilinear models were used to test the statistical significance of the b-coefficient. For each sociodemographic, economic, and engagement predictor, the reference level of one subgroup was determined (the parameter b was set to zero because it was redundant). Variables included in the model were first tested for high correlation (above 0.7). In the case of two pairs of associations, one with lower explanatory value was excluded from further analysis. The pairs were “the unethical tormenting of fish” and “killing fish for personal benefit” (correlation: 0.78) and “water pollution” and “littering of shores” (correlation: 0.74). In both cases, the first association was kept on for further analysis. Many variables were found to be statistically insignificant components of the logistic multinomial regression model and were excluded from it. These variables were related to gender, age, earnings per month, educational level, marital and children status, employment status, costs on recreation per year, engaging in recreation with family, friends, or alone, cumulative days and hours spent engaging in recreation per year, other recreational activities not listed as significant predictors (11 items), other motivational needs not listed as significant (10 items), other opinions not listed as significant on angling (5 items), and other associations not listed as significant with the sight of an angler during angling (4 items). Logistic multinomial regression was performed using PS Imago Pro software, version 10.0. The social attitude toward fishing, taking into account the respondents’ associations and stereotypical views, was tested using non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS). The Bray–Curtis distance measure, two axes, and the type 2 stress formula were applied to logarithmically transformed variables [48]. The analysis was performed using CANOCO 5.11.

3. Results

3.1. The Strength of Stereotypes and Associations Depending on Opinions About Anglers

A key question about the general opinion on angling was asked at the end of the survey. The answers grouped participants into three categories: with a positive attitude towards fishing (further on Positive) constitutes 34.9%, with a negative attitude (further on Negative), constitutes 11.4% and with a neutral attitude (further on Neutral) constitutes 50.3%. Non-anglers with no opinion (3.4%) were not included in further analyses. As indicated in the methodology, however, not everyone referred to stereotypes and associations. The percentages of the responses were as follows: For the Positive group, 88% referred to stereotypes and 95% referred to associations. For the Negative group, 77% referred to stereotypes and 95% referred to associations. For the neutral group, the percentage of responses given for stereotypes was 74%, and for associations, it was 84%. Seventy-seven percent of anglers and non-anglers gave a full response regarding the exact time spent by the water. All tested associations with the image of an angler by the water proved to be statistically significant between all three groups (

Table 1. Differences between non-angler groups with different opinions of anglers regarding stereotypes and associations connected to angling and anglers.

	Attitude Toward Angling						Average Non-Angler
	Positive		Neutral		Negative
What is angling in your opinion? (stereotypes)	N	%	N	%	N	%	%
One of the many forms of spending time on the water 1	195 a	92.0%	239 a	86.9%	45 b	75.0%	87.1
Sitting by the water for hours in solitude 2	142 a	69.3%	195 ab	76.8%	49 b	83.1%	74.3
A time-consuming and costly hobby 3	76 a	42.5%	112 b	55.4%	45 c	80.4%	52.8
Sporting competition and the pursuit of big fish 4	109 a	59.9%	96 b	45.3%	17 b	35.4%	49.8
The opportunity to obtain fish to eat 5	142 a	72.8%	173 a	68.7%	28 b	50.0%	68.0
Opportunity to spend time with family and friends 6	130 a	65.0%	131 a	56.0%	16 b	27.6%	55.8
Associations with the sight of an angler near the water	Positive		Neutral		Negative		Likert
With drunken people wearing waders 7	1.90 a		2.40 b		3.45 c		2.35
With littering the shores 8	1.95 a		2.33 b		3.56 c		2.34
With polluting the aquatic environment 9	1.77 a		2.04 b		3.17 c		2.07
With killing fish for personal benefit 10	2.15 a		2.56 b		3.86 c		2.57
With unethical tormenting of fish for own pleasure 11	1.78 a		2.30 b		4.10 c		2.33
With environmental responsibility 12	2.96 a		2.51 b		1.70 c		2.58
With passion for nature 13	3.49 a		2.96 b		1.81 c		3.02

Values with various superscripts (a, b, c) are significantly different from each group with different attitudes towards angling using 2-tailed difference between two proportions (^1–6) and 2-tailed non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA by ranks test for independent samples (p < 0.05) with multiple comparisons correction (^7–13) tests: ¹ Positive–Negative p = 0.0003, Positive–Neutral p = 0.0731, Negative–Neutral p = 0.0210; ² Pos-Neg p = 0.0367, Pos-Neu p = 0.0705, Neg-Neu p = 0.2927; ³ Pos-Neg p = 0.0000, Pos-Neu p = 0.0120, Neg-Neu p = 0.0007; ⁴ Pos-Neg p = 0.0024, Pos-Neu p = 0.0038, Neg-Neu p = 0.2115; ⁵ Pos-Neg p = 0.0013, Pos-Neu p = 0.3459, Neg-Neu p = 0.0078; ⁶ Pos-Neg p = 0.0000, Pos-Neu p = 0.0563, Neg-Neu p = 0.0001; ⁷ H_(N=565) = 86.83; ⁸ H_(N=562) = 91.76; ⁹ H_(N=552) = 62.32; ¹⁰ H_(N=555) = 90.91; ¹¹ H_(N=548) = 137.1116; ¹² H_(N=524) = 73.59; ¹³ H_(N=566) = 116.18; ^7–13 p < 0.001.

). Two associations with positive connotations (environmental responsibility and passion for nature) revealed that the Positive group agreed with these statements significantly more often. However, only on passion for nature was a positive attitude toward anglers demonstrated (Likert score: 3.49). Among Negative respondents, approximately one in five associated anglers with positive activities (Figure 1). Negative associations, which were also directly related to environmental protection (e.g., littering the shores and polluting the aquatic environment), showed nearly opposite proportions. Notably, the highest scores on the Likert scale (4 and 5) were reported more frequently by both the Negative group (in cases of negative connotations) and the Positive group (in cases of positive connotations). The greatest differences between the Negative and Positive groups were found in issues related to fish. Regarding tormenting fish, the difference was as high as 2.32 on a 5-point scale; regarding killing fish for profit, the difference was 1.71. More than seven out of ten members of the Negative group have this opinion of anglers. Despite the statistical differences, Neutral responses are relatively “closer” to the Positive group (differences of 0.27–0.53). The differences between the Negative and Neutral groups were at least twice as large (differences between 1.05 and 1.8). The Neutral group’s answers did not differ significantly from the average for all non-anglers (0.01 and 0.07). However, among those expressing the most extreme opinions (scoring a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale), the differences were greater, ranging from 3.5% (environmental responsibility) to 9.8% (tormenting fish). This indicates a greater disparity in extreme responses.

The stereotypes associated with angling were also analyzed in terms of their intensity. Regarding these stereotypes, the percentage differences between the average response and that of the Neutral group were smaller than in the case of associations (0.2–4.5%). The statement that fishing is one of many ways to spend time on the water received the highest degree of agreement from respondents, with 7 out of 8 respondents agreeing regardless of their opinion of anglers. The opinions of the Neutral and Positive groups on this issue did not differ significantly. Most respondents (74.3%) also agreed that angling is sitting by the water alone for hours. This question showed the least difference between all groups of anglers (the highest p-values in the test of two proportions), but even in this case, the Positive group differed statistically significantly from the Negative group. The next most common stereotype is the opportunity to obtain fish to eat. More than two-thirds of non-anglers (68%) agree with this statement, but only 50% of the Negative group does. No differences were found between the Positive and Neutral groups in this case nor in the case of the next stereotype that fishing is an opportunity to spend time with family and friends. This statement was agreed with by 55.8% of respondents, a much lower percentage than in the Negative group. This group agrees that fishing is a time-consuming and costly hobby. Only one in five disagrees, and 42% of the Positive group showed similar tendencies. This is the only stereotype in which all groups showed statistically significant differences. The stereotype that non-anglers least agreed with was pursuing big fish and sport fishing (49.8%). In this case, there were no statistically significant differences between the Negative and Positive groups. Almost 60% of the Positive group agreed with this statement.

3.2. Verification of Stereotypes and Associations About Angling and Anglers

3.2.1. Angling Versus Other Leisure Activities on the Water

Of the anglers surveyed, 46% said that angling was not their most common activity on the water (see

Table 2. Indirect indicators of anglers’ self-reported behavior verifying social stereotypes and associations with angling.

	Social Associations and Stereotypes About Angling	One of Many Ways to Spend Time on the Water	Sitting by the Water for Hours in Solitude	Time-Consuming and Costly Hobby	Sport and the Pursuit of Big Fish	Provisioning	Opportunity to Spend Time with Family and Friends	Unethical Tormenting of Fish for Pleasure	Passion for Nature
Anglers’ Self-Reported Behavior
Angling as non-primary activity %		46.0%
Different activities anglers (mean)		3.93 1
Angling cumulative time/year (hours)			296.83 2
Frequency of angling/year (days)			61.33 3
Hours/day			4.84 4
Angling alone			65.7%
Costs/year [EUR]				551 5
Motivation to catch fish					64.3%
Motivation to experience emotions/thrills					66.4%
Motivation to sport rivalry					16.7%
Complying with C&K rules						33.6%
Motivation to supply diet with healthy meat						27.9%
Motivation to obtain additional income						5.5%
Angling with friends							63.9%
Angling with family							57.2%
Member of angling association							49.6%
Motivation to meet with friends							46.6%
Motivation to meet with family							30.9%
Complying with C&R rules								62.6%
Motivation to contact with nature									88.4%

Notes: Opportunity to catch fish for consumption and killing fish for personal benefit were combined as provisioning. When using the Likert scale, percentages of responses 4 and 5 were used for easier interpretation. The euro exchange rate was set at mean from data acquisition 1 EUR = PLN 4.3054.¹ Non-anglers—3.39 different activities (mean). ² Non-anglers—177.29 h/year (highest for kayaking etc.—233.61 h/year) ³ Non-anglers—53.4 days/year (highest for sailing etc.—60.5 days/year). ⁴ Non-anglers—3.32 h/day (highest for kayaking etc.—4.61 h/day). ⁵ Non-anglers—382 EUR, with kayaking [574 EUR], sailing [611 EUR], diving [1041 EUR] and Negative [611 EUR] showing higher costs.

). On average, anglers practice 3.93 activities (out of possible 13). The average number of activities practiced by non-anglers was 3.39. Therefore, it can be concluded that anglers engage in a greater variety of water activities.

3.2.2. Angling as a Time-Consuming and Costly Hobby Practised in Solitude

Anglers spend approximately 297 h per year by water, which is the highest result among all activities surveyed (main responses), regardless of the opinion about anglers. Anglers are also most avid (highest result in terms of days per year and hours per day of practicing activity). In this respect, anglers turn out to be the recreation group that spends the most time on their recreation activity. As for cost, anglers spend an average of €551 per year. Only canoeists, sailors, divers, and Negative spend more. In the (anti)social context, 65.7% of anglers indicated that they prefer fishing alone, which is closest to the opinion of the Positive group (69.3%). It is more common for other groups to consider anglers to be solitary. Angling turns out to be relatively time-consuming and costly compared to other activities. However, it should be noted that the water-based activities included in the study are largely characterized by a similar level of financial burden. In this context, the stereotype that fishing is a solitary activity that takes a lot of time proved to be true, confirming the opinion of all non-angler groups.

3.2.3. Angling as a Pursuit of Big Fish and Sporting Competition

This matter is connected to cultural ecosystem services and encompasses two issues: the desire to catch fish as a trophy and the desire to participate in fishing as a sport. About two-thirds of the surveyed anglers said that they are motivated by the desire to catch fish and experience the excitement of the activity, but only 16.7% considered the sporting competition in angling to be important as motivation. This difference does not allow for an unambiguous verification of the stereotype. Regarding the pursuit of fish, all groups underestimate anglers’ motivation, while the Positive group comes closest to anglers’ responses. In terms of sporting motivation, the Negative group was the closest, but all groups overestimate it.

3.2.4. Non-Anglers’ Perceptions of Provisioning

This stereotype related to the provisioning ecosystem services can be verified based on anglers’ tendency to keep fish after catching them (the Catch & Keep model) and their motivation to supplement their diet with healthy meat. Thirty-three percent of anglers agreed that they follow the C&K principle, and 27.9% indicate that supplementing their diet with healthy meat is often their motivation for fishing. Only 5.5% indicated that obtaining additional income was a frequent motivation. This small group of anglers nearly balances out the difference between those who practice C&K and those who fish to supplement their diet, indicating a clear division in the expected benefits of angling. Non-anglers greatly overestimate the desire to eat fish, so this stereotype is inconsistent with angling practices and actually points to the opposite proportions.

3.2.5. Angling as an Opportunity to Spend Time with Family and Friends

Anglers are not often motivated to fish with family (30.9%), although they indicated that they fish with family relatively often (57.2%). The motivation to fish with friends is higher but still moderately neutral (46.6%). A higher percentage of respondents indicated that fishing with friends (63.9%) is similar to the preference for fishing alone. The declaration of membership in fishing organizations and clubs (49.6%) can further support the idea that anglers moderately need to fish with others. In this context, the Positive and Neutral groups seem to accurately perceive fishing, slightly overestimating the desire to maintain family relationships through it. As shown by the stereotype of solitude, people from the Negative group do not recognize angling as an activity where social bonds are cultivated.

3.2.6. Angling as Unethical Tormenting of Fish for Own Pleasure

Only one indirect indicator was related to this negative association: compliance with catch-and-release guidelines. In this case, 62.6% of anglers reported frequently releasing fish after catching them, a response that most closely aligns with the Negative group’s opinion (75.3% agree with this association). The Neutral and Positive groups seem to greatly underestimate this issue.

3.2.7. Angling as a Passion for Nature

The vast majority of anglers (88.4%) considered contact with nature to be a frequent motivation, at least. The Negative group had almost the opposite opinion on this subject. Even the Neutral and Positive groups underestimated the extent of anglers’ attachment to nature and have, at best, a slightly positive opinion on this issue.

3.2.8. Public Perceptions of Angling in the Context of Associations and Stereotypical Beliefs

All social opinions (positive/negative/neutral) were tested in a reduced ordering space using non-metric multidimensional scaling—NMDS (Figure 2). The vectors of these opinions reflect the associations caused by the sight of anglers and the respondents’ subjective views on angling. With a stress value of 0.0029, the analysis explained 90.9% of the variability in the respondents’ answers. Positive and Neutral opinions were negatively correlated with the NMDS 1 axis. This axis explained 58.7% of the total variability. The perception of angling as one of many forms of leisure activity combined with spending many hours alone were the most common social views, regardless of the final opinion. Positive and Neutral groups were positively associated with the acceptance of anglers catching fish for consumption. In contrast, Negative opinions were most strongly positively associated with the perception of fishing as a time-consuming and costly hobby. The association of anglers with responsibility for the environment was of the least significance in explaining the variability of opinions. Association of anglers with a passion for nature and the perception of fishing as a sporting activity and an opportunity to spend time with family and friends were characterized as convergence. At the same time, this convergence was characteristically most at odds with the Negative opinion. The most consistent with the Negative opinion was the association of anglers with unethical tormenting of fish and killing them for personal gain. On the other hand, the strong convergence of other negative associations with the sight of an angler (polluting, littering, and drinking) was characteristically most at odds with Positive and Neutral opinions. Considering the defined associations and respondents’ views, the final Neutral opinion was strongly positively correlated with the Positive opinion (r = 0.899), showing only a weak correlation with the Negative opinion (r = 0.253).

3.3. Factors Shaping Positive and Negative Opinions About Anglers

A comprehensive examination of non-anglers’ opinions was conducted to identify the variables that most significantly influence a shift in opinion from a neutral stance to a positive or negative one. The multiple logistic regression model identified eight predictors that statistically contributed to the change in opinion from Neutral to Positive and three that were significant in the change of opinion from Neutral to Negative (see

Table 3. Results of multinominal logistic regression (NOMREG) of multiple socioeconomic, engagement, motivation and opinion predictors on angling by non-anglers (N = 640).

Significant Predictors 1	Positive Opinion (N = 158)		Negative Opinion (N = 42)
	b	W	b	W
Participate in sailing, kitesurfing, windsurfing etc.	−1.494	5.915 *	0.498	0.317
Need for contact with nature	−0.403	7.339 **	0.104	0.161
Need for acquiring knowledge and new skills	0.308	5.748 *	−0.189	0.810
Opinion that angling is sporting competition and chasing big fish	0.685	7.403 **	−0.242	0.275
Connotation with passion for nature	0.295	4.031 *	−0.493	4.137 *
Connotation with unethical tormenting of fish for pleasure	−0.373	6.350 *	0.850	16.330 ***
Connotation with responsibility for the environment	0.397	8.543 **	−0.544	4.661 *
Connotation with a drunken man in waders	−0.455	9.434 **	0.273	1.598
Model fit criteria
−2 log Likelihood	508.227
χ2 goodness of fit (df = 680)	2219.646 ***
Pseudo R2 of Nagelkerke	0.473

The statistical significance of Wald’s statistic (W) and the estimation parameter (b) reflect the usefulness of predicators for the multinominal logistic regression model. ¹ Only predictors with statistically significant reliability coefficient were included in the model. Nonsignificant or highly correlated predictors for both positive and negative opinions on angling (p > 0.050; W_critical < 3.843; correlation > 0.7) were excluded during model fitting (Check 2.2.). * p < 0.050 ** p < 0.010 *** p < 0.001.

). In all of the predictors, even those that did not reach statistical significance, the positive and negative opinions expressed opposite views, thereby indicating the consistency of the data. The greatest extent of the shift towards a positive opinion was driven by the absence of association that anglers are drunken men in waders (Wald statistic = 9.434, p < 0.01). The need for contact with nature (W = 7.339, p < 0.01), and association of anglers with tormenting fish for pleasure (W = 6.35, p < 0.05), demonstrated that non-anglers, who do not associate angling with these issues, are in the Positive group. Similarly, not being a sailor, as a main activity, set non-anglers in the Positive group (W = 5.915, p < 0.05). The positive opinion of angling is also significantly associated with non-anglers’ need to acquire new knowledge and skills (W = 5.748, p < 0.05), and the belief that angling is the pursuit of big fish and sports competition (W = 7.403, p < 0.01). Being in the Positive group was also based on non-anglers’ belief that anglers have a passion for nature (W = 4.031, p < 0.05) and that they are environmentally responsible (W = 8.543, p < 0.01). A negative perception of angling was most strongly associated with the belief that angling participants torment fish for pleasure (W = 16.33, p < 0.001). The presence in the Negative group was also significantly associated with the following perceptions: that the angling participants have no passion for nature (W = 4.131, p < 0.05) and that they are not environmentally responsible (W = 4.661, p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

4.1. Sustainable Development-Related Stereotypes and Associations About Fishing

One of the stereotypes examined in this study was the perception of anglers as people who drink alcohol while fishing. The Negative group mostly agreed with this statement, although a third or fourth of the other groups shared this opinion. This issue is rarely addressed in studies on angling and its social aspects. This may be due to the difficulty of obtaining reliable data. The theory of social norms describes the difficulty of collecting controversial responses. This theory indicates that people overestimate bad behavior in others while underestimating it in themselves [49]. This pluralistic ignorance increases with the controversy of behavior and the social distance between the observers. Such ignorance also occurs in fishing. Even with complete anonymity, respondents may feel pressured to present themselves in a better light, especially in the context of the illegality of such practices in public places or issues of environmental pollution and littering [50,51].

The perception of anglers as frequent drinkers is associated with the identification of angling as a “masculine” activity [23]. This is consistent with the fact that men constitute the majority of anglers worldwide [52] and in Poland [6,30]. The lower presence of women is linked to a wide range of reasons, often related to safety concerns in outdoor recreation [53]. Unfortunately, women in fishing are still often portrayed in a sexualized manner or viewed as an “obstacle” to fishing [54]. This aspect is related to the historical background of some regions of the world. In Poland, alcohol consumption remains high, with men accounting for a significantly larger share of this consumption [55]. However, the image of fishing as a male-dominated activity is rather overemphasized. This exaggeration stems from the media, including social media, where anglers create slightly different, more “masculine” alter egos [56]. This image may fade over time, as observed in this study.

Regardless of their attitude toward fishing, most respondents shared the view that it is a time-consuming hobby often practiced alone. This perception is supported by the literature, which cites lack of time as the most common reason for not fishing [57]. Additionally, angling appears more time-consuming than other activities. The percentage of anglers who prefer fishing with friends is similar to the percentage who prefer fishing alone. Considering the lower demand for fishing with family, the desire to fish alone or with friends stems from two needs: escaping everyday life and fulfilling social ties. These needs are often indicated as motivations for fishing [28,30]. However, it depends on the individual angler and their particular needs while fishing, which are related to general social preferences, not just fishing preferences. This relationship is supported by the fact that approximately half of anglers belong to an angling organization, indicating a desire for companionship. As confirmed by research [10,58], it can be expected that angling is an important element in the formation of a community based on a shared hobby.

Another issue is the financial burden of angling, which is difficult to measure objectively. However, angling has many benefits for national economies [36,37]. In this study, we confronted this issue by comparing the expenses of anglers to those practicing other recreational activities. This comparison paints fishing as a relatively costly activity. In this context, respondents from the Negative group accurately estimated the high expenses, but approximately 50.1% of the other groups shared this opinion. Anglers’ opinions on this issue are subjective, of course, but literature uses terms such as “priceless” in relation to the costs, indicating a high level of dedication to the hobby [38]. In certain circumstances, the duration of time spent on the activity and the company during angling may be subject to legal regulation. This phenomenon was exemplified during the pandemic, when social gatherings of a considerable size were not endorsed—indeed, they were explicitly discouraged. However, the findings indicated that this period had a positive effect on reducing stress among anglers. Nonetheless, the results demonstrated that this period did not significantly reduce social relations in fishing; in fact, it only led to a reduction in the size of family ties. A shift in the behavioral patterns of anglers was observed, yet this did not appear to result in a decrease in their engagement with fishing activities [9,32,33]. The examples provided demonstrate the efficacy of restrictions in influencing fishing demand to a certain extent. However, anglers appear to be resistant to attempts to alter the status quo.

The typical sporting motive is attractive only to a relatively small group of anglers (2.31 on the Likert scale), and their motivation for physical activity through fishing is slightly positive (3.37). It appears that fishing can be considered as a competitive activity, although this competition is more closely related to one’s own deficiencies in skills (motivation to obtain new skills and knowledge—3.42) and the object of the catch, i.e., the “trophy fish” (motivation to catch fish—3.79), than with other people. In the context of literature, it can be concluded that fishing itself, as a form of contemplation, can occur irrespective of the probability of catching fish. The desire to rest, relax, and escape to nature is of greater importance than catching fish [28,30].

We treated fishing as a form of recreation as a “control” question. Both common sense and the very definition of angling as “recreational fishing” [59] as well as many classifications, including CICES—ecosystem services [8], name angling as clearly a recreational activity in the wildlife. It is noteworthy that a minority of respondents, constituting only one in eight, do not share this perspective. The underlying factors contributing to this phenomenon can vary significantly and frequently present as contradictory. Some individuals may regard wildlife recreation as a pursuit that extends beyond mere recreation, perceiving it as a vocation, a mindset, or a form of unity with nature. In contrast, others may not perceive fishing as a recreational activity precisely because of its component of exploiting the environment for consumption purposes, which is not observed in the context of most forms of recreation [10,38].

Consequently, it can be concluded that the consumption aspect, which is associated with the provisioning ecosystem service, might be responsible for the failure to recognize fishing as a recreational activity. However, this perspective only addresses one aspect of the complex issue at hand. The Negative perception of both C&R and C&K angling is almost equal and was rated as “bad” by 70.1% to 75.3% of respondents. The other groups have a similar perspective, although to a limited extent (21.7–39.7%). These two stereotypes demonstrated a high degree of correlation (0.78), suggesting that perceptions of fishing may be influenced by the treatment of captured fish, which is often perceived as cruel. A noteworthy finding of the study is that the consumption motive is pursued by a minority of anglers, constituting only 33.6% of the surveyed population. This figure is significantly overestimated by non-anglers. The Negative group exhibited the closest alignment with the anglers’ response, with a percentage of 50%. In contrast, the remaining groups demonstrated a more than doubled overestimation of the response, with a percentage of 70.5%.

It is interesting to note that the issues of fishing for the purpose of consumption and killing fish for personal benefit are nearly equivalent, given the negligible percentage of individuals who engage in fishing for additional income (5.5%). It is evident that the simple act of rephrasing a question can result in discrepancies in the responses obtained. The discrepancy in the “agree” responses reached a maximum of 21.4% across the entire population surveyed. However, the attitudes of the two extreme groups were diametrically opposed: the Negative group indicated killing rather than consumption, while the positive group indicated the opposite. The existing literature suggests that the way survey questions are worded, the tone adopted, and the direction of the inquiry can influence respondents’ responses. It has been demonstrated that this is also the case in studies related to recreation or the environment. Researchers should therefore take this into consideration [46,60]. In the present study, however, this experiment was adequately designed, as stereotypes, by their very nature, suggest a certain answer. However, the extent of this discrepancy was not expected. It is important to note, however, that stereotypes and associations vary depending on the subject matter. The associations involved anglers, while the stereotypes referred to angling. The results of the study indicate that the practice of fishing is not generally regarded with negative sentiment in Polish society. However, it is important to consider the factors that give rise to the controversy surrounding this issue. The central question of this study is whether the focus should be on the act of fishing itself or on the image and potential behavior of the angler. The fish tormenting stereotype was verified using only a single indirect indicator of catch-and-release (C&R) compliance. Thus, this appears to be circumstantial evidence. It fails to address the dual and ambiguous nature of the ethical, social, and environmental aspects of C&R and C&K, as previously described in the literature [9,17,26,61]. However, it appears that these stereotypes have been effective in establishing a negative perception, as they have been identified as the primary factors contributing to negative perception.

4.2. Main Determinants of Associations and Stereotypes About Angling

The initial hypothesis was that the majority of individuals exhibit some form of associative connection with angling or anglers. This hypothesis was subsequently validated through empirical evidence of a response rate between 74 and 95% in relation to stereotypes and associations. However, the results of the study indicated that these associations did not necessarily evoke strong emotions in the respondents. In fact, 50.3% of the respondents expressed a neutral opinion after being exposed to predominantly pejorative associations. However, their neutral stance requires further analysis. According to the findings of the social sciences, survey respondents generally exhibit a propensity to provide responses that fall within the moderate spectrum, avoiding extreme answers. In many cases, these responses are excluded from studies to obtain a certain response trend from the respondents [50]. In the present study, an alternative approach was adopted by incorporating an “I don’t have an opinion” option. However, this option was selected by only approximately one in 30 respondents. Therefore, it appears that their neutral opinion is a conscious decision. The percentage in each group indicates that fishing does not have such a bad reputation in Polish society. The Positive group is primarily distinguished by the absence of negative opinions, while the Negative group is distinguished by the absence of positive opinions, as illustrated in Figure 2. This graph also indicates a lack of symmetry of the Neutral group, which is closer to the Positive group.

An intriguing phenomenon in this context is the general sensitivity of Polish society to environmental issues, which is not particularly high. In a Eurobarometer survey on the primary factors contributing to environmental concerns [62], Poles exhibited a lower ranking than the EU average regarding loss of wildlife, though their results did not differ from the mean of the 12 new EU member states. However, in terms of the personal importance of nature conservation, Poland ranked below the EU average in 20th place (58% of respondents agreed). Some of Positive (21.7–30.1%) and Neutral (27.6–39.7%) groups indicate a negative impact on the environment by anglers, but their opinion is not negative. It may be due to their inner sensitivity on the one hand and a more pragmatic approach to life on the other.

The fact that anglers catch fish for food is not a significant factor in shaping opinions, as evidenced by the findings of multinomial regression. The most critical factor is the association with the suffering and killing of fish, which is indicated in the study as the greatest controversy regarding C&R [63]. In light of the fact that the consumption of fish requires the killing of the animal, the Negative group appears to be in a state of cognitive dissonance, akin to a “meat paradox,” whereby individuals experience a conflict between their preferences in terms of meat and their concerns regarding animal welfare and the ethical implications of its acquisition [64]. Or, if they do not fall into this dissonance, it is hypocrisy at the very least. Social norms theory demonstrates that individuals have a tendency to have a more positive self-perception. This phenomenon is exemplified by environmental issues such as zero emissions, carbon shifting, and offsetting, often ending up as zero emissions in one place, but emissions somewhere else. This phenomenon is not necessarily negative but does have a reassuring effect on society in terms of its negative impact [65]. As can be seen, analogous behaviors are observed in the context of wildlife recreation.

Anglers do not generally have a bad reputation as litterers, but when they do, it is more likely to be perceived as littering in the terrestrial environment than in the aquatic environment (6.5% difference). However, their reputation concerning their positive impact on the environment is not significantly favorable. A mere 35.8% of respondents indicated an association between anglers and environmental responsibility, which is relatively low. In each group, the majority of respondents do not agree with this perspective. Moreover, despite the increased need for contact with nature among anglers, as evidenced by literature [29,30,32], the prevailing negative opinion is largely attributed to the perception that anglers lack a genuine passion for nature and demonstrate an absence of environmental responsibility. This passion appears to be underestimated within societal discourse. The ambiguity of opinions on this subject is due to the presence of various viewpoints. Anglers have the potential to have a negative impact on the environment, including its destruction and the introduction of non-native species that are often invasive [22]. On the other hand, however, some of them are “fighting” with both invasive and low-value fish that have a negative impact on the environment. They also help combat environmental problems and are the first to notify the appropriate authorities in the event of any hazards [35,66,67]. The sustainable development of angling appears to be a responsibility that lies with the angling community. It is in the community’s best interest to educate itself on the most adequate solutions.

Another social factor that contributes to the positive perception of fishing is the acquisition of new skills, which is a common aspect of this activity. It is hypothesized that the subjects associate fishing with specialized recreation, thereby feeling a greater sense of connection to this particular activity. This hypothesis is supported by social norm theory [49,51]. However, the impact of this behavior may be mitigated by an additional factor: the aversion of some water sports enthusiasts, particularly those who sail, to the phenomenon. They are the least likely to have a positive opinion of fishing. This phenomenon may be associated with the issue of potential recreational conflicts over the same space, as indicated in the literature [68,69]. However, a broad scientific analysis of such a hypothetical conflict has yet to be conducted. In this context it is noteworthy that when verifying opinions on cost-effectiveness, an intriguing correlation emerged. Specifically, three groups of water recreation enthusiasts—kayakers, sailors, and divers—as well as individuals with a negative opinion reported higher expenditure on their hobby than anglers. Therefore, in addition to competition for space with the ubiquitous angler, there may also be a factor of increasing aversion to fellow users of the space as the cost of staying in that space increases. This phenomenon may be related to the endowment effect. This effect, as Bischoff [70] writes, can even occur in the case of public goods.

5. Conclusions and Managerial Implications

The negative opinion of anglers in Polish society is not very widespread, even among people who are likely to encounter them during their leisure time. This phenomenon is relevant to 11.4% of individuals engaging in water recreation activities. The significant proportion of individuals who expressed a neutral opinion (50.3%) indicates that, from the perspective of the angling community’s public relations, there is value in pursuing positive marketing initiatives. However, this should not be regarded as a primary focus, as Neutral opinions are more closely aligned with Positive ones. Respondents who expressed a negative or neutral stance were more inclined to decline responding to individual stereotypes and associations. However, the percentage of refusals did not exceed 26%.

The main source of negative opinions about anglers is physical interaction with the object of their catch. This is regarded as particularly unacceptable by Negative society. Interestingly, they are relatively tolerant of the possibility of consuming fish, but most are not prepared to accept that they must be killed for this purpose. This indicates hypocrisy or may be a source of cognitive dissonance.

One in six anglers who follow the C&K model are interested in catching fish for additional profit. This practice stands in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of angling as a recreational activity. This issue must be addressed in future research to determine whether these are, for example, athletes and guides (e.g., profit from competitions and work in fishing) or those violating the norms of the Inland Fisheries Act [71], which states that it is prohibited to place recreationally caught fish on the market.

A considerable proportion of non-anglers (21.7–39.7%, depending on the issue) do not exhibit a negative opinion of anglers, despite associating them with negative environmental sustainability issues and ethical concerns. This is a positive from the perspective of angling society, yet it highlights the necessity to investigate the motivations behind this phenomenon in greater detail. Future researchers may consider exploring issues of sensitivity or utilitarian attitudes.

The results of the study suggest that anglers engage in practices that are more aligned with sustainable fishing principles than is commonly perceived by the general public. It has been suggested that a bilateral approach to education may be essential for the promotion of a more positive image of angling. Firstly, the education of anglers is crucial, as it will result in a reduction in their negative impact on fish and the environment. Secondly, the non-angling community should be educated about the characteristics of angling, especially its socio-economic and environmental pros. It is recommended that such campaigns be directed primarily towards groups that may have a potentially negative opinion, including animal rights activists and environmental activists, as well as recreational users competing for the same space. This recommendation is especially strong for people involved in broadly defined recreational sailing, as demonstrated by the findings of this study. It is possible that these campaigns could improve public image of anglers.

Certain stereotypes, particularly those associated with economics and time, appear to be largely accurate, as evidenced by the substantial economic potential of recreational fishing and the stability of the market once an individual has been “hooked” by angling. It is crucial for angling-related industries, whether state-run or privately operated, to prioritize the engagement of a diverse audience, particularly those outside the fishing community and especially the youth, to optimize profits, including social benefits. Through the aforementioned educational initiatives, the objective is to “form” anglers who are prepared to fish properly and who exhibit minimal negative environmental impact, thus enhancing the sustainability of angling practices.

Anglers themselves should exercise greater caution to mitigate the propagation of stereotypes by adhering to proper behavior at fishing grounds. The image of the littering angler persists among society. From the perspective of an angler, not littering is of particular importance and easy to achieve to not litter, which is one of the good practices, not only in angling in Poland and worldwide.

The collection of data on subjects that are the subject of significant social controversy (e.g., alcohol, environmental protection) presents an objective challenge. In the context of social experimental research, the use of precise and appropriate vocabulary is crucial for obtaining answers that are as close to the truth as possible. According to social norms theory, opinions should be balanced between opinions about others and opinions about oneself.

The authors encourage other researchers to repeat the study using the same approach to determine the extent of stereotypes among other nations. For instance, the issue of identifying anglers with fishermen or even poachers could be investigated. In order to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the results, it is imperative to incorporate inquiries regarding political orientations, dietary habits, and the expansively defined social “bubble” in which non-anglers function.

From an axiological perspective, angling has been the subject of extensive research; however, certain issues continue to be hidden and elusive. It is not the fish itself that is important, but what is associated with it. In this context, it is recommended that sport angling be distinguished from recreational angling based on the object of competition. The reference point in sport fishing is other anglers, while in recreational fishing it is the angler himself.