EVALUATION OF THE ANGLING ASSETS OF NATURAL WATER RESERVOIRS: A CASE STUDY OF THE LAKES IN THE COMMUNES OF LINIEWO AND NOWA KARCZMA (ADMINISTRATIVE ISTRICT OF KOSCIERZYNA, PROVINCE OF POMORZE)

Andrzej Skrzypczak, Błażej Zarębski, Aleksandra Szypiłło, Andrzej Mamcarz
Department of Lake and River Fisheries, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland

ABSTRACT

A comparative evaluation of the attractiveness of lakes for angling was carried out on 23 lakes, covering a total area of 616.5 ha, all situated in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma. The method of synthetic measures was applied in the study. Ten characteristics were analysed, all of which determined the natural conditions of the lakes for angling and the state of angling management of the natural water bodies. The highest angling attractiveness index was scored by Gackie Lake in Liniewo commune and Lubańskie Lake in Nowa Karczma commune. The state of the hydrotechnical facilities in the ecosystems of the lakes implies a very low level of man-made conversion of the shore zones. This parameter, together with a large contribution of helophytes to the total shoreline length, is the main factor which limits the shore accessibility. The analysis of the structure of fish stockings shows that lakes were stocked mainly with species which are attractive to anglers. The evaluation of the level of angling management of the lakes, against the background of their natural assets, suggests that the recreational potential has not been fully taken advantage of, which means that there is room for further improvement of tourism in the both communes: Liniewo and Nowa Karczma.

Key words: angling, commune of Liniewo, commune of Nowa Karczma, evaluation, lakes, water recreation.

INTRODUCTION

Water ecosystems and their surroundings belong to the most attractive components of the natural environment suitable for tourism and recreational purposes [2]. Owing to their ecological, recreational and fishing assets, lakes, an object of multifunctional use, are subjected to strong human pressure [1].

One form of man’s activity, which combines recreational and fishing functions of lakes, is angling. In the system of human needs, angling responds to those demands which are associated with sport, tourism and relaxation [8]. In some cases, it also satisfies food consumption needs [23]. Besides, angling brings notable economic benefits to lakes’ users, by stimulating proper fisheries management on lakes [24].

It is estimated that in Poland angling is regularly practised by about 1.5 million people, which is a similar percentage of the total population to that in other European countries. The global economic value of angling in Poland is assessed at 1.125 billion Polish zloty. Angling industry is increasingly affecting such branches of economy as tourism and agritourism; it also stimulates local and regional development [23].

Many research projects have undertaken the issue of evaluating lakes for recreational purposes [11, 16, 19, 27]. Lakes have been discussed in terms of their various uses, e.g. for bathing, canoeing, etc. Nevertheless, it is clear that we lack publications which would assess lakes as angling venue in association with a description of the natural assets of the surrounding tourist sphere, especially in lake districts. One possible attempt to fill in this void space is the article by Zwoliński and Zwolińska [29] or another one by Dedio [5], both of which undertake evaluation of the recreational attractiveness of some lakes, together with a partial analysis of conditions for the pursuit of angling [18].

According to Sołowiej [19], any attempt at evaluating tourist space is useful and recommendable. As the research target changes, criteria for evaluation change likewise. It is so because certain components and other features of the natural environment which are decisive in naming a given area attractive will vary depending on the form of lake management and use [19].

Zwoliński [28] claims that lakes of an area less than 20 ha are unsuitable for long-stay tourism. This means that there is a huge potential of small water reservoirs, less than 10 ha in size, which apart from angling have no other recreational use. They are often located close to large lakes, intensely used for recreation. Since not all of them can be equally useful for angling, it is important to evaluate them [18].

The aim of this paper was to evaluate lakes for angling, in terms of their natural assets suitable for this form of leisure time activity, and by analysing the state of angling facilities and management available, with special attention paid to fish stockings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For the evaluation of the angling attractiveness of the lakes, a method suggested by Skrzypczak [18], based on a modified comparative analysis by Gołembski [9], was applied, which eventually yields synthetic measures of attractiveness ranging from 0.000 to 1.000.

The evaluation of the lakes for angling was completed in terms of two domains: their natural assets and angling facilities and management. Within those two domains a total of ten characteristic features were analysed, which conditioned the suitability of a lake for angling by stimulating (stimulants) or destimulating (destimulants) action [18]. Table 1 contains the evaluation parameters along with the character of their effect as well as a system of weights for each feature and research area.

Table 1. Parameters applied for the evaluation of angling attractiveness of the lakes (according to Skrzypczak [18])

Domain of evaluation	Characteristic	Unit of measure	Influence of characteristic*	Rank of characteristic	Rank of domain
Natural conditions for angling	1. Index of shoreline development	value of index	S	0.10	0.40
	2. Emergent plants – rushes 1.0–5.0 m in width	% of shoreline	S	0.25
	3. Emergent plants – rushes >5.0 in width	% of shoreline	D	0.10
	4. Forests (fresh and dry habitats)	% of shoreline	S	0.20
	5. Wetlands (marshes and marshy forest)	% of shoreline	D	0.10
	6. Index of lakeshore accessibility	points · 100 m-1 of shoreline	S	0.25
Level of angling management	1. Angling piers	Number · 100 m-1 of shoreline	S	0.30	0.60
	2. Recreational piers	m2 · 100 m-1 of shoreline	S	0.10
	3. Variation of the stocked material	number of species	S	0.15
	4. Average outlays on stockings	PLN · ha-1 · year-1	S	0.45

* Stimulating (S – stimulants) or limiting (D – destimulants) action.

While analysing the data, for the conversion of destimulants into stimulants, with an aim of normalising the characteristics and obtaining synthetic measures, a method known as‘a rela-tive shift of the maximum’ was used [9].

The morphological properties of the lakes were established according to their surface area (ha), maximal depth (m), mean depth (a ratio of water volume in m³ to average water surface area in m²) and shoreline length (m). For calculations, a shoreline development index (a ratio of shoreline length in meters to the double value of a square root of the quotient of π value by lake area in hectares [20]) was taken.

The morphological parameters were found in relevant catalogues [3, 10]. Due to the lack of any information on shoreline lengths, the appropriate calculations were completed according to geodetic maps 1 : 10 000 in scale.

The analysis of ecological properties of the shores of the lakes was completed from January to May 2005. Direct measurements from land and water were taken using a scaled pole. Zones of emergent vegetation measuring either 1-5 m or >5 m in width were localized and drawn on maps. Similarly, the share of riparian areas (riparian forests and marshes) in the belt adjacent to the shoreline of each lake was determined. Points where each lake was accessible from land were found, and their total potential was expressed as a score of points, assigning one point for each accessible shoreline section from 1 to 10 m in length.

The lakeshore accessibility index, with values ranging from 0.00 to 10.00, determines the number of access points, typically per 100 m section of the lake shoreline [18].

The location and size of hydrotechnical facilities within each lake shore zone was determined, with the facilities divided into angling piers (<10 m² of surface area) and recreational piers (10-25 m²) according to the applied methodology [18].

The information on fish stockings of the lakes in 2000-2004 was obtained directly from the lakes’ owners or leasers. The stockings were analysed on the basis of average outlays, calculated by referring the total cost of the stocking material (in Polish zloty) introduced to the lakes in 2000-2004 to the lake area stocked (ha) and by dividing the value thus obtained by the number of the years (5) when those outlays were made [18].

While analysing the aspect of angling management of the lakes, varied attractiveness of specific fish species for sport angling was corrected by introducing the fish species importance coefficient (Table 2). The analysis excluded:

– species which occur commonly and in high numbers in eutrophic lakes (white bream, bream and roach);
– ecologically valuable species that do not make lakes attractive for anglers as they cannot be caught by rod (Coregonid species);
– foreign species, not wanted in natural water bodies by ecologists (e.g. prussian carp, phytophagous fish), except the outlays made to stock the lakes with carp, which were included in the analysis [18].

Table 2. Species importance index in the evaluation of fish stocking outlays (according to Skrzypczak [18])

Fish species	Species importance index
Eel (montee), perch, pikeperch, wels, pike	8
Tench, crucian carp, burbot	5
Carp (for fish 1+ year old: <100 ha – to 16 indiv. · ha-1; 100-500 ha – to 12 indiv. · ha-1; >500 ha – to 8 indiv. · ha-1), other fishes*	1

* Excluding: prussian carp, white bream, bream, roach, phytophagous fish, rainbow trout and another foreign fish species.

In order to compute the outlays on stocking, certain calculations were made according to the prices of stocking material charged in the area supervised by the Regional Water Management Office (RZGW) in Gdańsk as of 12 October 2004 [17].

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA UNDER STUDY

The study was carried out on a group of 23 lakes, covering a total area of 616.5 ha, all situated in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma in the administrative district of Koscierzyna, in the Province of Pomorze (Fig. 1). According to the physico-geographical division of Poland into regions, the lakes belong to the South Baltic Lake Districts, and lie in the central part of the mesoregion called Kaszuby Lake District [12].

The surface water reservoirs of high scenic and utility values are another important component of the landscape. They cover 4.0% of the area of Liniewo commune and 2.6% of Nowa Karczma commune. Both communes lie in the basin of the Wierzyca river (a left tributary of the Vistula), which flows across the commune of Nowa Karczma. The whole area under study is also drained by another river, the Wietcisa, a meandering tributary of the Wierzyca. Another important watercourse is the Kacianka river (Liniewo commune), a left tributary of the Wierzyca, sometimes called the Small Wierzyca [7].

Fig. 1. The location of the studied area and distribution of the analysed lakes

Lakes: 1 – Brzęczek; 2 – Bukowiec; 3 – Deka; 4 – Gackie; 5 – Garczonki; 6 – Gobrowo; 7 – Liniewskie; 8 – Lonka; 9 – Orle; 10 – Polaszkowskie; 11 – Przybroda; 12 – Skorzewno; 13 – Sobšckie; 14 – Starowieckie; 15 – Szklanka; 16 – Barkocińskie; 17 – Będomińskie Duże; 18 – Będomińskie Małe; 19 – Grabowskie; 20 – Kamionki Duże; 21 – Kamionki Małe; 22 – Lubańskie; 23 – Psinko.

There are 15 lakes of the total surface area of 380.7 ha lying in Liniewo commune, and 8 lakes of the total surface area of 235.8 ha in the commune of Nowa Karczma. Table 3 contains specification of the lakes, including their morphological characteristics, such as a surface area, average and maximum depth and type of use. Most of the lakes are small, with 16 less than 30 ha in surface area, and only two cover more than 100 ha – Grabowskie Lake (Nowa Karczma commune) and Polaszkowskie (Liniewo commune). In general, the lakes are shallow, as the maximal depth of 19 of those lakes is less than 10 meters.

Table 3. Characterisation of the lakes lying in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma

Location	No.	Lake	Area ha	Maximal depth m	Mean depth m	Type of use
Liniewo	1.	Brzęczek1)	13.9	6.5	1.8	angling (close)
	2.	Bukowiec2)	6.2	nd	nd	fisheries (close)
	3.	Deka2)	2.7	nd	nd	angling (open)
	4.	Gackie2)	1.5	nd	nd	angling (close)
	5.	Garczonki1)	12.7	6.7	3.3	angling (close)
	6.	Gobrowo1)	12.9	7.0	2.9	fisheries (close)
	7.	Liniewskie1)	45.4	8.0	3.4	fisheries-angling (open)
	8.	Lonka2)	5.0	nd	nd	angling (open)
	9.	Orle1)	38.4	7.8	3.7	fisheries-angling (open)
	10.	Polaszkowskie1)	106.5	10.0	4.2	fisheries-angling (open)
	11.	Przybroda2)	7.5	nd	nd	fisheries (close)
	12.	Skorzewno2)	4.5	nd	nd	not used
	13.	Sobšckie1)	91.1	28.4	11.0	fisheries-angling (open)
	14.	Starowieckie1)	30.6	3.8	2.1	fisheries (close)
	15.	Szklanka2)	1.8	5.9	2.6	angling (close)
Nowa Karczma	16.	Barkocińskie1)	10.6	4.5	2.1	fisheries-angling (open)
	17.	Będomińskie Duże2)	7.7	5.5	2.9	fisheries (close)
	18.	Będomińskie Małe2)	2.2	2.2	1.0	not used
	19.	Grabowskie1)	140.7	28.1	13.3	fisheries-angling (open)
	20.	Kamionki Duże1)	36.0	31.4	11.7	fisheries-angling (open)
	21.	Kamionki Małe1)	18.7	22.5	11.5	not used
	22.	Lubańskie2)	7.5	nd	nd	angling (open)
	23.	Psinko1)	12.4	9.7	4.7	not used

1) – according to Jańczak [10]. 2) – according to Choiński [3]. nd – no data.

They are predominantly ribbon lakes, which stretch from the north-east to the south-west [14]. Much rarer are the ground moraine lakes, such as Gobrowo, Skorzewno, Starowieckie and Szklanka Lakes (Liniewo commune) [7].

With no bathing areas or sailing equipment rentals, the most popular form of recreational use of the lakes in both communes is angling. The lakes’ owners or leaseholders, who are in majority private persons, set up conditions and terms of using the lakes by anglers.

In the years 2000-2004 only four lakes were found not to have been used for fishing or angling: Skorzewno in the commune of Liniewo and Będomińskie Małe, Kamionki Małe and Psinko in the commune of Nowa Karczma. Five lakes are used for fish farming exclusively, without any amateur angling. The remaining 14 lakes were used for angling, four of which (Brzęczek, Gackie, Garczonki and Szklanka) were closed fishing lakes with a limited number of angling licences sold.

Analyses on the water purity of surface waters in both communes are rather limited and concern a small area. The waters of the rivers Kacianka, Kamionka and Wiercisa belong to class II of water purity while the Wierzyca river is more polluted, containing water classified as class III. Analysis of lake water purity has been undertaken only recently and concerned one lake, Grabowskie Lake (commune of Nowa Karczma), which was classified (by the Provincial Inspectorate of Environmental Protection in Gdańsk) as class III of water purity [21].

The biggest threat to the quality of lake waters in both communes is created by uncontrolled development of summer houses in areas without sewage pipes. This accelerates water eutrophication and deteriorates water quality parameters. Summer cottages built within direct basins of lakes can now be found around such lakes as: Lonka, Polaszkowskie and Sobšckie (Liniewo commune) as well as Grabowskie and Lubańskie (Nowa Karczma commune).

RESULTS

The analysis of the lakes’ natural conditions for angling showed much variation in the values of the parameters (Table 4). The lake shoreline development index ranged from 1.19 (Gobrowo Lake) to 2.25 (Sobšckie Lake). The contribution of helophytes to the total lake shoreline varied from 4.24% (Będomińskie Duże Lake) to 100% (Będomińskie Małe Lake). Different proportions between belts of emergent vegetation less than 5 meters and over 5 m wide were observed. Helophytes creating belts over 5 m in width, which is a destimulating feature, were found to appear in the highest per cent contribution to the total shoreline in Brzęczek and Deka Lakes (98.00 and 96.20%, respectively). No such belts were found in the lakes Będomińskie Duże, Kamionki Duże and Kamionki Małe.

Table 4. Indices for the evaluation of natural conditions for angling on the lakes in the communes of Liniewo (L) and Nowa Karczma (K)

Lake	Location	Characteristics
		1	2	3	4	5	6
		Index of shoreline development	Emergent plants – rushes 1.0-5.0 m in width (% of shoreline)	Emergent plants – rushes >5.0 m in width (% of shoreline)	Forests (fresh and dry habitats) (% of shoreline)	Wetlands (% of shoreline)	Index of lakeshore accessibility (points · 100 m-1 of shoreline)
Barkocińskie	K	1.33	27.45	26.80	65.40	9.15	5.42
Będomińskie Duże	K	1.68	4.24	0.00	52.73	9.09	9.58
Będomińskie Małe	K	1.30	50.35	49.65	9.66	75.20	0.69
Brzęczek	L	1.56	0.00	98.00	61.20	38.80	0.44
Bukowiec	L	1.33	18.00	23.70	0.00	8.50	5.80
Deka	L	1.92	0.00	96.20	16.10	83.90	0.45
Gackie	L	1.54	22.40	65.70	68.70	31.30	1.80
Garczonki	L	1.54	3.10	67.20	11.30	62.60	1.79
Gobrowo	L	1.19	18.80	74.30	35.50	64.50	1.20
Grabowskie	K	1.62	15.59	53.01	20.44	21.25	3.63
Kamionki Duże	K	1.69	31.67	0.00	73.89	6.67	6.08
Kamionki Małe	K	1.25	15.62	0.00	85.68	14.32	6.77
Liniewskie	L	2.14	34.80	45.30	66.00	27.90	2.30
Lonka	L	1.59	11.90	47.60	27.70	65.90	3.70
Lubańskie	K	1.61	16.02	2.56	70.51	0.00	8.78
Orle	L	1.84	31.00	39.90	69.70	10.70	3.30
Polaszkowskie	L	2.23	13.60	72.80	29.70	52.30	1.76
Przybroda	L	1.83	15.50	31.60	11.20	30.30	4.97
Psinko	K	1.72	18.60	7.44	46.70	2.79	5.25
Skorzewno	L	1.95	83.00	3.40	41.50	17.00	1.43
Sobšckie	L	2.25	0.00	39.00	89.50	9.80	6.20
Starowieckie	L	1.20	25.00	59.90	20.00	46.80	1.90
Szklanka	L	1.38	49.10	48.20	0.00	19.80	0.94

Forest habitats which are not marshy or wet (humid, fresh and dry) made the highest contribution to the total length of the shores along the lakes Sobšckie (89.50%) and Kamionki Małe (85.68%). No such habitats were found along Bukowiec and Szklanka Lakes. The percentage of wetlands and marshy forests adjacent to the lake shores and limiting their angling function was the highest along Deka Lake (over 83%). Such habitats were absent on the shores of Lubańskie Lake.

The lakeshore accessibility index, determined on the basis of natural and anthropogenic angler stands within the shore zone, did not exceed 1.00 point · 100 m^-1 of shoreline in the case of four lakes, reaching the lowest value for Brzęczek Lake (0.44 point · 100 m^-1 of shoreline). The highest lakeshore accessibility index was obtained for Będomińskie Duże and Lubańskie Lakes (9.58 and 8.78 points · 100 m^-1 of shoreline, respectively).

The analysis of the angling management state for the evaluation of the angling attractiveness of the lakes showed large differences in the hydrotechnical facilities located within the lakes’ shore zone and intensity of fish stockings (Table 5). Eight lakes were found to have no recreational hydrotechnical facilities built in their shore zones. Six lakes had only small angling piers (less than 10 m² in area) and one lake (Psinko Lake) had only larger, recreational piers. Both angling and recreational piers were found in the shore zones of the lakes Garczonki, Grabowskie, Kamionki Duże, Liniewskie, Polaszkowskie, Przybroda, Sobackie and Starowieckie. The index of the number of angling piers per 100 m shoreline did not exceed 1.00 in any of the lakes, reaching the highest value for Gackie Lake (0.60). The highest average surface area of recreational piers per 100 m of shoreline was found for Garczonki Lake (5.60).

Table 5. Indices for the evaluation of angling management state of the lakes in the communes of Liniewo (L) and Nowa Karczma (K)

Lake	Location	Characteristics
		1	2	3	4
		Angling piers (number·100 m-1 of shoreline)	Recreational piers (m2·100 m-1 of shoreline)	Variation of the stocked material (number of species)	Average outlays on stockings (PLN·ha-1·year-1)
Barkocińskie	K	0.13	0.00	4	174.64
Będomińskie Duże	K	0.06	0.00	3	150.10
Będomińskie Małe	K	0.00	0.00	0	0.00
Brzęczek	L	0.00	0.00	5	456.97
Bukowiec	L	0.00	0.00	0	0.00
Deka	L	0.00	0.00	6	2167.62
Gackie	L	0.60	0.00	4	1444.20
Garczonki	L	0.15	5.60	0	0.00
Gobrowo	L	0.00	0.00	2	25.16
Grabowskie	K	0.07	0.59	2	9.55
Kamionki Duże	K	0.03	0.69	7	64.92
Kamionki Małe	K	0.00	0.00	0	0.00
Liniewskie	L	0.17	3.70	2	189.30
Lonka	L	0.16	0.00	0	0.00
Lubańskie	K	0.13	0.00	6	455.94
Orle	L	0.00	0.00	4	198.17
Polaszkowskie	L	0.04	3.40	3	169.66
Przybroda	L	0.06	1.40	0	0.00
Psinko	K	0.00	1.63	0	0.00
Skorzewno	L	0.07	0.00	0	0.00
Sobšckie	L	0.26	2.00	3	72.20
Starowieckie	L	0.08	1.20	4	428.50
Szklanka	L	0.00	0.00	5	735.30

In the years 2000-2004 stockings with the species regarded as attractive for recreational fishing were not conducted in 8 of the analysed lakes. The highest species variation of the stocked material was noticed in the lakes Kamionki Duże (7 species), Deka and Lubańskie (6 species each). Stockings incurring the highest average outlays, including the species importance aspect, occurred in Deka Lake (2167.62 PLN · ha^-1 · year^-1). The principal fish species stocked were tench, pike, wels and eel. The species structure of the stocking material introduced to the analysed lakes is presented in Table 6. Most of the lakes were stocked with eel and pike (11 for each species). Ten lakes were stocked with carp and nine with tench. In total, 16 fish species were stocked, of which seven (according to the methodology) did not improve the fisheries management of the lakes. It is worth drawing attention to the popularity of grass carp as a stocking fish, which between 2000 and 2004 was stocked in six lakes. However, the average outlays on stockings with this fish species were less than 0.30 PLN·ha^-1·year^-1.

Table 6. Species structure of the stocking material introduced to the lakes in the communes of Liniewo (L) and Nowa Karczma (K) in 2000-2004

Lake

Location

Fish species

eel

tench

pike

carp

crucian carp

perch

wels

pike-perch

ide

grass carp*

bream*

prussian carp*

roach*

White fish*

vendace*

rainbow trout*

Barkocińskie

K

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

Będomińskie Duże

K

-

+

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Będomińskie Małe

K

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Brzęczek

L

-

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

+

-

-

-

Bukowiec

L

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

+

-

Deka

L

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

Gackie

L

-

+

-

+

+

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

+

-

-

-

Garczonki

L

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gobrowo

L

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

Grabowskie

K

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

-

Kamionki Duże

K

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Kamionki Małe

K

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Liniewskie

L

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lonka

L

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lubańskie

K

+

+

-

+

-

+

-

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

Orle

L

+

-

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

Polaszkowskie

L

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

Przybroda

L

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

Psinko

K

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Skorzewno

L

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sobšckie

L

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

Starowieckie

L

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Szklanka

L

+

+

+

+

-

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

* Species excluded from the analysis of the angling management domain.

Among the nine species which determine the angling attractiveness of all the analysed lakes, the highest average value of the outlays expended on stockings was observed in the case of eel (10.39 PLN · ha^-1 · year^-1), whose unit price was 245.82 PLN · kg^-1 (Fig. 2). The average outlays on stockings with pike, which was as popular as eel in terms of the number of the lakes stocked, was 8.65 PLN · ha^-1 · year^-1. A detailed analysis of the stockings shows that the outlays expended on that aim in Nowa Karczma commune reached on average 36.25 PLN · ha^-1 · year^-1, thus being much higher than in the lakes of Liniewo commune, where they equalled 20.55 PLN · ha^-1 · year^-1.

Fig. 2. Species structure of the average fish stocking outlays (PLN·ha-1·year-1) in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma in 2000-2004

In the commune of Nowa Karczma, the main stocking material cost component was eel (43%) and carp (35.28%), whereas pike made up only 4.37% of the stocking material expenditures (Fig. 3). In the commune of Liniewo, the costs of stocking material consisted mainly of pike (37.09%) and eel (31.30%), and costs of stocking the lakes with carp were comparable to those with tench, being slightly over 12% (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Contribution (%) of the fish species to average fish stocking outlays (PLN · ha-1 · year-1) in the commune of Nowa Karczma in 2000-2004

Fig. 4. Contribution (%) of the fish species to average fish stocking outlays (PLN·ha-1·year-1) in the commune of Liniewo in 2000-2004

Following stimulantization, which involved conversion of destimulants into stimulants in the area of the evaluation of natural conditions for angling (concerns features number 3 and 5), normalisation of properties and calculation of synthetic measures were performed for completing this part of the evaluation (Table 7). The highest value of the synthetic measures was obtained for the lakes located in the commune of Nowa Karczma: Lubańskie (0.705), Kamionki Duże (0.686), Kamionki Małe (0.656) and Będomińskie Duże (0.645) (Fig. 5). In the commune of Liniewo, among all the analysed lakes, Skorzewno Lake (0.644) and Sobackie Lake (0.611) had the most favourable natural conditions for sport fishing.

Table 7. Normalisation of the characteristics and calculation of synthetic measures in the domain of natural conditions of the lakes for angling in the communes of Liniewo (L) and Nowa Karczma (K)

Lake	Location	Number (rank) of characteristic*						Synthetic measure
		1 (0.10)	2 (0.25)	3 (0.10)	4 (0.20)	5 (0.10)	6 (0.25)
Barkocińskie	K	0.59	0.33	0.73	0.73	0.89	0.57	0.592
Będomińskie Duże	K	0.75	0.05	1.00	0.59	0.89	1.00	0.645
Będomińskie Małe	K	0.58	0.61	0.49	0.11	0.10	0.07	0.309
Brzęczek	L	0.69	0.00	0.00	0.68	0.54	0.05	0.272
Bukowiec	L	0.59	0.22	0.76	0.00	0.90	0.61	0.433
Deka	L	0.85	0.00	0.02	0.18	0.00	0.06	0.138
Gackie	L	0.68	0.27	0.33	0.77	0.63	0.19	0.433
Garczonki	L	0.68	0.04	0.31	0.13	0.25	0.19	0.208
Gobrowo	L	0.53	0.23	0.24	0.39	0.23	0.13	0.268
Grabowskie	K	0.72	0.19	0.46	0.23	0.75	0.38	0.382
Kamionki Duże	K	0.75	0.38	1.00	0.83	0.92	0.63	0.686
Kamionki Małe	K	0.56	0.19	1.00	0.96	0.83	0.71	0.656
Liniewskie	L	0.95	0.42	0.54	0.74	0.67	0.24	0.529
Lonka	L	0.71	0.14	0.51	0.30	0.21	0.39	0.336
Lubańskie	K	0.72	0.19	0.97	0.79	1.00	0.92	0.705
Orle	L	0.82	0.37	0.59	0.78	0.87	0.34	0.562
Polaszkowskie	L	0.99	0.16	0.26	0.33	0.38	0.18	0.314
Przybroda	L	0.81	0.19	0.68	0.13	0.64	0.52	0.417
Psinko	K	0.76	0.22	0.92	0.52	0.97	0.55	0.562
Skorzewno	L	0.87	1.00	0.97	0.46	0.80	0.15	0.644
Sobšckie	L	1.00	0.00	0.60	1.00	0.88	0.65	0.611
Starowieckie	L	0.53	0.30	0.39	0.22	0.44	0.20	0.305
Szklanka	L	0.61	0.59	0.51	0.00	0.76	0.10	0.361

* See Table 4.

Fig. 5. Structure of the values of the synthetic measures obtained for the lakes in the domain of their natural conditions for angling

The results of the normalisation of properties and calculation of synthetic measures for the section of angling management of the analysed lakes are presented in Table 8. The highest values of the synthetic measures were produced for the lakes lying in the commune of Liniewo: Gackie (0.687) and Deka (0.579), two water reservoirs which were characterised by the highest average stocking outlays (Fig. 6). Lacking any forms of angling management the following lakes received zero values of the synthetic measures: Będomińskie Małe, Bukowiec and Kamionki Małe.

Table 8. Normalisation of the characteristics and calculation of synthetic measures in the dom-ain of angling management of the lakes in the communes of Liniewo (L) and Nowa Karczma (K)

Lake	Location	Number (rank) of characteristic*				Synthetic measure
		1 (0.30)	2 (0.10)	3 (0.15)	4 (0.45)
Barkocińskie	K	0.22	0.00	0.57	0.08	0.188
Będomińskie Duże	K	0.10	0.00	0.43	0.07	0.126
Będomińskie Małe	K	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.000
Brzęczek	L	0.00	0.00	0.71	0.21	0.201
Bukowiec	L	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.000
Deka	L	0.00	0.00	0.86	1.00	0.579
Gackie	L	1.00	0.00	0.57	0.67	0.687
Garczonki	L	0.25	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.175
Gobrowo	L	0.00	0.00	0.29	0.01	0.048
Grabowskie	K	0.12	0.11	0.29	0.01	0.095
Kamionki Duże	K	0.05	0.12	1.00	0.03	0.191
Kamionki Małe	K	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.000
Liniewskie	L	0.28	0.66	0.29	0.09	0.234
Lonka	L	0.27	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.081
Lubańskie	K	0.22	0.00	0.86	0.21	0.290
Orle	L	0.00	0.00	0.57	0.09	0.126
Polaszkowskie	L	0.07	0.61	0.43	0.08	0.183
Przybroda	L	0.10	0.25	0.00	0.00	0.055
Psinko	K	0.00	0.29	0.00	0.00	0.029
Skorzewno	L	0.12	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.036
Sobšckie	L	0.43	0.35	0.43	0.03	0.242
Starowieckie	L	0.13	0.21	0.57	0.20	0.236
Szklanka	L	0.00	0.00	0.71	0.34	0.260

* See Table 5.

Fig. 6. Structure of the values of the synthetic measures obtained for the lakes in the domain of their angling management state

Inclusive of the weights appropriate for the area of natural angling conditions of the lakes and that of angling facilities and fisheries management (0.4 and 0.6, respectively), the synthetic measure of the lakes’ angling attractiveness was calculated (Table 9). In the comparative evaluation, among all the lakes lying in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma, the highest index of angling attractiveness was ascribed to Gackie Lake (0.585), situated in Liniewo commune (Fig. 7). Among the lakes located in the commune of Nowa Karczma, the highest scoring lake was Lubańskie (0.456). The lowest scores of the general angling attractiveness were obtained for the lakes Gobrowo (0.136) in the commune of Liniewo and Będomińskie Małe (0.124) in the commune of Nowa Karczma.

Table 9. The synthetic measures of angling attractiveness of the lakes in the communes of Liniewo (L) and Nowa Karczma (K)

Lake	Location	Synthetic measure of angling attractiveness
Barkocińskie	K	0.349
Będomińskie Duże	K	0.333
Będomińskie Małe	K	0.124
Brzęczek	L	0.229
Bukowiec	L	0.173
Deka	L	0.403
Gackie	L	0.585
Garczonki	L	0.188
Gobrowo	L	0.136
Grabowskie	K	0.210
Kamionki Duże	K	0.389
Kamionki Małe	K	0.262
Liniewskie	L	0.352
Lonka	L	0.183
Lubańskie	K	0.456
Orle	L	0.300
Polaszkowskie	L	0.235
Przybroda	L	0.200
Psinko	K	0.242
Skorzewno	L	0.279
Sobšckie	L	0.389
Starowieckie	L	0.263
Szklanka	L	0.300

Fig. 7. Structure of the values of the synthetic measures of angling attractiveness of the lakes in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma

DISCUSSION

The results showed a wide variation in the suitability of the lakes for angling. The system of weights of the analysed characteristics and areas emphasises the importance of those evaluation parameters which describe the ecological character of the shore zone by assessing the accessibility and comfort of angling stands, and determine their abundance in potential catch.

The recreational capacity of lakes depends, among other things, on the extent of the shoreline development [6]. This parameter specifies the contact zone between water and land. The larger the contact zone, the larger potential penetration space for anglers and the better living conditions for fish which are associated with the littoral zone [18]. The shoreline development index for most of the analysed lakes is within 1.5-2.0, which, according to Szczerbowski [20], means that those lakes belong to water bodies of a moderately developed shoreline.

The distribution of helophytes and the character of the land directly adjacent to a lake reflect the possible access to the water table and comfort of angling points. From the point of view of a holiday maker, the most attractive are the lakes which are the least overgrown with water plants [4]. Nonetheless, the presence of helophytes in a natural water body is important for the whole biocenosis [18]. There are many studies which prove that a sphere of emergent plants is a place where many lake dwelling organisms live, breed and hide. Assemblages of emergent plants are chosen by most lake fish for spawning; they are also natural habitats for such species as tench or pike [20]. Those two fish species are considered by anglers as very attractive ones.

A broad belt of rushes and bulrushes, especially if over 10 meters wide, makes the access to a lake very difficult. Without angling piers it may even be impossible [18]. This is confirmed by low indices of lakeshore accessibility obtained not only for small lakes overgrowing with plants, e.g. Brzęczek or Deka Lakes, but also for larger, ribbon lakes, e.g. Grabowskie and Polaszkowskie. The two latter examples contradict the thesis proposed by Zwoliński [28], who claimed that ribbon lakes, characterised by larger denivelation of the bottom near the shoreline, actually lacked emergent water vegetation.

The recreational usability of lakes, depending on the degree of helophyte growth along their shorelines, was examined by Deja [6] on a group of lakes in Iława Lake District. Deja assumed that when over 50% of the shoreline was overgrown with helophytes, the lake was largely overgrown with plants. According to Sołowiej [19], a 60% contribution of helophytes to the total shoreline length meant that the lake was rather unattractive for recreational purposes. In the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma 15 lakes have over 50% of the shorelines overgrown with helophytes, which clearly points to the importance of this parameter in shaping the lakeshore accessibility index.

Among other features which make angling more difficult are shallowing lake margins and dense shrubs along lake shores [13]. Among the analysed lakes, where no larger groups of helophytes were present, the shrubs growing along the lake shores were the parameter that depressed the lake shore accessibility. This was most evident in the case of the lakes Kamionki Duże, Kamionki Małe and Psinko.

Another factor which makes the access to fishing grounds more difficult was a wet shore [18]. If the width of a wet zone around a lake exceeds 20-50 m, the lake is useless since any potential adaptation is costly and will not bring expected profit [28]. This is true also in the case of angling management and is connected with a limited possibility and dubious profitability of an investment such as a construction of angling piers or platforms.

The highest density of angling piers was recorded on Gackie Lake, where statistically there was one angling pier per ca 170 m of the lake shoreline. For small Garczonki Lake (12.7 ha), the presence of three piers, three platforms up to 25 m² and two platforms over 25 m² each is the only chance for development of an angling function, as over 60% of the shoreline is overgrown with emergent vegetation (>5.0 m of wide) and much of the shore land is marshy. Another example how the comfort of angling could be improved and the area well managed is the point distribution of benches in the shore zone of Lubańskie Lake. It needs to be added that in neither of the communes, Liniewo or Nowa Karczma, the construction of hydro-technical facilities was a common method of increasing the lake water table accessibility and improving the angling comfort. On one hand, this suggests a low level of investment in fishing grounds, but on the other hand it reflects small man-made conversion of the shore zones of the analysed lakes.

The survey carried out at the fish farms showed that angling piers were perceived as the most burdensome component of the recreational management of lakes. It was so because piers helped increase the number of visitors arriving at lakes for recreation, and that meant that the pressure on the ecosystem, which, according to fishermen, led to the destruction of the littoral sphere, where many fish species lived and breed [26]. At the same time, anging piers and platforms make it easier for anglers to penetrate water reservoirs which by nature have inaccessible shores; they also enable older or disabled persons to pursue angling [18]. Besides, hydrotechnical facilities help organise tourism and recreation near and on lakes; they facilitate the monitoring of anglers and limit poaching [26]. The observations carried out in the natural environment of the analysed lakes suggest that hydrotechnical facilities enable lake users to channel the recreational traffic in the lake shore zone, which may reduce its devastation caused by anglers who trample rushes.

One of the most important factors that stimulate the economic importance of angling for lake fisheries is the stocking of lakes with species which are preferred by anglers [22]. Stockings are aimed at increasing the angling attractiveness of fishing grounds, by raising the probability of a potential contact of an angler with a fish [18]. Stocking is very often the only possible means of maintaining the ecological balance in water reservoirs, by counteracting progressing degradation of lake and river ecosystems [1].

The species structure of the stockings which took place in the analysed lakes, with eel, pike, carp, tench and crucian carp being the dominant species, agrees with the preferences of anglers indicated by Wołos et al. [25]. The outlays on fish stockings were highly varied between the lakes and in many cases rather low. It is worth underlining, though, that the highest outlays, which occurred when lakes were stocked with eel, did not have a direct connection with the amount of stocking material of that species, which was due to the high unit price on eel.

The ultimate results of the evaluation of the lake assets for angling were mostly influenced by the range of outlays expended on fish stockings. Dedio [5] believes that angling is a sport which requires water reservoirs abundant in fish, but which can be partly overgrown with plants. This conclusion seems to be most clearly confirmed by the case of Deka Lake. With its very low lake shore accessibility index, Deka Lake was also the least attractive for anglers in terms of its natural surroundings. Under such conditions, intensive stocking of the lake and consequently strong pressure caused by anglers create a threat to the lake’s shore zone. Favourable natural conditions and one of the highest indices of the angling management are characteristic for Lubańskie and Sobšckie Lakes, which means that both lakes can be classified into the group of the most attractive angling reservoirs in the area of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma communes. With their diverse character of the ecosystems, both lakes are capable of satisfying different expectations of anglers. The largest lakes in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma (Grabowskie and Polaszkowskie), with their high potential for diverse forms of water recreation (including sailing), are not a very exciting destination for anglers.

With an average value of natural assets but very good angling management, and especially high average volume of annual fish stockings, the most attractive lake for anglers in both communes is Gackie Lake.

According to Pokusa and Wołos [15] angling is mostly disturbed by such factors as interruption of peace and quiet, sailing and other water equipment (particularly motor boats), recreational overcrowding of the shores, pollution and litter in the surrounding environment, and bad weather conditions. The influence produced by the first four factors on small water reservoirs, to which Gackie Lake is classified, is typically rather limited. Because of the common opinion that such small lakes are unattractive, few people come to relax on their shores. This means that they are usually peaceful and quiet with little risk of damage to their littoral sphere. Unless poachers interfere, small lakes can contain abundant populations of pike, tench and crucian carp, which are highly valued by anglers.

Gackie Lake is owned by two farmers, and is a source of additional income. As Wołos et al. [25] claimed, agritourism farms which offer angling as one way of spending free time enjoy increasing popularity. The leasers of Gackie Lake have allotted some of their farmland to recreational plots and allow the holiday makers to pursue angling on their lake for a fee.

It should be underlined that the evaluation of angling assets of lakes is based on an analysis of a series of features which characterise the shore accessibility but ignore the aspect of theoretically unlimited possibilities of boat angling. All that needs to be done to facilitate boat angling is to prepare a one-point, stable road access to a lake, with a place where it will be possible to launch a boat or a dinghy. In some respects, such a solution can be thought to be more nature friendly, as we avoid the problem of damaging and littering the shores or fragmentation of a belt of helophytes and disruption of the continuity of the biocenotic system in the shore zone. Small size of surface area of lakes can be perceived as a limiting factor, as it determines the indices of natural vegetation absorbency and possible cover of the water table by plants with floating leaves. Such plants make it more difficult to move by boat around the fishing grounds and to carry out angling. In addition, many of such plants are protected species (e.g. Nympha alba and Nuphar luteum). However, lakeshore angling is obviously a much more popular and easily available form of recreation as it incurs smaller investment outlays necessary for angling to be pursued.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Angling is the primary recreational function of the analysed lakes in the communes of Liniewo and Nowa Karczma, because of the small average surface area of the lakes along with the characteristics of their natural surroundings and forms of use.

2. The highest angling attractiveness index was scored by Gackie Lake in Liniewo commune and Lubańskie Lake in Nowa Karczma commune.

3. The state of the hydrotechnical facilities in the ecosystems of the lakes implies a very low level of man-made conversion of the shore zones. This parameter, together with a large contribution of helophytes to the total shoreline length, is the main factor which limits the shore accessibility.

4. The analysis of the structure of fish stockings shows that lakes were stocked mainly with species which are attractive to anglers. However, the evaluation of the level of angling management of the lakes, against the background of their natural assets, suggests that the recreational potential has not been fully taken advantage of, which means that there is room for further improvement of tourism in the both communes: Liniewo and Nowa Karczma.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The paper is dedicated to the memory of prof. Marian Leopold , a precursor and guiding spirit of research on ecological and economic aspects of angling in Poland.

REFERENCES

1. Bnińska M., 1992. Podstawy oceny stanu srodowiska, opracowania zasad użytkowania i ochrony jezior [Basic guidelines for evaluation of the natural environment state and for elaboration of the principles of the use and protection of lakes]. Kom. Ryb. 3, 1-4 [in Polish].

2. Bnińska M., 2000. Wpływ innych użytkowników jezior na srodowisko i gospodarkę (w: Stan rybactwa jeziorowego w 1999 roku) [Influence of other lake users on environment and economy (in: The state of lake fisheries in 1999)]. Ed. A. Wołos. Wydaw. IRS, Olsztyn [in Polish].

3. Choiński A., 1991. Katalog jezior Polski. Częsc II – Pojezierze Mazurskie [Catalogue of Polish lakes. Part II – Masurian Lakeland]. Wydaw. Nauk. UAM, Poznań [in Polish].

4. Ciechorska A., 1998. Jakie czynniki przyrodnicze decyduja o atrakcyjnosci i przydatnosci turystycznej terenu? [What nature-related factors determine attractiveness and suitability of an area for tourism?]. Aura 4, 5-6 [in Polish].

5. Dedio T., 1989. Atrakcyjnosc jezior obszaru młodoglacjalnego dla rekreacji (na przykładzie jezior Polski Północno-Zachodniej) [Tourism attractiveness of lakes in a young glacial landscape (an example of the lakes in northwestern Poland)]. Prz. Geogr. 51, 1-2, 77-96 [in Polish].

6. Deja W., 2001. Przydatnosc rekreacyjna strefy brzegowej jezior Polski [Recreational suitability of lakeshores in Poland]. Bogucki Wydaw. Nauk., Poznań [in Polish].

7. Drwal J., 1979. Charakterystyka hydrograficzna (w: Pojezierze Kaszubskie) [Hydrographic description (in: Kaszuby Lake District)]. Ed. B. Augustowski. Gdań. Tow. Nauk. Ossolineum, Wrocław, 121-136 [in Polish].

8. Fenczyn J., 1998. Wędkarstwo jako aktywnosc rekreacyjna [Angling as recreational activity]. Stud. Monogr. AWF, Kraków, 3 [in Polish].

9. Gołembski G. (red.). 1999. Regionalne aspekty rozwoju turystyki [Regional aspects of tourism development]. Wydaw. Nauk. PWN, Warszawa-Poznań [in Polish].

10. Jańczak J. (red.). 1997. Atlas jezior Polski. Tom II. Jeziora zlewni rzek Przymorza i dorzecza dolnej Wisły [Atlas of Polish lakes. Vol II. Lakes of the river catchments in the Pomerania region and the lower river basin of the Vistula]. Bogucki Wydaw. Nauk., Poznań [in Polish].

11. Kistowski M., 1996. Metoda oceny potencjału krajobrazu obszarów młodoglacjalnych [Methods for assessment of the potential of young glacial landscapes]. Prz. Geogr. 58, 3-4, 367-386 [in Polish].

12. Kondracki J., 1994. Geografia Polski: mezoregiony fizyczno-geograficzne [Geography of Poland: physico-geographical mesoregions]. Wydaw. PWN, Warszawa [in Polish].

13. Konowrocki A., 2002. Jezioro Witko [Lake Witko]. Wędkarz Pol. 9, 28-30 [in Polish].

14. Piotrowska H., Kadulski S., 1985. Pojezierze Kaszubskie [Kaszuby Lake District]. Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa [in Polish].

15. Pokusa S., Wołos A., 1997. Łowiska wędkarskie jako forma działalnosci w agroturystyce [Angling grounds as a leisure time activity in agritourism]. Kom. Ryb. 1, 24-25 [in Polish].

16. Rzad-Górnicki B., Walicki A., 1971. Metoda zagospodarowania obszaru rekreacyjnego na przykładzie Pojezierza Kaszubskiego [Methods for recreational area development: a case study of Kaszuby Lake District]. Instytut Urbanistyki i Architektury, Warszawa [in Polish].

17. RZGW Gdańsk, 2004. Ceny materiału zarybieniowego dla RZGW Gdańsk [Prices of fish stocking material at the Regional Water Management Office in Gdańsk.]. Online: http://www.rzgw.gda.pl, (Stand:30.06.2006) [in Polish].

18. Skrzypczak A., 2005. Ocena przydatnosci rekreacyjnej naturalnych zbiorników wodnych dla wędkarstwa [Evaluation of recreational usability of natural water bodies for angling]. Folia Turist. 16, 115-129 [in Polish with Eng. summary].

19. Sołowiej D., 1992. Podstawy metodyki oceny srodowiska przyrodniczego człowieka [Basic methodology for evaluation of man’s natural environment]. Wydaw. UAM, Poznań [in Polish].

20. Szczerbowski J.A. (red.), 1995. Inland fisheries in Poland. Wydaw. IRS, Olsztyn.

21. WIOS Gdańsk, 2003. Raport o stanie srodowiska województwa Pomorskiego w 2002 roku [Report on the natural environment in Pomorze Province in 2002]. Bibl. Monit. Sr. Gdańsk [in Polish].

22. Wołos A., 2000. Ekonomiczne znaczenie wędkarstwa w gospodarstwach uprawnionych do rybackiego użytkowania jezior [Economic importance of angling in enterprises with the rights to carry out lake fisheries]. Arch. Pol. Fish. 8 (Supl. 1), 5-54 [in Polish].

23. Wołos A., 2003. Znaczenie wędkarstwa w Polsce [Significance of angling in Poland]. SPW “Edycja”, Olsztyn [in Polish].

24. Wołos A., Leopold M., 1997. Economic significance of angling for freshwater fisheries. Arch. Pol. Fish. 5, 291-303.

25. Wołos A., Wojda R., Ciesla M. (red.), 2004. Łowiska specjalne. Organizacja i zarzšdzanie [Special fishing grounds. Organisation and management]. Wydaw. IRS, Olsztyn [in Polish].

26. Zakęs Z., 2000. Gospodarka rybacka a pomosty – aspekty negatywnego i pozytywnego oddziaływania (w: Stan rybactwa jeziorowego w 1999 roku. Wpływ innych użytkowników jezior na srodowisko i gospodarkę rybackš) [Fisheries economy and fishing piers – negative and positive effects (in: The state of lake fisheries in 1999. Influence of other lake users on environment and economy)]. Ed. A. Wołos. Wydaw. IRS, Olsztyn, 45-64 [in Polish].

27. Zwoliński A., 1973. Typologia jezior oraz metodyka ich badań dla celów rekreacji [Typology of lakes and methodology of research on lakes used for recreational purposes]. Biul. Inf. Inst. Turyst. 8, 50-53 [in Polish].

28. Zwoliński A., 1979. Jeziora jako podstawa turystycznego zagospodarowania pojezierzy [Lakes as a basis for tourism industry development in lake districts]. Zesz. Nauk. Inst. Turyst., Warszawa 7, 132-179 [in Polish].

29. Zwoliński A., Zwolińska E., 1995. Katalog jezior województwa bydgoskiego wraz z ich waloryzacja turystycznš, wędkarska i formami ochrony [Catalogue of lakes in Bydgoszcz Province including their evaluation for tourism and angling as well as nature protection forms]. Wydaw. HABITAT, Bydgoszcz [in Polish].

 

Accepted for print: 29.11.2006

---

Andrzej Skrzypczak
Department of Lake and River Fisheries,
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
M. Oczapowskiego 5, 10-957 Olsztyn, Poland
phone +48 89 523 33 88,
fax +48 89 523 39 69
email: sandacz@uwm.edu.pl

Błażej Zarębski
Department of Lake and River Fisheries,
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
M. Oczapowskiego 5, 10-957 Olsztyn, Poland

Aleksandra Szypiłło
Department of Lake and River Fisheries,
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
M. Oczapowskiego 5, 10-957 Olsztyn, Poland

Andrzej Mamcarz
Department of Lake and River Fisheries,
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
M. Oczapowskiego 5, 10-957 Olsztyn, Poland
phone +48 89 523 33 88,
fax +48 89 523 39 69
email: mamcarz@uwm.edu.pl

---

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.

---

Main  -  Issues  -  How to Submit  -  From the Publisher  -  Search  -  Subscription