The document summarizes a study on factors affecting trout protection in Kumrat Valley, Dir (U) KPK, Pakistan. It found that over 50% of respondents believed the local community considers threats to trout, while over 70% felt the community has a positive attitude toward protection. Nearly 80% stated pesticides used in agriculture harm trout. Over 60% agreed the community uses harmful hunting methods like electricity and dynamite. The study concluded there is a significant relationship between positive community perceptions and trout protection. It recommended increasing community awareness and training, as well as government support for trout production, protection policies, and market access to promote conservation.

1. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences 8 (2): 85-88, 2016
ISSN 2078-4589
© IDOSI Publications, 2016
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wjfms.2016.8.2.103120
Corresponding Author: Ahmad Ali, Lecturer in Sociology SBB University Sheringal, Dir (U), KPK, Pakistan.
Cell: +92-346-9401375.
85
Factors Affecting Trout Protection in Kumrat Valley Dir (U) KPK, Pakistan
Irfan Ahmad, Mussawar Shah, Ahmad Ali, Nayab Ali and Shakeel Ahmad1 1 2 1 1
Department of Rural Sociology, Agricultural University, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan1
Lecturer in Sociology, SBB University Sheringal, Dir(U), KPK, Pakistan2
Abstract: The present study titled factors affecting trout protection was conducted with objectives “To asses’
perception of local community about factors affecting trout protection”. A sample size of 325 was selected
through simple random sampling procedure. Furthermore, simple frequency, Chi square for association and
gamma for direction was used as statistical tools. From the results it was concluded that 56.9% respondents
were opined that general society considers any thereat for trout. 70.7% respondents were of the view
Community attitude are positive towards trout protection.77.5% respondents stated that the pesticide used for
agricultural purpose are harmful to trout. On probing out of respondents perceptions regarding the local
people/community used different harmful methods for hunting (electric currents, dynamites), 61.5% respondents
were in favor. 23.6% argue that local community is trained in protection/preservation of trout species.
Furthermore, It was illustrated that a significant (p<0.05) relationship detected between community consider
any thereat for trout, community attitude are positive towards trout; different pesticide used for agricultural
purpose is harmful to trout and trout protections. While, non-significant (P>0.05) relationship detected in
assessing that local community are trained in protection/ preservation of trout species. In order to promote trout
protection the study recommended that community awareness and sensitization through sessions and trainings
by both government and private organizations is necessary for the economic uplift of the community. Also,
Government takes the responsibility for the proper implementation of policies regarding trout production and
protection. Government and private sectors facilitate the community and farms holders in easy accessibility to
market. Government and private sectors facilitate in shape of small grants and trained the community in
establishing trout farms and hatcheries.
Key words: Trout Perception Community and Protection
INTRODUCTION etc. are the most popular way of fisheries throughout the
Fish are cold blooded aquatic vertebrates typically so high but help to contribute in foreign exchange of
with backbone, gills and fins and are primarily dependent country through export due to fishes play a vital role in
on water is a medium in which they live. There are a food nutritional supplements and dietary supplements of
number of fish species different in size, shape and daily use high efficiency of proteins 15-20% and other
habitats. Some have become parasitic, while other lives in qualities like low cholesterol. Throughout 2004, a sum of
caves. They are found from the arctic to the Antarctic and 90,225 M. tons of fish and other fishery products were
some species carry out great migration. Some fish remain sold abroad, to earn Rs.7.6 billion. During the period 2004
constantly in one environment other move from one place to 2005, the sum of sea and inland fish produce
to another during their life time as they grow to maturity, approximately was 573,600 M. tons in which, 403,500 M.
or migrate seasonally [1] In economy of Pakistan fishery tons was sea production while remaining was 170, 100 M.
shows a vital role it is also considered the main source of tons taken from inland waters on the other side during the
specific local inhabitant’s livelihood. There are various period of 2003 to 2004, the sum of sea and inland fish
mean of fisheries where apart of sea or inland fisheries production was approximately 566200 Metric tons,
which are based on rivers and lakes or ponds and dams in which approximately 400500 Metric tons were taken
country. Gross domestic product through fisheries is not

2. World J. Fish & Marine Sci., 8 (2): 85-88, 2016
86
from sea production while approximately 16700 M. tons pesticide used for agricultural purpose are harmful to trout
were inland fish [2] At the beginning 1962 almost 3 on probing out of respondents perceptions regarding
schemes were lunched for development of trout in five the local people/community used different harmful
district namely Mansehra, Swat, Dir, Chitral and Kohistan, methods for hunting (electric currents, dynamites), 61.5%
resulting in five trout hatcheries. Round about 40 % of fry respondents were in favor. Further 77.5% respondents
production is gained from these hatcheries which released view was that, local community are aware about the
in different natural water bodies. Recreational and sport importance of trout in their economic growth. Moreover,
fishery increases tourism and economic gain as well. 71% respondents stated that there is a frequent decrease
[3] The awareness among people can produce good in the number of trout species in the last few years.
quality of fishes as stocking material and reservation It highlighted the respondents’ perception about
of fishes which is most important in this regard. community considered any thereat for trout. Indicated
The necessary step must be taken to by keeping all norms a high positive ( = 0.977) and significant (P<0.05)
of local area people toward trout protection as important relationship was also detected between community
livestock and consider as product of main capital considered any thereat for trout and trout protection.it
resources in northern areas of Pakistan. Jillard et al. [5] was resulted from the findings that the community thinks
stated that fishing income per month was only below that the tout needs protection in the area. These findings
5,000 pesos but most of them have other income. are supported by the report of Zeller [6] that trout in
On further analysis, it was found out that majority of Canada are endangered or threatened due to chemical
the respondents u sed more than one gear however pollution in water. Moreover, Yaqoob [4] reported that
most of them used this common gear the gill nets overfishing and contaminated water results in decline of
(54.55%). It pointed out that high cost of fishing gears, trout species.
high cost of craft, non-availability of baits, presence of The study further revealed respondent’s perception
typhoon, presence of commercial fishing, less market on trout protection and Community attitude are positive
prices and less catch were found to be their problems. towards trout protection. Gamma ( =.972), showed a
MATERIALS AND METHODS community attitude are positive towards trout protections
The study entitled “factors affecting trout cleared from these findings that the community wants
protection” was conducted in “Kumrat valley” in Union efforts to be taken for trout protection in the area.
Council Thal District Dir Upper, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Upon the relationship between trout protection and
Simple random sampling technique is used for collecting pesticide used for agricultural purpose are harmful to
data from 325 respondents. The collected data was trout, ( =.954), indicated a highly positive and significant
analyzed by using uni-variate and bi-variate analysis (P < 0.05) relationship detected between pesticide used
respectively. At uni-variate level percentages and for agricultural purpose are harmful to trout and trout
frequencies were used to know about the phenomena of protection. These findings indicated that the farmers
trout protection in the study area. At bivariate level used different pesticides which are harmful for the trout.
chi-square ( ) test was applied to determined association Similarly, these findings are in line with Lips [7] that In2
between independent and dependent variables. The Chi Australia and New Zealand the number of trout decrees
square was used for association and Gamma was used due to use of pesticides, fertilizers and global climate2
to determine the strength and direction between change and due to exposure of the trout eggs and larvae
independent and dependent variable. in water to waterborne and airborne pollutants the number
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION the respondent’s perception on trout protection and local
While analyzing community Perception of trout (electric currents, dynamites). A significant ( ) = 0.481 and
protection, the results showed that out of total of positive (P<0.05) relationship was detected. Although,
100% respondents, 56.9% opined that general society neither brown nor rainbow trout can survive other forms
considers thereat for trout. 70.7% respondents viewed of exploitation such as dynamite fishing, electrocution
that community attitude are positive towards trout and netting all of which are occur regularly [8]. In this
protection. Moreover, 77.5% respondents stated that the way, ( =. 963), indicated a highly positive and a
positive and significant (P<0.05) relationship between
respondents perception regarding trout protection. It was
of trout negatively affected. The study further explored
community used different harmful methods for hunting

3. World J. Fish & Marine Sci., 8 (2): 85-88, 2016
87
significant (P<0.05) relationship detected between further revealed respondent’s perception on trout
local community are aware about the importance protection and there is a frequent decrease in the number
of trout in their economic growth and trout protection. of trout species in the last few years. Gamma ( =.913),
These findings illustrated that the local peoples agreed showed a positive and significant (P < 0.05) relationship
that there is importance of trout in their economic between there is a frequent decrease in the number of
development. Responsive Management [9] reported that trout species in the last few years and trout protection.
trout anglers contributed $13.6 billion to the economy. It was concluded from a study carried out in the
USFWS [10] study further explored the respondent’s Transactions of the American Fisheries Society in 1999
perception on trout protection and Local community is that the combined effects of increased in water
trained in protection/preservation of trout species. temperatures and overflow of water both brown and
A non-significant (P<0.05) and positive relationship rainbow trout would no longer be able to survive [11] It
( ) = 0.944 while analyzing the data. Moreover, was found that flood affect Directly displacement-related
respondent’s perception on trout protection and local mortality of trout and destruction of incubating eggs,
community follow the existing laws/measures taken by while indirect effects to habitat can affect carrying
government for protecting trout. ( =.914), indicated a capacity or favor one species or guild over others
positive and a significant (P<0.05) relationship. The study [12].
Relationship Between Community Response and Trout Protection
Perception On Trout protection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attributes Response Yes No Don’t Know Total Statistics
Community consider any thereat for trout Yes 145 (44.6) 55(16.9) 25(7.6) 255 (78.4) X =131.490(0.003) =.9772
No 25 (7.6) 25 (7.6) 10 (3) 60(18.4)
Don’t Know 15 (4.6) 10(3) 15(4.1) 40(12.3)
Community attitude are positive Yes 175 (53.8) 15(4.1) 25 (7.6) 215(66.1) X =139.424(0.000) =.9722
towards trout protections No 25(7.6) 10(3) 15(2.0) 50(15.3)
Don’t Know 30(9.2) 15 (4.1) 15 (4.1) 60 (18.4)
The pesticide used for agricultural purpose Yes 195(60) 5(1.5) 15(4.1) 215(66.1) X =129.175(0.041) =.9542
are harmful to trout No 15 (4.1) 10 (3) 5 (1.5) 30 (9.2)
Don’t Know 40 (12.3) 25 (7.6) 15 (4.1) 80 (24.6)
Local community used different harmful methods Yes 165 (50.7) 20(6.1) 25(7.6) 10 (3) X =15.340 (0.004) =.4812
for hunting (electric currents, dynamites) No 25 (7.6) 10(3) 5 (1.5) 40 (12.3)
Don’t Know 30(9.2) 35(10.7) 10(3) 75(23)
Local community are aware about the importance Yes 210(64.6) 15(4.1) 10(3) 230(70.7) X =131.728(0.001) =.9632
of trout in the their economic growth No 5(1.5) 8(2.4) 7(2.1) 20(6.1)
Don’t Know 45(13.8) 15(4.1) 15(4.1) 75(23)
Local community are trained in Yes 125(38.4) 15(4.1) 8(2.4) 148(45.5) X =94.774 (0.061) =.9442
protection/preservation of trout species No 12(3.6) 5(1.5) 7(2.1) 24(7.3)
Don’t Know 115(35.3) 13(4) 25(7.6) 153(47)
Local community follow the existing laws/measures Yes 173(53.2) 14(4.3) 6(1.8) 193(59.3) X =124.545(0.021) =.9142
taken by government for protecting trout No 9(2.7) 4(1.2) 9(2.7) 22(6.7)
Don’t Know 45(13.8) 35(10.7) 30(9.2) 110(33.8)
There is a frequent decrease in the number of Yes 157(48.3) 13(4) 27(8.3) 197(60.6) X =118.287(0.000) =.9132
trout species in the last few years No 13(4) 10(3) 12(3.6) 35(10.7)
Don’t Know 30(9.2) 45(13.8) 18(5.5) 93(28.6)
Numbers in table represent frequencies and numberin parenthesis represent percentage proportion of respondent
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS need to promote the Trout culture in the valley. The local
This study focused on determining the perception type of trout is commonly available to the entire
aspects of factors affecting trout protection by analyzing community. It was probe that the general society consider
through (community response, Government; efforts and many threats for trout, community attitude are positive
economic approach variable) in the area, there is a great towards trout protections with community response.
community encourages tourists for fishing because all

4. World J. Fish & Marine Sci., 8 (2): 85-88, 2016
88
The rate of trout in rivers is decreasing due to chemical 5. Jillard, O. Mercado and Rozette E. Mercado, 2015.
pollution, the local harmful methods of fishing like Analysis of Socioeconomic Profile of Rural Fishers in
chemical, electric current, dynamite etc. And also lack of Northern Part of Surigao Del Sur, Philippines World
awareness in people about the importance of trout is also Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, 8(1): 64-67.
a factor. Furthermore, it was illustrated that there is 6. Zeller, D.C., 1997. Home range and activity patterns
need of training of local people in trout protection. of the coral trout, Plectropomus leopardus
The pesticide used for agricultural purpose are harmful to (Serranidae). Marine Ecology Progress Series,
trout also the natural disasters damaged the trout species. 154: 65-77.
Further research study find out that local community does 7. Lips, 1998. Rebuilding ecosystems, not sustainability,
not follow the existing laws/measures taken by as the proper goal of fishery management,
government for protecting trout. In order to endorse trout In Reinventing Fisheries Management, pp: 311-329.
protection in the area the study recommended that 8. Hansen, D.J., 1997. Shrimp fishery and capelin
community awareness and sensitization through sessions decline may influence decline of harbour seal
and trainings by both government and private (Phoca vitulina) and northern sea lion
organizations is necessary for the economic uplift of the (Eumetopias jubatus) in Western Gulf of Alaska.
community. Government and private sectors facilitate in In International Symposium on the Role of Forage
shape of small grants and trained the community in Fishes in Marine Ecosystems, Anchorage, Alaska,
establishing trout farms and hatcheries. Laws regarding USA, 13-16 November 1996, pp: 197-207. University
trout protection should be properly implemented like of Alaska Sea Grant College Program. AK-SG-97-01,
using of dynamites, electric current, chemicals for hunting pp: 816.
trout and also permit systems should be introduce and 9. Responsive Management, 2009. The economic impact
properly implement. of mountain trout fishing in North Carolina. North
REFERENCES in Sport Fish Restoration, Project F-86, Final Report,
1. Tauseef, A., F. Parveen and U. Hamid, 2015. 10. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2010.
Exploring and Identification of Fish Fauna of River Trout fishing in 2006: a demographic description and
Panjkora in District Dir (Lower), Khyber Paktunkhaw. economic analysis. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Pakistan World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, USFWS, Report 2006-6, Washington, D.C.
7(6): 411-417. 11. Thompson, H.N., 2008. An Integrated Assessment of
2. Hassan, A., 2004. Some fish species for use in the Effects of Climate Change on Rocky Mountain
aquaculture in Pakistan. In: Proc. of National Seminar National Park and its Gateway Community:
on Fisheries. Interactions of Multiple Stressors, Colorado State
3. Akhtar, N., 1991. The Northern Areas (Pakistan). University, http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/
Fisheries profile, feasible sites for trout culture and star/Final%20 Hobbs%20Summary.pdf.
overall sectoral development perspective. Report for 12. Elwood, J.W. and T.F. Waters, 1969. Effects of floods
Proj. PAK/91/008. Rome, FAO., pp: 29. on food consumption and production rates of a
4. Muhammad, Y., 2009. Aquaculture Fisheries stream brook trout population. Transactions of the
Research Institute, National Agriculture Research American Fisheries Society, 98: 253-262.
Centre, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid
Raleigh.