SUMMARY REPORT OF METHODS AND
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE 1994
NORTHEAST REGION MARINE RECREATIONAL ECONOMICS SURVEY
CHAPTER 3
SPORTFISHING BY SUBREGION
Dwindling stocks of some recreational species are creating the need for improved fisheries resource protection. Toward this end, many management agencies have developed, or are presently developing restrictive recreational management measures with little or no knowledge of anglers’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics. In order to assess the economic and social effects of recreational restrictions it is necessary to understand the social and economic characteristics, as well as the preferences, attitudes, and opinions of anglers. This chapter presents profiles of marine anglers from New England (NE) and the Mid-Atlantic (MA) subregions.[14]
3.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Marine Recreational Anglers
3.1.1 Age
Figure3-1 presents a distribution of mean recreational anglers’ age by subregion[15]. Only slight differences in mean age existed across subregions. The largest majority of anglers in both subregions were 36-45 years old (NE = 28%, MA = 25%). However, comparatively, New England anglers were younger than Mid-Atlantic anglers. Results show that participation in marine recreational fishing increased with age when anglers were relatively young, peaked between the ages of 36 to 45, and subsequently declined thereafter.
The resultant age distribution is similar to the findings of other marine recreational fishing studies.[16] However, the distribution is not reflective of the general population in these subregions. Bureau of the Census estimates indicate population peaks between the ages of 25 to 34 in both subregions, declines until the age of 64 and then increases substantially (Table 3-1).
3.1.2 Education
Figure 3-2 shows that at least 88 percent of the anglers (age 25 and over) in both subregions had obtained at least a high school degree (NE = 91%, MA = 88%). While the educational breakdown is similar across subregions, a greater portion of anglers in New England earned college or post graduate/professional degrees (NE = 29%, MA = 23%).
The shape of the educational distribution essentially mirrored the general population in both subregions (Table 3-1). However, the average number of anglers without a high school degree was considerably lower than Bureau of the Census estimates for the general population. Additionally, it appears that anglers in New England earned more post graduate/professional degrees than Bureau of Census estimates while in the Mid Atlantic, anglers held relatively fewer post graduate/professional degrees than the general population.
3.1.3 Ethnicity
Anglers were asked to describe their racial or ethnic origin. Figure 3-3 shows that almost all of the anglers interviewed in both subregions considered themselves to be white (NE = 95%, MA = 90%). In the Mid-Atlantic, the remainder of individuals were mostly black (7%), leaving 3 percent to be of other ethnic origins. In New England, the remaining anglers were evenly distributed across other ethnic origins.
The high occurrence of white fishermen is representative of the general population of the coastal states in New England. Approximately 94 percent of the population in 1993 was estimated to be white (Table 3-1). However, in the Mid-Atlantic, the percentage of white anglers was considerably higher than Bureau of the Census population estimates. Additionally, the percentage of black fishermen was 12 percent lower than general population estimates.
3.1.4 Household Income
Anglers were asked to indicate from a range of categories what their total annual household income was. Figure 3-4 shows only minor differences existed between subregions. The largest percentage of household incomes fell between $30,001 and $45,000 for both subregions (NE = 27%, MA = 26%).
In comparison to the general population, anglers’ annual household incomes are relatively higher in both subregions. Although the shape of the distributions are similar, according to Bureau of the Census estimates, considerably more households in the general population earned less than $30,000 in both subregions (Table 3-1). Additionally, the largest share of angler households in both New England and the Mid-Atlantic indicated higher annual household incomes than the general population. Further inspection of the distribution also revealed a greater percentage of angler households indicated annual incomes of over $60,000 in both New England and the Mid-Atlantic.
Results are consistent with previous studies which showed that angler household incomes are generally higher than population estimates.[17]
3.1.5 Years of Experience
Figure 3-5 indicates the number of years anglers have been saltwater fishing by subregion. Assuming “years fished” is a proxy for “experience,” the survey data revealed anglers in New England are relatively less experienced than anglers in the Mid-Atlantic. In New England, 22 percent of the anglers had 0-5 years of experience. In contrast, 16 percent of the anglers in the Mid-Atlantic had 0-5 years of experience. Additionally, a greater percentage of anglers in the Mid-Atlantic indicated they had saltwater fished more than 30 years (NE = 21%, MA = 26%).
Results are consistent with past MRFSS estimates of participation by subregion.[18] Anglers in the Mid Atlantic may have more opportunities to continue marine recreational fishing as they age, because of warmer weather and a longer fishing season.
3.1.6 Expenditures
A breakdown of mean fishing trip expenditures is presented by subregion in Figure 3-6. The figure shows that, on average, New England anglers spent more on boat fees, lodging, and travel expenses[19]. During the follow-up telephone portion of the survey, anglers that fished from a party/charter boat or a private/rental boat were asked how much they personally spent on boat fees for the trip in which they were interviewed. Boat fees averaged $61.00 per trip in New England and $51.00 in the Mid-Atlantic. Chapter 4 provides a breakdown of these costs by mode.
Two categories of lodging expenses are illustrated in Figure 3-6. The first category (Lodging (>0)) is an estimate of the mean lodging expense per night for those anglers who indicated they spent at least one night away from their residence and personally incurred a lodging cost. Subsequently, the second category (Lodging (all)) is an estimate of mean lodging expenses across all overnight anglers, regardless of whether an angler incurred a lodging expense. Per night lodging costs were estimated by dividing total lodging costs for the trip (Question 3, economic intercept survey) by the number of days the angler was away from his/her residence on the trip (Question 2, economic intercept survey). As can be seen in Figure 3-6, anglers that personally incurred lodging expenses spent $58.00 on average per night in New England and $47.00 dollars per night in the Mid-Atlantic. Across all overnight anglers, per night lodging expenses in New England averaged $29.00 and in the Mid-Atlantic, $21.00.
Anglers’ expenditures also include money spent on gas, travel fares, tolls, and ferry and parking fees. These expenditures are travel expenses and are shown in Figure 3-6. One-way travel expenditures averaged $11.00 in New England and $8.00 in the Mid-Atlantic per trip. Therefore, if arrival costs are tantamount to departure costs, average round-trip travel expenses would approximate $22.00 in New England and $16.00 in the Mid-Atlantic.
3.1.7 Boat Ownership
Anglers were asked if anyone living in their household owns a boat that is used for recreational saltwater fishing. Figure 3-7 illustrates that over 50 percent of the anglers in both subregions indicated boat ownership (NE=51%, MA=53%). The percentage of anglers owning boats is identical to estimated boat ownership distributions in Texas reported by Riechers, et al. (1991). Fifty-one percent of Texas anglers who fished in salt water indicated boat ownership. However, CIC Research Inc. (1987) and Milon and Thunberg’s (1993) reported boat ownership statistics were less than 35 percent in California and Florida, respectively.
3.1.8 Trip Length
Figure 3-8 shows the duration of the interviewed trips. At least 80 percent of the anglers in both subregions indicated they were on a one-day fishing trip (NE=80%, MA=84%). One-day fishing trips were defined to be trips in which an angler departs and returns on the same day. Less than one fourth of the respondents indicated the day of fishing was part of a longer trip in which they spent/or plan to spend at least one night away from their residence (NE=20%, MA=16%).
3.2 Preferences for Marine Recreational Fishing and Fishing Regulation Methods
3.2.1 Recreational Anglers Stated Preferences for Fishing Site Characteristics
Respondents were asked why they chose to fish at the site where they were interviewed. Up to three stated preferences were coded.[20] Figure 3-9, Figure 3-10, Figure 3-11, and Figure 3-12 illustrate recreational anglers first and second stated preferences for fishing site characteristics in New England and the Mid-Atlantic. “Convenience” and “better catch rates” were the main reasons why anglers chose fishing sites in both subregions. Forty-nine percent of the anglers in New England and 57 percent of the anglers in the Mid-Atlantic indicated “convenience” as either their first or second reason for site choice. “Better catch rates” was the first or second stated reason for site choice by 51 percent of the anglers in New England and 50 percent of the anglers in the Mid-Atlantic. Other notable responses were “always go there,” “boat ramp,” “access to pier,” and “scenic beauty.” About 28 percent of the anglers in New England and 24 percent of the anglers in the Mid-Atlantic selected other reasons that were not coded because those responses did not fall under the specified categories (Question 6, telephone follow-up survey).
Results indicate that although anglers chose fishing sites for many different reasons, there appears to be some indication that sites that offered good catch rates and were convenient attracted the most anglers. Unfortunately, previous studies do not provide descriptive information on site choice decisions which would enable broader generalizations.
3.2.2 Recreational Anglers’ Ranking of Fishing Compared to Other Outdoor Activities
Anglers were asked to rate recreational fishing against their other outdoor activities during the last two months--was fishing their most important outdoor activity, their second most important outdoor activity, or only one of many outdoor activities? Over 60 percent of the respondents in both subregions (NE=61%, MA=68%) reported marine recreational fishing was their most important outdoor activity during the past two months (Figure3-13). Less than 30 percent in both subregions (NE=27%, MA=20%) said recreational fishing was only one of many outdoor activities. This is consistent with national outdoor recreation surveys carried out over the past 30 years indicating that fishing is consistently one of the top outdoor recreation activities in number of people who participate.[21]
3.2.3 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Reasons for Marine Fishing
Table 3-2 summarizes the ratings respondents assigned to 7 reasons for fishing. The reasons that more than 65 percent of the anglers in both subregions said were very important were: to spend quality time with friends and family (NE=81.3%, MA=85.0%); to enjoy nature and the outdoors (NE=88.5%, MA=87.3%); to experience the excitement or challenge of sport fishing (NE=68.8%, MA=65.6%); and to relax and escape from my daily routine (NE=83.3%, MA=85.5%).
The reasons that were rated as not important by the largest majority of anglers consisted of to catch fish to eat (NE=42.2%), to be alone (NE=55.0%, MA=57.7%), and to fish in a tournament or when awards were available (NE=78.6%, MA= 73.4%). In the Mid-Atlantic, to catch fish to eat was rated as being somewhat important by the largest majority of anglers (40.1%).
It is clear from these responses that marine recreational fishing offers much more than just catching fish to anglers. Over 80 percent of the respondents in both subregions perceived recreational fishing as a time to spend with friends and family, a time to escape from their daily routine, and time to enjoy nature and the outdoors. While catching fish to eat is somewhat important to many anglers, findings of this survey generally concur with previous studies that found non-catch reasons are rated highly by almost all respondents while catch is very important for about a third of anglers and catching fish to eat is moderately important for about another third.
3.2.4 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Regulation Methods
The economic survey sought to solicit anglers’ opinions regarding four widely applied regulatory methods used to restrict total recreational catch of the species they typically fish for: (1) limits on the minimum size of fish they can keep; (2) limits on the number of fish they can keep; (3) limits on the times of the year when they can keep the fish they catch; and (4) limits on the areas they fish. Anglers were asked whether or not they supported or opposed the regulation methods. Strong support existed for all the regulation methods in both subregions (Table 3-3). Limits on the minimum size of fish anglers could keep generated the highest support (NE=92.5%, MA=93.2%), while limits on the areas anglers can fish, although still high, generated relatively lower support (NE=67.9%, MA= 66.0%).
Results indicate that recreational anglers in the Northeast Region appear to be conservation minded and generally support typical regulation methods used to restrict total catch.