SUMMARY REPORT OF METHODS AND
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE 1994
NORTHEAST REGION MARINE RECREATIONAL ECONOMICS SURVEY
CHAPTER 5
SPORTFISHING BY STATE
Understanding the characteristics and preferences of fishermen may help resource managers and decision-makers at state and local levels improve the quality of and access to fishing opportunities. The continuum of information obtained from the survey can be used to supplement harvest data collected by state agencies, and indicate to managers the types of impacts different regulations have on participation and access within their own state. Moreover, these data illustrate where potential improvements to access might enhance the quality of fishing opportunities.
Given the current and projected state of many inshore sport fish, and the likelihood of potentially more onerous regulations in the future, it is likely that participation in recreational fishing will decline. To offset this decline, states may seek to find ways to improve and develop high quality fishing opportunities to continue to attract recreational fishing participants.
5.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Marine Recreational Anglers
5.1.1 Age
Figure 5-1 shows the distribution of mean recreational anglers’ age by state.[32] Except for Connecticut, of the categories illustrated, the majority of anglers were 36-45 years old. In Connecticut, over one-quarter of the anglers indicated they were 26-35 years of age (28%). Comparatively, New Hampshire had the greatest number of anglers under the age of 25 (11%) and the fewest anglers age 66 and over (5%). New York and Delaware anglers were among the oldest; approximately 50 percent were over the age of 46. Furthermore, in New York, 14 percent were over the age of 66.
5.1.2 Education
Figure 5-2 portrays the distribution of anglers’ educational levels by state. Across all states, over 86 percent of the anglers (age 25 and over) obtained at least a high school degree. Anglers in Maine and New Hampshire obtained the most high school degrees with only 7 percent failing to graduate from high school. Delaware, Maryland, and Connecticut had the highest number of anglers in the high school graduate category (DE=48%, MD=45%, CT=45%). While anglers in Connecticut comprised the largest percentage of vocational and community college graduates (9%). Massachusetts had the highest proportion of college and post graduates (33%), while 16 percent of the Maryland anglers fell into this same category.
5.1.3 Ethnicity
As can be seen from Figure 5-3, over 90 percent of the anglers in every state except for Maryland and Virginia considered themselves to be white.[33] In fact, the percentage of white fishermen reached 96 percent in Maine, Massachusetts, and Delaware. The percentage of black anglers was greatest in Virginia (11%) and Maryland (8%) and smallest in New Hampshire (0.4%) and Maine (0.2%). The percentage of hispanic anglers, although relatively small, was greatest in New York (4.0%). Approximately 3 to 4 percent of the remaining anglers in each state were either asian or from some other racial or ethnic origin.
5.1.4 Household Income
Figure 5-4 shows the distribution of household income categories by state. Comparatively, the majority of anglers indicated household incomes between $30,001 and $45,000 across all states. Anglers in Maine comprised the largest percentage of respondents with household incomes below $30,000 (33%), followed closely by Delaware (31%) and Virginia (30%). In contrast, Massachusetts anglers indicated the highest annual household incomes; 33 percent of the respondents declared their household income to be above $60,000 annually.
These findings indicate a relationship may exist between annual household income and participation. Participation in recreational fishing is often bounded by the extent to which money is available. It is likely that higher earnings may allow more participation. Although statistical tests were not attempted, a positive relationship appears to exist between the MRFSS estimates of participation by state and the estimated annual household incomes obtained from the economic survey.[34] During 1994, participation was highest in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, the same states that boasted the highest average annual household incomes above $60,000.
5.1.5 Years of Experience
Figure 5-5 illustrates the distribution of recreational anglers’ years of experience by state. Results of the survey revealed anglers in Maine and New Hampshire had the least saltwater fishing experience.[35] Over one-quarter of the respondents in Maine (27%) and New Hampshire (28%) indicated fewer than 5 years of experience, while less than 20 percent indicated more than 30 years of experience (ME=19%, NH=17%). In contrast, New York and New Jersey anglers were the most experienced, with over 40 percent indicating more than 26 years of experience. Overall, it appears that experience generally increased in succession from Maine to Virginia.
5.1.6 Expenditures
A breakdown of mean fishing trip expenditures is presented by state in Figure 5-6.[36] Rhode Island and Massachusetts anglers spent the most on average, while anglers in New Hampshire and Connecticut spent the least.
Anglers in New Jersey incurred the largest per night personal lodging expenses (Lodging (>0), $77.00) across states. Connecticut anglers, in contrast, incurred personal lodging expenses of $22.00 on average, less than one-third the amount New Jersey anglers incurred and in comparison, the smallest cost across states. When considering all anglers (i.e., regardless of whether an angler incurred a lodging expense, Lodging (>0)), per night lodging costs in Massachusetts were the highest ($32.00). At the other extreme were Delaware anglers; they spent about $12.00 a night on average.
Of the expenditures illustrated, one-way travel expenses represented the smallest portion of total expenditures across most of the states. However, if arrival costs approximate return costs, round-trip travel expenditures account for a substantial portion of total costs. The one-way travel expenses illustrated in Figure 5-6, which represent money spent on gas, travel fares, tolls, and ferry and parking fees, are highest in Maine ($19.00) and lowest in New York ($4.00).
Anglers expenditures may also include money spent on boat fees. Average party/charter and private/rental boat fees in Rhode Island ($102.00) were substantially larger than in neighboring states. In fact, average Massachusetts boat fees ($64.00) were exceeded only by Rhode Island and were $32.00 lower. Anglers in New Hampshire spent the least amount on boat fees ($37.00); approximately 36 percent less than the highest paying state, Rhode Island.
5.1.7 Boat Ownership
Figure 5-7 shows that approximately one-half of all anglers interviewed across states owned a boat (or someone in their household owned a boat) that was used for recreational fishing. Comparatively, anglers in Virginia owned the highest proportion of boats (57%) followed closely by Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts (53%) while New Hampshire anglers owned the smallest proportion of boats (46%).
5.1.8 Trip Length
Figure 5-8 shows the duration of the interviewed trips by state. The majority of anglers in all states indicated they were on a one-day fishing trip.[37] Connecticut anglers represented the largest majority of anglers taking one-day trips (97%), while 31 percent of the Delaware 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.
5.2 Preferences for Marine Recreational Fishing and Fishing Regulation Methods
5.2.1 Recreational Anglers Stated Preferences for Fishing Site Characteristics
Anglers choose fishing sites for a variety of reasons. Understanding the underlying reasons behind site choice may help state and local decision-makers enhance the quality and quantity of fishing trips. Table 5-1 illustrates anglers’ first and second stated preferences for fishing site characteristics by state.[38] “Convenience” and “better catch rates” constituted the largest percentage of responses across states. These two responses comprised over 43% of the anglers’ first stated preferences and over 40% of their second stated preferences. “Convenience” was the most widely stated first preference across states. Rhode Island anglers, however, chose better catch rates (23.7%) and the largest percentage of anglers in Maine chose the category ‘other’ (25.6%) as their first stated preference for fishing site characteristics.[39]
Generally, results indicate that sites that offered good catch rates and were convenient attracted the most anglers. Additionally, habit (always go there), seemed to play a substantial role in an individuals site choice decision across states. Access to a boat ramp was considered to be relatively important to Rhode Island anglers, access to a pier to New Hampshire anglers, and scenic beauty to anglers in Maine.
5.2.2 Recreational Anglers’ Ranking of Fishing Compared to Other Outdoor Activities
Figure5-9 shows anglers’ ranking of marine recreational fishing compared to other outdoor activities by state.[40] At least one-half of the respondents in all states indicated fishing was their most important outdoor activity during the past two months. Interestingly, however, is the general progressive increase in importance in the coastal states from Maine to Virginia. In the Northeast Region, the importance rose with each consecutive state from Maine through Connecticut. The importance of fishing stabilized somewhat in the Mid-Atlantic, but still showed a general increase with each successive state from New Jersey through Virginia.
A similar trend resulted with anglers that declared marine recreational fishing to be only one of many activities. Figure5-9 shows that respondents in the North generally did not place as much importance on recreational fishing compared to their other outdoor activities. In fact, a consecutive increase in the percentage of anglers that indicated fishing was only one of many activities occurred in New England, from Connecticut up to Maine.
Findings of the survey indicate that the importance of marine recreational fishing increased within each consecutive coastal state in New England (from Maine to Connecticut) and generally stabilized in the Mid-Atlantic. It appears that weather may have a substantial effect on the importance of fishing as an outdoor activity. The weather is generally warmer and the fishing season longer the further south one travels through the Northeast Region, especially in New England. Additionally, investments in tackle and related gear are usually higher in areas with longer fishing seasons. These factors likely attribute to the importance anglers place on marine recreational fishing and Figure5-9 illustrates this result.
5.2.3 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Reasons for Marine Fishing
Table 5-2 illustrates the ratings anglers assigned to 7 reasons for marine recreational fishing by state. Over 60 percent of the anglers in all states indicated the following reasons were very important: to spend quality time with friends and family; to enjoy nature and the outdoors; to experience the excitement or challenge of sport fishing; and to relax and escape from their daily routine.
Of the reasons the majority of anglers rated as not important were: “to be alone” and “to fish in a tournament or when awards were available.” “To catch fish to eat” was the only reason declared to be ‘somewhat important’ by a large portion of anglers. Rhode Island was the only state in New England where the largest percentage of anglers felt “catching fish to eat” was ‘somewhat important’ (38.7%). Nevertheless, the largest percentage of anglers in every state in the Mid-Atlantic stated “to catch fish to eat” was ‘somewhat important.’
If these findings are indicative of most recreational fishing participants in the Northeast it is clear that although catching fish to eat is somewhat important to a large portion of anglers (especially in the Mid-Atlantic), many anglers participate in marine recreational fishing to catch fish for fun (i.e., catch and release) and for non-catch related reasons.
5.2.4 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Regulation Methods
Survey results indicate that, in general, there is strong support for four widely applied regulatory methods used to restrict total recreational catch.[41] Table 5-3 shows that over 88 percent of the anglers in all states indicated support for minimum size and catch limits. Over 70 percent in all states indicated support for limits on the times of the year when anglers can keep the fish they catch. The largest source of opposition for this type of regulation came from anglers in Virginia (29.4%). The regulation that generated the lowest support was area limits. However, over 63 percent of the anglers in all states indicated support for the measure.
Findings suggest that saltwater fishing participants in the Northeast strongly support the more common regulatory methods--size and catch limits, and although general support still exists, attempts to implement additional time/area restrictions may be met with less support.