NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 165
A Baseline Socio-economic
Study
of Massachusetts' Marine Recreational Fisheries
by Ronald J. Salz1,
David K. Loomis1,
Michael R. Ross1,
and Scott R. Steinback2
1Univ.
of Massachusetts - Amherst, Dept. of Natural Resources Conservation,
Holdsworth Bldg., Amherst, MA 01003
2National Marine
Fisheries Serv., Woods Hole Lab., 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543
Print
publication date December 2001;
web version posted July 17, 2002
Citation: Salz RJ, Loomis DK, Ross MR, Steinback SR. 2001. A baseline socio-economic study of Massachusetts' marine recreational fisheries. US Dep Commer, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 165; 129 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
This study investigated various socioeconomic attributes of Massachusetts’ marine
recreational anglers. Separate analyses were conducted for each of three
saltwater angler modes of fishing: partyboat, private boat, and shore.
Socioeconomic attributes of Massachusetts saltwater anglers were also
compared across levels of recreation specialization. Recreation specialization
describes the variation among participants of a particular activity through
segmenting the population into meaningful and identifiable subgroups.
For this study, anglers were segmented in recreation specialization levels
by using an index based on four variables: commitment to saltwater fishing,
relationships with other anglers, orientation to saltwater fishing, and
types of experiences during fishing. Overall, private boat anglers were
the most specialized group, and partyboat anglers were the least specialized.
In general, partyboat anglers appeared less connected to partyboat fishing
than were either private boat anglers to private boat fishing or shore
anglers to shore fishing.
Anglers, initially contacted in the field following a fishing trip,
were asked to participate in a followup mail survey. A total of 511 partyboat,
470 private boat, and 269 shore anglers returned completed survey questionnaires.
Overall response rates were 50.5%, 65.5%, and 61.4% for partyboat, private
boat, and shore modes, respectively. Over one-half (51%) of those surveyed
in the partyboat mode were out-of-state (i.e., non-Massachusetts)
residents, while a smaller percentage of those surveyed in the shore
(41%) and private boat modes (28%) were out-of-state residents. The overwhelming
majority of anglers surveyed in all three modes were white males.
Massachusetts’ saltwater anglers had a variety of reasons for going
saltwater fishing -- both catch-related and noncatch-related. On average,
anglers in all three modes rated “fun of catching fish” and “for
the experience of the catch” as very important reasons for fishing.
Private boat and shore anglers also rated “relaxation” and “to
be outdoors” as being between very and extremely important reasons
to go fishing. Other highly rated noncatch-related reasons by anglers
in all three modes included “to be close to the water” and “to
share experiences with friends, family, and others.” Catching fish
to eat was only rated between slightly and moderately important, on average,
by anglers in all three modes.
Anglers were asked what their top three reasons were for going saltwater
fishing in that particular mode. Private boat and shore anglers favored
noncatch-related aspects of the fishing experience (i.e., “for
relaxation” and “to be outdoors”) over catch-related aspects
as their number one reason for going fishing. Partyboat anglers also
selected noncatch-related aspects of fishing more often than catch-related
aspects as their top reason to go fishing. However, partyboat anglers
placed more emphasis on social aspects of fishing such as “family
recreation” and “sharing experiences with others” than
did shore or private boat anglers. For all modes, the relative importance
that anglers placed on every reason for going saltwater fishing increased
with increasing specialization level. This was not surprising since highly
specialized anglers, who fish more often, are expected to have stronger
motivations to go fishing.
Anglers were asked to respond to a series of statements related to catch
aspects of saltwater fishing. Results suggest that actually catching
fish is not the only determinant of a satisfying fishing experience.
In fact, a large percentage of anglers in each mode agreed or strongly
agreed that a fishing trip could be a success even if no fish were caught
(i.e., partyboat 50%, private boat 76%, and shore 80%). Partyboat
anglers, in general, placed more emphasis on catching fish as a condition
for a successful trip than did anglers in the other two modes. The majority
of anglers in all three modes either agreed or strongly agreed that the
saltwater fishing opportunities in Massachusetts met their needs for
a satisfying experience (i.e., partyboat 69%, private boat 82%,
and shore 72%).
Constraints, or reasons why anglers did not participate in fishing more
often, were also investigated. For all three modes, the biggest apparent
constraints were “too many other demands on my time” and “other
leisure activities take up my time.” In general, the importance
of these time-related constraints decreased with increasing specialization
level for anglers in all three modes. For anglers in all three modes,
lack of fish or low catch rates were not frequently cited as being important
reasons for fishing less often. The proportion of anglers who agreed
with the statement that “I believe an increase in my fishing activity
would be bad for the resource” was also low for all three modes
(i.e., 10% partyboat, 4.5% private boat, and 5.1% shore). This
belief suggests that either anglers think the resource is fairly healthy,
or they simply do no think that one angler can have a negative impact.
Cost of fishing was seen as a more important constraint among partyboat
anglers and private boat anglers as compared to shore anglers.
For this study, anglers were categorized by mode group, based on the
particular mode in which they were fishing when they were intercepted
in the field. One objective of this research was to determine the extent
to which anglers switch among different modes of saltwater fishing, and
also switch between saltwater and freshwater fishing. Our results suggest
that Massachusetts anglers tend to fish in multiple modes, water types
(i.e., freshwater and saltwater), and states during the course
of a single year. Shore anglers (59%) were more likely to have purchased
a freshwater fishing license in their state of residence compared to
private boat anglers (52%) and partyboat anglers (35%). The proportion
of anglers purchasing a freshwater license increased with specialization
level for shore and partyboat anglers.
Another objective of this study was to investigate the decline in Massachusetts
partyboat fishing in recent years. Results suggest that some private
boat and shore anglers had shifted their fishing activity -- less partyboat
fishing and more private boat and shore fishing -- in recent years. For
example, of those private boat anglers who reported a decrease in their
partyboat fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998, 85% reported an increase
in their saltwater private boat fishing avidity, and 59% also reported
an increase in their saltwater shore avidity. The decline in partyboat
fishing clientele may also be related to increased popularity with wildlife
watching as an alternative form of marine recreation. Our results found
that 28% of surveyed partyboat anglers indicated that they had taken
a whale-watching cruise during the previous year.
The mode-switching trend that we found among some anglers (i.e.,
less partyboat trips and more private boat and shore trips) may be related
to a shift in species availability. Our results show that striped bass
are by far the most popular species targeted by saltwater shore and private
boat anglers in Massachusetts. During the early to mid-1990s, striped
bass abundance increased dramatically as did recreational catches of
this species. At the same time, the abundance of Atlantic cod, historically
one of the most preferred partyboat species, declined sharply. Our results
suggest that some anglers opportunistically switch fishing modes depending
on the population status of preferred target species.
Input-output analysis was used to estimate the economic importance of
shore fishing, private boat fishing, and partyboat fishing to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and to two coastal subregions within the state. In total,
anglers’ expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998 generated almost
$350 million in sales and over $142 million in income, and funded approximately
5,600 jobs in the commonwealth. Partyboat fees paid to for-hire owners
were the single most important expense category for generating sales,
income, and jobs from partyboat angler expenditures in Massachusetts
and in the two coastal subregions within the commonwealth. Expenditures
for meals at restaurants and for lodging at hotels generated the highest
impacts for anglers fishing from shore and private boats. Bait and tackle
purchases by shore and private boat fishermen also contributed significant
impacts, as did launch fees and boat fuel purchases by private fishermen.
This study also examined angler attitudes towards recreational fishing
regulations and fishery management tools. Our results show that anglers
in all three modes were not very supportive of a proposed saltwater fishing
license in Massachusetts. The percentage of anglers opposing a license
altogether was greater for private boat (72.7%) and shore (75.1%) anglers
than for partyboat anglers (56.6%). The difference was primarily made
up by a much larger percentage of “no opinions” (22.1%) among
partyboat anglers as compared to private boat (3.2%) and shore (4.3%)
anglers. Anglers from all modes were generally supportive of minimum
size limits, daily bag limits, and seasonal restrictions as recreational
fishery management tools. Less than 10% of anglers in all three modes
felt that the reason they didn’t fish more often was related to
fishing regulations being too restrictive.
INTRODUCTION
Saltwater fishing is an extremely popular form of outdoor recreation
in Massachusetts that provides valuable economic, social, educational,
and health-related benefits. Saltwater anglers have varied motivations
and expectations for participating in recreational fishing, and they
collectively make considerable economic expenditures while engaged
in this form of recreation. Saltwater anglers also target a variety
of different fish species, utilize different fishing techniques, and
pursue different angling modes (i.e., partyboat, charter boat,
private boat, and shore).
The partyboat industry, in particular, occupies a unique position
in marine recreational fisheries. It is not only a commercial enterprise
that directly creates jobs and revenues, but it also attracts people
to seaside localities, thus supporting many tourist-driven economies.
In addition, partyboats serve an important role of providing affordable
access to publicly shared marine resources, of which anglers without
private boats may otherwise be deprived. However, there is a lack of
specific data on angler motives and expectations for participating
in partyboat fishing in Massachusetts. In addition, data are lacking
on whether or not Massachusetts partyboat anglers' expectations are
being met and motivations are being satisfied, and on whether expectations,
motivations, or participation patterns have changed with changes in
resource availability.
This study was conducted to answer some of these questions and to
develop a better socioeconomic understanding of Massachusetts partyboat
anglers. While partyboat anglers were the focus of this study, saltwater
private boat and shore anglers were also surveyed for comparative purposes,
and for exploring possible mode switching among anglers. Specific objectives
addressed in this study are: 1) identification and evaluation of Massachusetts
saltwater angler motivations, expectations, and outcomes concerning
their fishing experience, including both catch and noncatch aspects;
2) segmentation of Massachusetts saltwater partyboat, private boat,
and shore anglers into meaningful subgroups for analysis purposes;
3) evaluation of demand (i.e., frequency of participation) for
Massachusetts saltwater fishing opportunities as it relates to fishery
resource condition/availability by fishing mode; 4) evaluation of angler
switching among Massachusetts partyboat, private boat, and shore modes
of fishing; 5) evaluation of trends in angler demand for species-specific
Massachusetts recreational saltwater fishing activity; 6) determination
and evaluation of economic expenditures and economic impacts according
to economic sector and fishing mode; and 7) evaluation of Massachusetts
saltwater anglers' attitudes towards specific fishery management actions.
METHODS
This section is organized into seven subsections: 1) "Development
of Mail Survey Sample Frame," 2) "Development
of Socioeconomic Survey Instrument," 3) "Implementation
of Mail Survey," 4) "Identification
of Angler Subgroups for Analysis," 5) "Treatment
of Potential Sampling Bias," 6) "Data
Processing and Analysis," and 7) "Economic
Expenditure Analysis."
DEVELOPMENT OF MAIL SURVEY SAMPLE FRAME
Prior to implementation of the socioeconomic mail survey of Massachusetts'
saltwater anglers, it was first necessary to establish sample frames
for each mode of interest: partyboat, private boat, and shore. This
establishment of sample frames was accomplished through the onsite
collection of angler names and addresses at Massachusetts saltwater
fishing locations. The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) is a national survey coordinated by NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and conducted annually in all coastal continental
U.S. states except Texas. An important component of the MRFSS is the
Intercept Survey which consists of onsite personal interviews with
anglers at randomly selected marine fishing locations. For cost savings,
logistical considerations, and survey design simplicity, we decided
to piggyback the task of collecting angler names onto the MRFSS Intercept
Survey. This piggybacking was done for private boat and shore modes
only. Development of the partyboat sample is further discussed later.
Private Boat and Shore Modes
Collection of names and addresses occurred from May 1 to September
5, 1998. This sampling period was chosen because it corresponds with
MRFSS sampling Waves 3 and 4 (i.e., May1 - August 31), and because
it includes the peak saltwater fishing months in Massachusetts. Ideally,
anglers in the sample frame would represent all Massachusetts saltwater
anglers who participated in a particular angling mode during 1998.
However, since recreational saltwater fishing occurs in Massachusetts
during all months of the year, this study was limited in temporal scope.
While anglers we encountered from May through early September may actually
fish during other months as well, we cannot assume that our sample
represented the full 12-mo Massachusetts saltwater angler population.
Instead, our sample represents the angler population during this limited
period.
However, MRFSS data show that 82% of 1998 Massachusetts saltwater
anglers fished at least once during July or August, and more than three-fourths
of Massachusetts saltwater trips (76.5%) and total catch (77.5%) for
1998 occurred between May 1 and August 31 (NMFS 2000). These MRFSS
data strongly suggest that most of the 1998 Massachusetts recreational
saltwater fishing population was eligible for sampling during our sample
period. Furthermore, these data also show that our sample period included
the most important months for Massachusetts recreational saltwater
fishing in terms of participation, catch, and expenditures.
The MRFSS Intercept Survey is designed to sample
fishing trips proportional to fishing activity across all locations
within a given state, wave (i.e., 2-mo sampling period), and
mode. Individual sites are weighted (by mode) according to the fishing
pressure at that site, and sites are then selected randomly. High-use
sites have a greater probability of being drawn than do low-use sites.
However, the MRFSS site selection procedure does not follow a straightforward
proportional probability sampling approach. Instead, sites are grouped
according to pressure ranks (e.g., 1-4 anglers, 5-8 anglers,
etc.), and a formula is used to determine the probability of each pressure
rank group being drawn[1]. Therefore, the
probability that a given site will be drawn is a function not only
of its pressure rank, but also of the number of other sites with the
same pressure rank. The fewer sites that there are within a pressure
rank group, the higher the probability of selection of any individual
site within that group. Additionally, low-pressure rank groups are
intentionally downweighted in the MRFSS sample draw. This downweighting
is done primarily to reduce the cost per intercept, since low-pressure
sites are less productive (i.e., less anglers to interview).
Despite these caveats, the statistical validity and representativeness
of the MRFSS site selection sample design were considered adequate
for the purposes of this study. For more details regarding MRFSS sampling
methods, see the MRFSS user's manual (Gray et al. 1994).
At the conclusion of every MRFSS interview of private boat and shore
anglers in Massachusetts during Waves 3 and 4 of 1998, MRFSS interviewers
were instructed to ask anglers if they would be willing to participate
in a followup mail survey conducted by the University of Massachusetts.
If they agreed, the angler's name and address were recorded on an index
card. MRFSS interviewers were also instructed not to collect more than
one index card per family. Although most of our survey questions treat
the individual angler (i.e., not the household) as the unit
of analysis, this one-card-per-family limit had to be done to avoid
duplication and confusion on the economic expenditure questions. In
such cases, interviewers were told to select an adult family member
randomly to avoid biasing the sample intentionally (e.g., always
selecting the more experienced angler). Target sample sizes for returned,
usable mail surveys by mode were based on statistical considerations,
comparisons with previous similar survey research (Rossi et al. 1983),
and the relative importance of each mode to the study. Assuming a 60%
response rate, to achieve our targeted sample size of 885 partyboat,
390 private boat, and 330 shore angler-returned surveys would require
initial mailing lists of 1,475 partyboat anglers, 650 private boat
anglers, and 550 shore anglers.
An attempt was also made to stratify our sample by wave. Since our
survey targets anglers and not individual fishing trips, ideally we
would want to sample the two waves proportional to the number of anglers
per wave by mode. However, since the MRFSS does not estimate angler
effort by mode, we had to approximate effort in terms of trips. The
assumption we make here is that the distribution of trips (by mode)
roughly approximated the distribution of anglers across the two waves
of interest. A 5-yr average of MRFSS trip estimates was used to determine
the proportion of our sample drawn from each wave. In both the partyboat
and private boat modes, 30% of the trips occur in Wave 3 (i.e.,
May-June), and 70% in Wave 4 (i.e., July-August). In the shore
mode, 46% of the trips occur in Wave 3, and 54% in Wave 4.
MRFSS interviewers collected usable names and addresses of 733 private
boat (13% over target) and 464 shore anglers (16% under target) who
indicated a willingness to participate in our followup mail survey.
The percentage of sample collected by wave closely approximated our
target for both the private boat mode (35% in Wave 3, 65% in Wave 4)
and the shore mode (45% in Wave 3, 55% in Wave 4).
Partyboat Mode
The MRFSS target sample sizes for shore and private boat interviewers
for Waves 3 and 4 were sufficiently large to assure an adequate sample
for our purposes using the method of collecting angler names described
previously. However, for the partyboat mode, the MRFSS sample size
in Massachusetts was too small to guarantee a sufficient number of
returned surveys after accounting for onsite refusals and a 60% mail
survey response rate. In addition, the MRFSS combines charter boats
with partyboats into a single intercept sampling mode. Therefore, the
MRFSS randomized site selection sampling of this combined "for-hire" mode
is representative of the combined (i.e., partyboat and charter
boat) fishing activity, not just partyboat activity. For these reasons,
a different sampling approach was used to collect partyboat angler
names than was used to collect private boat and shore angler names.
However, the partyboat angler sample frame was still obtained within
the framework of the MRFSS in order to take advantage of the existing
MRFSS fishing site list and well-established representative sampling
scheme. To obtain the sample frame in this manner, we had the MRFSS
contractor -- Quantech, Inc. -- run simulated MRFSS site assignment
draws for the Massachusetts party/charter boat mode for Waves 3 and
4. However, we first had to account for the MRFSS site selection procedure
combining the "for hire" modes (i.e., partyboats and
charter boats), while our study was only interested in partyboats.
Therefore, we eliminated from the site register all MRFSS partyboat/charter
boat sites that only had charter boat activity, and reduced the fishing
pressure rank of sites with both modes to only reflect partyboat activity.
Experienced MRFSS interviewers were helpful in determining the new
(i.e., partyboat only) pressure ranks for these sites. Adjusted
pressure ranks were assigned to each site by month and day type (i.e.,
weekday and weekend/holiday). A total of 17 active Massachusetts partyboat
fishing sites were included in our site selection program.
Since we did not know how many names and addresses we could obtain
per assignment, the initial simulated draw was fairly large to avoid
a major shortfall. As long as assignments are conducted in the order
that they are drawn, the design's randomness will not be hindered if
some assignments (i.e., reserves) are not actually completed.
The site assignment list indicated which sites to visit, how often
to visit each site, and in what order sites were to be visited over
each 2-mo wave. For logistical and budgetary reasons, it was not always
possible to follow the exact site visitation order, and some flexibility
was allowed. The actual sites to visit and the frequency of visits
per wave (as determined by the draw) took precedence over the specific
dates assigned to each site. For example, if two nearby sites were
to be visited 1 wk apart, but the driving distance to these sites was
great, cost considerations would dictate both sites being sampled on
the same day. Since sites were generally visited within 1 wk of assignment
date, a fairly even distribution of site visits was achieved across
the wave. Only one site (i.e., Nantucket Island) was not visited
due to budgetary considerations. The MRFSS assignment draw is designed
not only to spread sampling effort across the wave, but also to achieve
a 60%-40% split between weekend/holiday and weekday visits. Every effort
was made to approximate this split in the distribution and management
of our sampling effort whenever logistically possible.
Although our sample design was intended to sample proportionally
to the number of partyboat anglers present, in reality, other factors
affected interviewer productivity. One important factor was the receptivity
of partyboat captains (or site administrators) to our interviewers
or our study. For example, at some sites, our interviewers were physically
chased off the premises and asked not to return, while at other sites,
captains actively assisted in collecting angler names. Angler cooperation
rates also seemed to vary by fishing site and location. Other factors
that may have affected individual site productivity included trip type,
physical layout of the site (e.g., distance from boat to parking
lot, and number and location of partyboats), and interviewer's personal
skills. However, despite these potential sampling biases, we believe
that our sample of Massachusetts partyboat angler names was still representative
of the true population, and therefore sufficient for the purposes of
this study.
Field staff for the collection of partyboat angler names and addresses
were trained University of Massachusetts students. To decrease travel
costs and to increase productivity, partyboat captains and mates were
also employed at some sites to collect names and addresses of their
patrons on specified days. A total of 1,064 usable names and addresses
of partyboat anglers were collected for the followup mail survey. This
27% shortfall from our targeted sample size was primarily due to lower
productivity than expected at some sites, and the unexpected departure
of several field interviewers during the sampling period. The percentage
of sample collected by wave (27% in Wave 3, 73% in Wave 4) closely
approximated our target (30% in Wave 3, 70% in Wave 4).
DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Mail survey instrument questions were designed to address the specific
objectives of this study (see "Introduction" section).
Questionnaires for the three modes of interest (i.e., partyboat,
private boat, and shore) were nearly identical with only minor differences
in wording and mode-specific questions (Appendices
A1, A2, and A3).
Recreational-fishing-related socioeconomic questions which had already
been tested and proven effective in previous studies (e.g.,
conducted at Texas A&M University and the University of Massachusetts),
were used whenever possible. In some instances, new questions had to
be developed; these questions were thoroughly reviewed inhouse for
meaning, clarity, comprehensibility, and language.
Questionnaires were 16 pages long (on 7 x 8.5-inch pages), including
a front cover and a back page for angler comments. Areas covered by
the questionnaire included basic demographics, avidity (current and
trends), species preferences, specialization level, trip expenditures,
motivations, expectations, constraints, and attitudes towards fishery
management. NMFS fishery economists were consulted in development of
the economic expenditure section. For analysis purposes, the economic
section of the survey split Massachusetts' coastal counties into the
following two zones: Zone 1 (Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, Plymouth,
Bristol, Suffolk, and Norfolk Counties) and Zone 2 (Essex and Middlesex
Counties). Economic expenditure information was collected by zone,
and a map (Appendix B) was provided to help
anglers delineate zones. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
staff were also consulted in overall questionnaire design, particularly
on questions related to fishery management and the possible implementation
of a saltwater fishing license.
IMPLEMENTATION OF MAIL SURVEY
In an attempt to maximize return rates, we followed the techniques
for mail survey implementation described by Salant and Dillman (1994).
All members of the sample were mailed a personalized (i.e.,
hand-signed, stamped, and addressed) advance-notice letter, reminding
them that they had agreed to participate in the survey, and that they
would be receiving their questionnaire within the following week. One-week
later, a set of survey materials was mailed to all members of the sample.
These materials included the questionnaire, a cover letter describing
the intent of the survey, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for
returning completed surveys. Two weeks after mailing the advance-notice
letter, a thank you/reminder postcard was mailed to all members of
the sample. This followup served to thank those who had already completed
and returned their questionnaire, and to request a response from those
who had not.
Five weeks after mailing the advance-notice letter, a second set
of survey materials was sent to those who had not yet responded. This
second survey package was identical to the first, except that the cover
letter was revised to further encourage anglers to return completed
surveys.
IDENTIFICATION OF ANGLER SUBGROUPS FOR ANALYSIS
Outdoor recreation participants generally display wide variation in
their experiences, avidity, expertise, commitment, economic expenditures,
and social interactions related to a particular activity. Connected
to this variation are important sociological and psychological differences
affecting motivations, expectations, desired outcomes, satisfaction
levels, perceptions, and social norms. Outdoor recreation managers
must recognize and accommodate these differences in order to provide
satisfactory experiences to a widely diverse clientele.
Recreation Specialization
Recreation specialization is a concept and an area of study that attempt
to describe the variation among participants of a particular activity
(e.g., recreational fishing) through segmenting the population
into meaningful and identifiable subgroups. Recreation specialization
studies have segmented recreation participants into meaningful subgroups
using a variety of variables including equipment, skill level, activity
setting preferences, avidity, centrality to lifestyle, and expenditures.
However, Ditton et al. (1992) pointed to the tautological reasoning
behind defining specialization in terms of behaviors and preferences,
and then using specialization to predict those same behaviors and preferences.
They reconceptualized specialization into a testable theory by linking
it with elements of "social worlds." A social world is defined
as an "internally recognizable constellation of actors, organizations,
events and practices which have coalesced into a perceived sphere of
interest and involvement for participants" (Unruh 1979). Our theoretical
foundation for segmenting anglers into specialization groups was taken
from the Ditton et al. (1992) reconceptualization of recreation
specialization.
Recreation specialization is important for fishery management because
it recognizes that there is no such thing as an "average" angler.
Anglers generally display wide variation in their experiences, avidity,
expertise, commitment, economic expenditures, and social interactions
related to fishing. Connected to this variation are important sociological
and psychological differences affecting motivations, expectations,
desired outcomes, satisfaction levels, social norms, and attitudes
towards fishery management decisions. For example, specialization theory
predicts that more-specialized anglers will have greater support for
fishery management rules and regulatory procedures, place more importance
on non activity-specific elements of the fishing experience (e.g.,
enjoying nature, relaxing, being with friends or family, etc.), place
less importance on activity-specific elements of the fishing experience
(i.e., catching fish), and have a greater financial and emotional
investment in fishing as compared to less-specialized anglers.
Recreation Specialization Index Development
A specialization index developed by Salz and Loomis (2000), that segments
anglers based on four main social world characteristics (i.e., orientation,
experiences, relationships, and commitment), was utilized for this
study. Mail survey questions were designed to measure each of these
characteristics (see Appendices A1, A2,
and A3, Questions 9-12). Question response
options, consisting of statements describing a participant's connection
to an activity relative to that particular characteristic, were ordered
from least specialized (response = 1) to most specialized (response
= 4) along a four-point scale. Anglers were segmented into four groups
(ranging from least to most specialized) based on cumulative response
scores to index items as follows:
- If cumulative score = 4-6, then index level = 1 (least specialized).
- If cumulative score = 7-10, then index level = 2 (moderately specialized).
- If cumulative score = 11-13, then index level = 3 (very specialized).
- If cumulative score = 14-16, then index level = 4 (most specialized).
TREATMENT OF POTENTIAL SAMPLING BIAS
Although our survey design was intended, to the extent possible, to
sample a representative population of Massachusetts saltwater anglers
(by mode), potential sampling bias still had to be addressed for each
stage of sampling. The first stage involved the onsite collection of
angler names and addresses at saltwater fishing locations throughout
Massachusetts. A primary concern when sampling a population of recreational
participants while they are actively participating in the activity
of interest is that of avidity bias. Avidity bias refers to the fact
that more avid participants are more likely to be encountered onsite,
and, therefore, have a higher probability of being sampled. For example,
an angler who fished from partyboats 10 days during our sampling period
was 10 times more likely to be intercepted than an angler who only
fished from a partyboat 1 day during that period. Avidity bias can
be problematic if more avid participants differ from less avid participants
in a way that is significant to the study. To correct for this potential
bias, we created a weighting variable that would downweight more avid
anglers, and upweight less avid anglers. This variable was the inverse
of angler avidity (i.e., weighting factor = 1/avidity). Avidity
was measured as the number of days fished recreationally in saltwater
in Massachusetts in a particular mode during the past 12 mo. All analyses
(except those in the "Economic Expenditure Analysis" section)
were weighted by this variable (e.g., weighted means and weighted
frequency distributions). Ideally, the weighting variable would have
been the inverse of angler avidity only during our 4-mo sampling
period. However, since these data were not available, 12-mo avidity
was used instead. Weighting factors using 12-mo avidity should closely
resemble the true weights (during our sampling period), since most
Massachusetts saltwater fishing activity occurs from May through August.
The second type of potential sampling bias that we addressed was
related to nonresponse. Nonresponse bias occurs when a significant
percentage of the sample does not respond and nonrespondents
differ from respondents in a way that is significant to the results.
Nonresponse bias can be a problem at any stage of sampling. For our
study, nonrespondents included both anglers who refused to give their
names for the followup mail survey (i.e., initial refusals)
and anglers who agreed to participate but did not follow through by
returning the survey. While no data are available on initial refusals,
our mail survey nonresponse rates ranged from 34.5% (private boat)
to 49.5% (partyboat).
To test for nonresponse bias, we compared our mail
survey respondents with those anglers intercepted onsite by the MRFSS
for the waves corresponding with our sample period (i.e., Waves
3 and 4, 1998). The percentage of anglers refusing to cooperate on
MRFSS intercepts for these two waves was small in all modes[2].
Therefore, by comparing mail survey respondents with MRFSS-intercepted
anglers, we are essentially conducting a nonresponse check for both
types of nonrespondents (i.e., initial refusals and survey not
returned) simultaneously. For the private boat and shore modes, the
MRFSS sample design was identical to ours, since MRFSS interviewers
actually collected our sample. In addition, our partyboat sample design
closely approximated the MRFSS design since we used the same site register,
same site selection procedure, and same monthly targets. Both the 12-mo
avidity in mode and the residence status (i.e., Massachusetts
versus out-of-state) were used to compare mail survey respondents with
MRFSS-intercepted anglers. Results of this comparison are summarized
in Table
1. In general,
differences between mail survey respondent and MRFSS-intercepted angler
avidity and residence composition were relatively small. These results
suggest that mail survey nonrespondents did not differ significantly
from MRFSS-intercepted anglers for the variables investigated. While
the possibility remains that nonrespondents differed from anglers on
other variables of interest, our initial investigation suggests that
nonresponse bias is not of great concern here.
DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
Returned usable surveys were entered into three datasets (one per
mode) for error checking and data analyses purposes. Range checks,
outlier analyses, and multivariable logic checks were performed, and
corrections were made as necessary. In most cases, errors were converted
to missing values, as it was not possible to determine positively the
correct or intended value. Determinations of economic expenditure variable
outliers were made in consultation with NMFS fishery economists experienced
in working with such economic data. Most statistical analyses consisted
primarily of weighted means and weighted frequency distributions (see
earlier discussion of weighting procedures).
ECONOMIC EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS
In 1998, over 630 thousand saltwater anglers fished 3.4 million days
in Massachusetts (NMFS 2000). Fishing from shore, a private boat, or
a for-hire fishing boat offers an important leisure outlet for many
individuals in the commonwealth, and also generates economic activity
in the form of sales, income, and employment. During the course of
a fishing trip, anglers purchase a variety of goods and services, spending
money on bait, tackle, groceries, boat fees, lodging, restaurants,
travel costs, and other trip-related expenditures. These purchases
directly affect the sales, income, and employment of businesses that
supply goods and services to saltwater anglers in Massachusetts. Businesses
providing these goods and services must also purchase goods and services
and hire employees, which in turn, generate more sales, income, and
employment in the commonwealth.
Three levels of economic impacts result from purchases by saltwater
fishermen: 1) direct, 2) indirect, and 3) induced. Direct impacts are
the sales, income, and employment generated from initial purchases
by anglers (e.g., bait and tackle stores or sporting goods stores
selling bait to anglers). Indirect impacts are sales, income, and employment
of support industries that supply the directly affected industries
(e.g., bait and tackle stores must purchase bait from dealers
or fishermen, tackle from wholesalers, and electricity from power supply
companies, and must pay labor). Induced impacts represent the sales,
income, and employment resulting from expenditures by employees of
the direct and indirect sectors (e.g., bait and tackle store
employees purchase groceries and incur utility bills). Total impacts
equal the sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts.
Input-output analysis (IOA) is the most common approach available
for describing the structure and interactions of businesses in a regional
economy. An IOA is capable of tracking the quantity and purchase location
of expenditures by anglers, support businesses, and employees of the
directly and indirectly affected industries. Also, IOA assessments
can be used to reveal how anglers' expenditures affect the overall
economic activity in a particular region, such as sales, income, and
employment. For the analysis presented here, a regional IOA modeling
system called IMPLAN (impact analysis for planning) was used to determine
the economic importance of shore fishing, private boat fishing, and
partyboat fishing to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to two coastal
subregions within the state (see Appendix B for
map of Massachusetts Saltwater Fishing Zones).
Average daily trip-related expenditures per fisherman were computed
from the 1998 survey of Massachusetts saltwater shore fishing, private
boat fishing, and partyboat fishing. Mean expenditures were estimated
for each mode of fishing in three geographical regions: 1) Zone 1 --
Norfolk, Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket Counties,
2) Zone 2 -- Essex and Middlesex Counties, and 3) the entire state
of Massachusetts. The average daily trip-related expenditures per participant
were multiplied by the MRFSS estimates of total fishing days by mode
in each geographical region in 1998 to derive total expense estimates.
Economic impacts were estimated by applying the total expense estimates
to the appropriate IMPLAN sector multipliers (i.e., expressing
relationships between sectoral economic activity) in each geographical
region. Regional impacts were estimated for sales, income, and employment.
Sales reflect total dollar sales generated from expenditures by anglers
in the particular region. Income represents wages, salaries, benefits,
and proprietary income generated from angler expenditures. Employment
includes both full-time and part-time workers, and is expressed as
total jobs.
The economic expenditure analysis differed from all other analyses
in several important ways. First, expenditures were not analyzed by
mode and specialization level (as with the other objectives) but instead
by mode and geographic zone. Saltwater-fishing-trip-related expenditures
were estimated by angler residence category (i.e., Zone 1, Zone
2, noncoastal Massachusetts, or out-of-state) and location of fishing
trip (i.e., Zone 1 or Zone 2). The economic analysis also differed
in its focus on the angler trip (and not the angler) as the unit of
analysis. For the other objectives of this study, it was important
to obtain a representative sample of Massachusetts saltwater anglers,
and therefore, weighting was necessary to correct for avidity bias.
However, for the economic analysis, weighting was not necessary since
it was only important to obtain a representative sample of saltwater
fishing trips (not anglers).
The 1998 Massachusetts saltwater fishing trip estimates
needed to run IMPLAN were estimated based on MRFSS data[3].
However, only MRFSS coastal county resident trips were available at
the level of detail necessary (i.e., by mode, angler county
of residence, and county of trip). MRFSS noncoastal county Massachusetts
resident and noncoastal county out-of-state resident trips were only
available in aggregate form and not at the county level. Therefore,
ratio estimators from the MRFSS intercept data were used to assign
the noncoastal county resident trips to either Zone 1 or Zone 2. These
ratio estimators were simply the proportion of noncoastal county resident
MRFSS intercepts by residence (i.e., Massachusetts versus out-of-state),
wave, and mode for 1998.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 511 partyboat, 470 private boat, and 269 shore mode questionnaires
were returned in usable form (Table
2). Overall response rates were 50.5% for partyboat anglers, 65.5%
for private boat anglers, and 61.4% for shore anglers.
Data analysis was divided into subsections according to seven project
objectives. In addition to these seven subsections, two subsections
are included for basic demographics and angler avidity, and for angler
partyboat selection criteria. Each subsection (except those dealing
with economic expenditure analysis and partyboat selection criteria)
is further divided into four parts: three parts respectively discussing
results for the three fishing modes (i.e., partyboat, private
boat, and shore), and one part comparing results among fishing modes.
Each subsection highlights the most significant findings related to
that objective, and references a series of tables with summarized data.
As discussed in the "Methods" section, to correct for potential
avidity bias, all means and frequency distributions are weighted by
the inverse of avidity (i.e., 12-mo, Massachusetts, saltwater
trips, in specific mode).
MASSACHUSETTS RECREATIONAL SALTWATER ANGLER SEGMENTATION
Frequency distributions of responses to the four questions used to
segment anglers into specialization groups were calculated for each
angling mode (Table 3).
For each specialization question, a response of "1" corresponded
with specialization level 1 or "least specialized," a response
of "2" corresponded with specialization level 2 or "moderately
specialized," a response of "3" corresponded with specialization
level 3 or "very specialized," and a response of "4" corresponded
with specialization level 4 or "most specialized." Thus,
an angler could be "least specialized" for one characteristic
of specialization (e.g., relationships) and "highly specialized" for
another characteristic (e.g., commitment). The four characteristics
were combined to produce an overall level of specialization for each
angler using the specialization index described earlier in the "Recreation
Specialization Index Development" section.
Partyboat Anglers
More than two-thirds of partyboat anglers indicated they felt like "observers
or irregular participants" when partyboat fishing, and less than
3% felt like "insiders to the sport" (Table
3). One-half of partyboat anglers reported having no established
relationships with other partyboat anglers, and only 15% reported having
established either "familiar" or "close" relationships.
Frequency distributions of partyboat angler specialization level
by mode are shown in Table 4. Only 20% of partyboat anglers were categorized
as either "very specialized" or "most specialized."
Private Boat Anglers
About one out of four (27.1%) private boat anglers felt like an "insider" to
private boat fishing, and another 44.8% felt like "habitual of
regular participants." Most private boat anglers reported they
had established some relationships with other private boat anglers,
and for many (45%), these relationships were described as "familiar" or "close."
Overall, 64% of private boat anglers were categorized as either "very
specialized" or "most specialized" using our method
for segmentation. The "least specialized" private boat angler
group was extremely small (0.5%). This group was excluded from subsequent
subgroup analyses according to specialization level due to its small
sample size.
There are several possible explanations as to why the "least
specialized" group made up such a small proportion of our sample.
First, we should not rule out the possibility that this specialization
group may, in fact, be much smaller in size than the other specialization
groups for saltwater private boat anglers. This would be the case if
the learning curve from "least specialized" to "moderately
specialized" requires a relatively short time period. Second,
nonresponse bias could also be a possible explanation if the probability
of an angler returning our survey was positively correlated to the
angler's specialization level. However, our nonresponse error checks
do not support this explanation. Third, the choice of words we used
for the "least specialized" response options could explain
the low percentage of anglers selecting those options. Private boat
anglers may have felt too embarrassed or ashamed to identify themselves
with words such as "outsider," "uncomfortable," "unsure," or "uncertain," all
of which may have strong negative connotations.
Our results suggest that "least specialized" private boat
anglers are either more difficult to sample than more-specialized anglers,
or that "least specialized" anglers are truly a small minority
of the saltwater private boat angling population.
Shore Anglers
Nearly one-half (47.2%) of shore anglers felt like "an observer
or irregular participant" when saltwater shore fishing, while
only 16.1% felt like "insiders to the sport" of saltwater
shore fishing (Table 3). The majority of
surveyed shore anglers indicated that they had not established "familiar" or "close" relationships
with other shore anglers.
Similar to private boat anglers, a very small proportion (4.5%) of
shore anglers was grouped into the "least specialized" level
(Table 4). This very small
proportion resulted in sample sizes for the "least specialized" group
of shore anglers being too small to include in subsequent subgroup
analyses according to specialization level. Explanations as to why
the "least specialized" group made up such a small proportion
of shore anglers are similar to those discussed for private boat anglers.
Mode Comparison
In general, partyboat anglers appeared less connected to partyboat
fishing than were either private boat anglers to private boat fishing
or shore anglers to shore fishing. More than two-thirds of partyboat
anglers indicated they felt like "observers or irregular participants" when
partyboat fishing, and less than 3% felt like "insiders" to
the sport. By contrast 27.1% of private boat anglers felt like "insiders" to
private boat fishing and another 44.8% felt like "habitual or
regular participants." One-half of partyboat anglers reported
having no established relationships with other partyboat anglers and
only 15% reported having established either "familiar" or "close" relationships.
Most private boat and shore anglers said they established some relationships
with other anglers in their respective modes, and for many (45% private
boat, 42% shore) these relationships were described as "familiar" or "close." Partyboat
anglers were also, in general, far less committed to partyboat fishing
than were private boat or shore anglers to their respective modes of
fishing.
In general, there were more highly specialized private boat anglers
than highly specialized shore anglers, who were, in turn, more numerous
than highly specialized partyboat anglers. Only 20% of partyboat anglers
were categorized as either "very" or "most specialized," compared
to 44% of shore anglers and 64% of private boat anglers.
BASIC DEMOGRAPHICS AND ANGLER AVIDITY
Partyboat Anglers
Nearly 80% of surveyed partyboat anglers were male (Table
5), and less than 6% indicated something other than "white" as
their ethnic background. About one-half of the surveyed partyboat
anglers were not residents of Massachusetts.
The group of "most specialized" partyboat anglers preferred
full-day trips to half-day trips (Table
6). The proportion of partyboat anglers who did either evening/night
or overnight partyboat fishing (in the previous year) increased with
specialization level. Overnight trips, in particular, were almost exclusively
made by "most specialized" partyboat anglers. As expected,
years partyboat fishing, 12-mo avidity, age, and percent male all increased
with partyboat respondent specialization level (Table
7). Whereas "least specialized," "moderately specialized," and "very
specialized" partyboat anglers are evenly split between Massachusetts
and out-of-state residents, a large majority of the "most specialized" partyboat
anglers were from out-of-state. Although the sample size for this group
was small, these results suggest that a significant proportion of the
most committed, experienced, and knowledgeable Massachusetts partyboat
anglers reside in other states.
Private Boat Anglers
An overwhelming majority of surveyed private boat anglers were white
males (Table 5). Most surveyed private boat
anglers were also Massachusetts residents. Similar to the partyboat
mode, years fished, avidity, and percent male all increased with increasing
specialization level among private boat anglers (Table
8).
Shore Anglers
Similar to the private boat mode, an overwhelming majority of shore
anglers were white males (Table 5). A fairly
large percentage of surveyed shore anglers were not Massachusetts residents
(40.7%). Years fished, avidity, and percent male all increased with
increasing specialization level among shore anglers (Table
9).
Mode Comparison
The partyboat survey had a greater proportion of female anglers (20.3%)
than the other two modes (private boat 3.2%, shore 2.6%). A relatively
large proportion of anglers were not residents of Massachusetts. However,
this out-of-state residency was most evident in the partyboat (49.3%)
and shore (40.7%) modes, and less so in the private boat mode (28.0%).
Another difference between modes was that for partyboat anglers, specialization
level increases with age, whereas age appeared unrelated to specialization
level among private boat and shore anglers.
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF MASSACHUSETTS
ANGLER MOTIVATIONS, EXPECTATIONS, AND OUTCOMES
Partyboat Anglers
Anglers were asked to indicate how important 15 different reasons
were for going saltwater fishing in Massachusetts in their respective
modes. Responses were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "1
= not at all important" to "5 = extremely important." On
average, partyboat anglers rated "fun of catching fish" and "to
be outdoors" as the two most important reasons (Table
10). Other highly rated reasons included "relaxation," "experience
of the catch," and "to share experiences with others." The
reason of "obtaining fish to eat" was rated as being only
slightly to moderately important.
Partyboat anglers were asked to select their top three reasons (from
the 15 given) for going saltwater partyboat fishing in Massachusetts.
Responses to this question were different than what one would have
predicted based on relative importance scores from Table
10. "For family recreation" was selected as the most
important reason more frequently (18.7%) than any other reason, even
though this response only ranked seventh in relative importance based
on the five-point scale (Table
11). Similarly, "to share experiences with friends, family,
others" was selected as the most important reason second-most
frequently (17.9%), even though this reason tied for third in relative
importance based on the five-point scale. In terms of relative importance, "share
experiences with friends, family, others " scored the same (3.81)
as "for experience of the catch" and "relaxation." However,
far more anglers selected "share experiences with friends, family,
others" (45.6%) as one of their top three reasons than selected "for
experience of the catch"(24.8%) or "relaxation" (31.3%).
These results suggest that for many partyboat anglers, the social aspects
of partyboat fishing (and the family-related aspects in particular)
are an extremely important reason for selecting this form of recreation. "Fun
of catching fish" also ranked high as nearly half the partyboat
anglers (46.1%) selected this as one of their top three reasons for
partyboat fishing.
Reasons for partyboat fishing were also investigated according to
specialization level (Table
12). In general, the importance of a reason for going partyboat
fishing increased with specialization level for all reasons. This trend
indicates that the more-specialized partyboat anglers have multiple
reasons or motivations for going fishing, as opposed to less-specialized
anglers who have fewer reasons. For example, "most specialized" partyboat
anglers rated 11 (out of 15) reasons as being between "very" and "extremely" important,
on average. In contrast, "least specialized" partyboat anglers
did not rate any reason as being between "very" and "extremely" important,
on average.
When anglers were asked to rank their top three reasons, "fun
of catching fish" was ranked high by all specialization levels
(Table 13). The importance
of "relaxation" and to "get away from the demands of
others" generally increased with specialization level, whereas
the social aspects of partyboat fishing were more important for less-specialized
anglers. However, one-fourth of the "most specialized" partyboat
anglers ranked "to catch fish to share with others" in their
top three, indicating a dimension to the social benefits of partyboat
fishing that occurs after the trip is completed. For beginners, the
novelty of partyboat fishing was an important reason, as nearly 35%
of "least specialized" anglers ranked "to experience
new and different things" as one of their top three reasons.
To investigate catch-related aspects of saltwater fishing, we asked
anglers whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements
related to catching fish. Almost two-thirds (65.9%) of partyboat anglers
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "the more fish
I catch the happier I am"; however, over 57% of partyboat anglers
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "I would rather
catch one or two big fish than ten smaller fish" (Table
14). About one-half (51.7%) of all surveyed partyboat anglers either
agreed or strongly agreed that "a successful trip is one in which
many fish are caught"; on the other hand, almost one-half (49.9%)
of surveyed partyboat anglers agreed or strongly agreed with, and only
26.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed with, the statement that "a
fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught."
Catch-related aspects of saltwater partyboat fishing were also investigated
according to specialization level. More-specialized partyboat anglers
were more likely to agree with the statement "I usually eat the
fish I catch" (Table 15). "Least
specialized" partyboat anglers were less concerned with the type
of fish they caught than were the more-specialized groups.
Private Boat Anglers
On average, private boat anglers rated "relaxation" as the
most important reason for going saltwater private boat fishing, followed
by "fun of catching fish," "to be outdoors," and "to
be close to the water" (Table
16). Reasons for going saltwater private boat fishing rated as
less important included catching fish for consumption (i.e., either
to eat or to share with other people) and testing equipment. Over 40%
of private boat anglers selected "to share experiences with friends,
family, others" as one of their top three reasons for going fishing
(Table 17), trailing only
the reasons of "relaxation" (49.3%) and "to be outdoors" (44.6%).
Table 18 shows mean responses
by private boat anglers concerning the importance of various attributes
of their fishing experience according to specialization level, and Table
19 shows the proportion selecting each reason as one of their top
three according to specialization level. The importance of nearly every
attribute of the private boat fishing experience increased with specialization
level. This is not surprising since more-specialized anglers fish more
often and should therefore have more reasons for going fishing, and
should rank those reasons higher in importance.
A large proportion (75.6%) of private boat anglers either agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement that "a fishing trip can
be a success even if no fish are caught" (Table
20). However, only 25.4% of private boat anglers either agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement that "when I go fishing
I'm just as happy if I don't catch a fish." The responses to these
two questions seem to indicate that while private boat anglers are
motivated to fish for reasons other than catching fish, catching fish
is an important factor in terms of their overall satisfaction. Only
19.9% of private boat anglers either strongly disagreed or disagreed
with the statement that "I'm just as happy if I don't keep the
fish I catch." This response suggests a fairly strong catch-and-release
ethic among Massachusetts private boat saltwater anglers.
The importance of catching a particular type of fish increased with
specialization level among private boat anglers (Table
21). The "most specialized" private boat anglers were
more concerned with the size of the fish, and less concerned with the
quantity, as compared to either moderately of very specialized groups.
Shore Anglers
On average, shore anglers rated "relaxation" as the most
important reason for going saltwater shore fishing, followed by "fun
of catching fish," "to be outdoors," and "to be
close to the water" (Table
22). Consumption-related reasons (i.e., to eat or share
fish with others), to test equipment, and to catch a "trophy" fish
were among the least highly rated reasons to go saltwater shore fishing.
Nearly one-half of shore anglers (49.2%) selected "relaxation" as
one of their top three reasons for going saltwater shore fishing (Table
23).
Similar to the other two modes, the importance of most attributes
of the shore fishing experience increased with increasing specialization
level (Table 24), indicating
that more-specialized anglers have more reasons to go fishing than
do less-specialized anglers. When asked to rank their top three reasons
for saltwater shore fishing, less-specialized anglers placed more emphasis
on the "fun of catching fish" than did more-specialized anglers
(Table 25). By contrast,
the "most specialized" shore anglers placed more importance
on the "challenge or sport" and "catching a trophy fish" than
did less-specialized shore anglers.
Nearly 80% of shore anglers either agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement that "a fishing trip can be a success even if no
fish are caught" (Table
26). Similarly, a large proportion of shore anglers indicated they
were just as happy if they didn't keep the fish they caught. The importance
of catching a particular type of fish increased with specialization
level among shore anglers (Table
27). The "most specialized" group was more concerned
with the size of the fish caught and less concerned with the quantity
as compared to either the "moderately specialized" or "very
specialized" groups.
Mode Comparison
Private boat anglers generally rated all attributes of the fishing
experience as more important reasons for going private boat fishing
than partyboat anglers or shore anglers for fishing in their respective
modes. For example, private boat anglers on average rated 6 out of
the 15 attributes as being between "very" and "extremely" important
reasons to go private boat fishing. By comparison, on average, shore
anglers rated only 3 out of 15 attributes as being between "very" and "extremely" important
reasons to go shore fishing, and partyboat anglers rated no attributes
as being between a "very" and "extremely" important
reason to go partyboat fishing. Partyboat anglers rated "for family
recreation" as a more important reason to fish than did either
private boat or shore anglers. For all three modes, anglers rated "fun
of catching fish," "to be outdoors," and "relaxation" among
the top three reasons to go fishing in their particular mode. "To
obtain fish to eat" was rated by anglers from all modes, on average,
as between "slightly" and "moderately" important.
Anglers were also asked to rank their top three reasons for fishing. "For
family recreation" (18.7%) and "to share experiences with
friends, family and others" (17.9%) were selected as the most
important reason to go partyboat fishing more often than any other
reasons. By contrast, the top two reasons selected as most important
by private boat and shore anglers were "relaxation" and "to
be outdoors." Only 16.5% of private boat anglers and 18.8% of
shore anglers selected "for family recreation" as being one
of their top three reasons to go fishing in their respective modes.
Nearly one out of three (32.2%) partyboat anglers selected "for
family recreation" as being one of their top three reasons to
go partyboat fishing. These results suggest that partyboat angler motivations
to saltwater fish are more connected to family than are private boat
or shore angler motivations to saltwater fish.
Motivations to fish were also compared across modes according to
specialization level. Major differences were found comparing the consumptive
aspects of fishing across modes for the "most specialized" anglers. "Most
specialized" partyboat anglers rated both "to obtain fish
to eat" and "to catch fish to share with others" as
being between "very" and "extremely" important
reasons to fish. By comparison, "most specialized" shore
anglers rated these two consumptive attributes as being between "slightly" and "moderately" important. "Most
specialized" private boat anglers rated "to obtain fish to
eat" as being between "slightly" and "moderately" important,
and "to catch fish to share with others" as being a "moderately" important
reason to fish. For all three modes, the importance of obtaining fish
to eat seemed to increase generally with increasingly angler specialization
level.
These results are counter to what is generally predicted by current
recreation specialization theory (Ditton et al. 1992). Previous
studies have shown that the relative importance placed on consumptive
aspects of fishing (as compared to nonconsumptive aspects) declines
as the angler becomes more specialized. However, much of this research
was done on freshwater anglers who may have very different motivations
to fish than do saltwater anglers. Our results suggest that saltwater
anglers may be more consumption oriented than freshwater anglers. Furthermore,
among highly specialized saltwater anglers, partyboat anglers tend
to be more consumption oriented than either private boat or shore anglers.
Catch-related aspects of saltwater fishing were also compared across
fishing modes. About one out of four partyboat anglers (26.3%) disagreed
or strongly disagreed with the statement that "a fishing trip
can be a success even if no fish are caught." By comparison only
9.2% of private boat anglers and 5.1% of shore anglers either disagreed
or strongly disagreed with this statement. Partyboat anglers, on average,
were more likely than either private boat or shore anglers to agree
with the statement that "a successful trip is one in which many
fish are caught." Thus, catch-related aspects may be more important
to partyboat anglers, on average, than to either private boat or shore
anglers. Partyboat anglers were also more likely than either private
boat or shore anglers to agree (or strongly agree) with the statement
that "I usually eat the fish I catch." "Most specialized" partyboat
anglers were, on average, less concerned about the type of fish they
caught as compared to "most specialized" private boat and
shore anglers.
EVALUATION OF DEMAND FOR MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER
FISHING OPPORTUNITIES AS IT RELATES TO FISHERY RESOURCE CONDITION/AVAILABILITY,
ACCORDING TO MODE
This objective explores various reasons why anglers do not go saltwater
fishing in Massachusetts more often. Reasons explored included real
physical constraints (e.g., time, cost, and distance) and psychological
constraints (e.g., crowding, expectations, satisfaction attainment).
For purposes of this analysis, reasons for not fishing were grouped
into three categories: resource-related reasons, fishing-mode-specific
reasons, and other reasons.
Partyboat Anglers
For partyboat anglers, resource-related reasons were generally not
important factors limiting their partyboat fish ing avidity (Table
28). For example, only one out of five partyboat anglers agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement that "I can't catch enough
fish to suit me." The three reasons partyboat anglers ranked highest
for not fishing from partyboats more often were related to other demands
on time, other leisure activities, and partyboats being too crowded.
The majority (~70%) of partyboat anglers were generally satisfied overall
with their partyboat fishing experiences in Massachusetts (Table
29).
According to specialization level, the costs of partyboat fishing
and travel distance to sites were more important reasons for not fishing
for "least specialized" partyboat anglers as compared to
more-specialized anglers (Table
30). Similarly, other demands on time, other leisure activities,
and difficulty finding others to fish with were viewed as more constraining
by less-specialized anglers. Overall satisfaction with partyboat fishing
in Massachusetts generally increased with angler specialization level
(Table 31).
Private Boat Anglers
The two reasons private boat anglers ranked highest for not fishing
more often were "too many other demands on my time" and "other
leisure activities take up my time" (Table
32). Reasons related to fishery resource condition were generally
not seen as affecting private boat fishing avidity. Overall, private
boat anglers were very satisfied with both their private boat fishing
experiences and boat dockage and launch sites in Massachusetts (Table
33).
Other demands on time, other leisure activities, and difficulty finding
others to fish with were viewed as more constraining by less-specialized
private boat anglers than by more-specialized private boat anglers
(Table 34). Similarly,
less-specialized private boat anglers were more constrained by not
always having access to a boat as compared to more-specialized anglers. "Most
specialized" private boat anglers were slightly more satisfied
overall with the fishing opportunities in Massachusetts as compared
to "moderately specialized" or "very specialized" private
boat anglers (Table 35).
However, "most specialized" private boat anglers were less
satisfied with the boat dockage and launch sites available in Massachusetts
as compared to "moderately specialized" private boat anglers
(Table 35).
Shore Anglers
Similar to the other modes, shore anglers indicated that too many
other demands on their time and other leisure activities were the most
constraining reasons for not fishing more often (Table
36). Shore anglers generally did not consider the inability to
catch enough fish (or keepers) to suit their needs as important fishing
constraints. Nearly 80% of shore anglers either disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the statement that "I believe an increase in my
fishing activity would be bad for the resource." Nearly three
out of four shore anglers (72.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the
saltwater shore fishing opportunities in Massachusetts met their needs
for a satisfying experience (Table
37). Travel distance to shore fishing sites was a more constraining
reason for fishing less often for "most specialized" anglers
than for either "very specialized" or "moderately specialized" anglers
(Table 38). "Very
specialized" and "most specialized" shore anglers expressed
a high degree of overall satisfaction with their saltwater shore fishing
experiences in Massachusetts (Table 39).
Mode Comparison
Constraints, or reasons why anglers did not participate in fishing
more often, were compared across modes. The majority of anglers in
all three modes indicated that not being able to catch (or keep) enough
fish to suit them was not an important reason why they did not fish
more often. In general, lack of fish or low catch rates were not generally
considered as being important reasons for fishing less often. The proportion
of anglers who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "I
believe an increase in my fishing activity would be bad for the resource" was
also low for all three modes (10% partyboat, 4.4% private boat, 5.1%
shore). This response suggests that either anglers believe the resource
is fairly healthy, or that they simply do no think that one angler
can have a negative impact. Anglers often do not realize the cumulative
impact that recreational fishing can have, and based on comments we
received, are more likely to blame commercial fishing for stock declines.
Cost of fishing was seen as a more important constraint among partyboat
anglers and private boat anglers as compared to shore anglers. About
one-third of partyboat anglers and 27% of private boat anglers agreed
or strongly agreed that the cost of saltwater fishing was a reason
they did not fish more. By comparison, only 7.6% of shore anglers agreed
or strongly agreed that the cost of fishing was a reason for fishing
less often.
For all three modes, the biggest apparent constraints were "too
many other demands on my time" and "other leisure activities
take up my time." In general, the importance of these time-related
constraints decreased with increasing specialization level for anglers
in all three modes. Our results were consistent with Ritter et al. (1992)
who found that the constraint dimension "time" was indicated
by nearly 75% of anglers they surveyed. Within the "time" dimension,
they found that "work commitments" and "lack of time
(general)" were the top-ranking constraint categories overall.
EVALUATION OF ANGLER SWITCHING AMONG FISHING
MODES
For this study, anglers were categorized into mode groups (i.e., partyboat
anglers, private boat anglers and shore anglers) based on the particular
mode in which they were fishing when they were intercepted in the field.
However, these groupings do not imply that anglers only fished in one
mode, or that the mode assigned was their primary mode of interest
(e.g., most avid, "most specialized"). Mode designations
were assigned for descriptive and clarifying purposes only. In fact,
our results show that Massachusetts anglers tend to fish in multiple
modes, water types (i.e., freshwater and saltwater), and states
during the course of a year. For this objective, we explored the diversity
in fishing trip types taken by Massachusetts anglers, and in particular,
the prevalence of angler switching from partyboat trips to other trip
types in recent years. We also explored reasons for the decline given
by anglers whose partyboat fishing trips have decreased recently.
Partyboat Anglers
In general, partyboat anglers were very active in other fishing modes
and water types compared to their partyboat activity (Table
40). For example, while partyboat anglers averaged only 1.6 days
of partyboat fishing in Massachusetts in the previous year, they spent
2.5 days saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts, and 17.2 days freshwater
fishing (all modes), in the previous year. "Most specialized" partyboat
anglers spent as much time partyboat fishing out-of-state (6.5 days
in the previous year) as they did in Massachusetts (6.6 days in the
previous year), and also averaged 23.5 days of freshwater (all modes)
fishing in the previous year (Table 40).
Overall, 35% of surveyed partyboat anglers indicated they had purchased
a freshwater fishing license in their state of residence in 1998 (Table
41). The percentage of partyboat anglers who had purchased a freshwater
license in 1998 increased with specialization level.
The popularity of wildlife watching as an alternative form of marine
recreation has increased in recent years. Whale-watching boats, in
particular, have replaced partyboats at popular coastal tourist locations,
and may provide competition for the partyboats still located at these
sites. From our survey, 28% of partyboat anglers overall indicated
they had taken a whale-watching cruise during the previous year (Table
42). One Massachusetts partyboat captain told us that he converted
from fishing to a "nature cruise" once a week with the assistance
of an Audubon Society naturalist. More research needs to be done on
this growing, nonconsumptive form of marine recreation.
In order to study general trends in fishing avidity, anglers were
asked if their avidity (by mode) had decreased, increased, or stayed
the same during the periods from 1988 through 1993, and from 1994 to
1998. More partyboat anglers reported an increase (35.8%) than a decrease
(13.2%) in Massachusetts partyboat trips between 1994 and 1998 (Table
43). However, this increase probably represents the fact that a
large proportion of partyboat anglers took their first partyboat trip
in 1998. More partyboat anglers reported an increase rather than a
decrease in saltwater shore trips for both time periods (i.e., 1988-1993
and 1994-1998), although many reported no activity in this mode (Table
43). It is interesting to note that 7.8% of partyboat respondents
indicated taking no partyboat trips between 1997 and 1998, despite
the fact that they were supposedly contacted in 1998 after a partyboat
fishing trip. This response suggests that some anglers misinterpreted
this question by not counting the trip they were actually surveyed
after.
To investigate mode switching in more detail we focused only on those
anglers who reported a decrease in their partyboat fishing avidity
from 1994 to 1998. Among partyboat anglers who reported a decrease
in their partyboat fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998, most also reported
declining charter boat, saltwater private boat, saltwater shore, and
freshwater fishing avidity over the same time period (Table
44). For these anglers, in general, the decline in their partyboat
activity seems to be a part of a general drop in their overall fishing
activity.
Private Boat Anglers
Private boat anglers tended to focus their fishing activity in the
private boat mode, switching between freshwater and saltwater throughout
the course of a year (Table
45). Private boat anglers were also somewhat active in shore fishing
in both freshwater (5.2 days in the previous year) and saltwater (5.9
days in the previous year) in Massachusetts. Overall, private boat
anglers spent very little time partyboat fishing in Massachusetts (0.3
days in the previous year). Interestingly, the number of private boat
freshwater days fished in Massachusetts decreased with increasing angler
specialization level, while the number of private boat freshwater days
fished by anglers from other states increased with specialization level
(Table 45). Overall, 52% of private boat
anglers indicated they had purchased a freshwater fishing license in
their state of residence in 1998 (Table 41).
Significantly more private boat anglers reported a decrease (20.4%)
than reported an increase (5.9%) in partyboat activity from 1994 to
1998 (Table 46). For this
same time period, 62.7% of private boat anglers reported an increase
in their saltwater private boat fishing avidity compared to only 8.4%
reporting a decrease. Private boat anglers also seemed to increase
their saltwater shore fishing activity during these years. These results
suggest that some private boat anglers were changing their fishing
activity away from partyboats and towards more saltwater private boat,
and to some extent, shore fishing.
Among private boat anglers who reported a decrease in their partyboat
fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998, many also reported declining charter
boat and freshwater fishing avidity over the same time period (Table
47). However, an overwhelming majority (84.7%) reported an increase
in their saltwater private boat fishing avidity, and most (59.2%) also
reported an increase in their saltwater shore avidity. These results
provide further evidence for mode switching (among private boat anglers)
away from partyboat, charter boat, and freshwater fishing and towards
more saltwater private boat and shore fishing from 1994 to 1998.
Shore Anglers
Shore anglers averaged 8.3 days saltwater shore fishing, 0.8 days
partyboat fishing, and 2.8 days saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts
in the previous year (Table
48). Shore anglers were, in general, more avid in freshwater than
in saltwater, and spent nearly as many days freshwater private boat
fishing (10.8) as they did freshwater shore fishing (12.3) in the previous
year. "Most specialized" saltwater shore anglers were far
more avid in terms of partyboat fishing than were less-specialized
saltwater shore anglers. However, most of their partyboat trips were
on out-of-state partyboats (1.5 days in the previous year), not on
Massachusetts partyboats (0.6 days in the previous year). Overall,
59% of shore anglers indicated that they had purchased a freshwater
fishing license in their state of residence in 1998 (Table
41).
More shore anglers reported a decrease (16.1%) than an increase (7.1%)
in partyboat activity from 1994 to 1998 (Table
49), while shore avidity seemed to increase during this period.
Thus, some mode switching from partyboat to shore is evident among
our shore survey anglers as well.
Among shore anglers who reported a decrease in their partyboat fishing
avidity from 1994 to 1998, a plurality also reported declining charter
boat, private boat, and freshwater fishing avidity, and increasing
saltwater shore avidity, over the same time period (Table
50).
Mode Comparison
Surveyed private boat anglers averaged 10.3 saltwater private boat
fishing days in the previous year in Massachusetts. By comparison,
surveyed shore anglers averaged 8.6 saltwater shore fishing days in
the previous year in Massachusetts, while surveyed partyboat anglers
averaged only 1.6 saltwater partyboat fishing days in the previous
year in Massachusetts. Thus, partyboat fishing is more of a rare-event
recreational activity for many anglers compared to the other two modes
of fishing. Whereas surveyed private boat and shore anglers did very
little partyboat fishing in Massachusetts (an average of 0.3 and 0.8
days in the previous year, respectively), partyboat anglers were fairly
active in the other two modes. For example, partyboat anglers spent,
on average, 2.5 days saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts, 11 days
freshwater shore fishing, and 6.2 days freshwater private boat fishing
in the previous year. "Most specialized" partyboat anglers
averaged 6.6 days of Massachusetts partyboat fishing in the previous
year, but spent nearly as many days (6.5) partyboat fishing from other
states in the previous year.
Shore anglers (59%) were more likely to have purchased a freshwater
fishing license in their state of residence compared to private boat
anglers (52%) and partyboat anglers (35%). The proportion of anglers
purchasing a freshwater license increased with specialization level
for shore and partyboat anglers. Our results suggest that anglers highly
specialized in a particular type of fishing (e.g., saltwater
partyboat) do not, in general, focus their entire fishing effort on
that one type of fishing, but rather are more likely to participate
actively in other types of fishing as well. Therefore, the specialization
indicators used to segment anglers (i.e., commitment, relationships,
experience, and orientation) may carry over from one type of fishing
to another. If an angler is highly specialized in one type of fishing
(e.g., partyboat), then there may be a higher probability that
he/she will also be highly specialized in another type of fishing (e.g.,
freshwater shore). More research is needed to clarify the relationship
between specialization level for different types of fishing.
To further investigate the recent decline in Massachusetts partyboat
fishing, we focused our analysis on anglers who indicated their Massachusetts
partyboat fishing avidity had declined from 1994 to 1998. Of those
partyboat anglers who indicated their Massachusetts partyboat fishing
avidity had declined from 1994 to 1998, a greater percentage also reported
a decrease (compared to those reporting an increase or no change) in
both their saltwater private boat and shore fishing avidity in Massachusetts
during the same time period. By contrast, of those private boat anglers
who indicated their Massachusetts partyboat fishing avidity had declined
from 1994 to 1998, the majority indicated an increase in their saltwater
private boat and shore fishing avidity in Massachusetts during the
same time period. Of those shore anglers who indicated their Massachusetts
partyboat fishing avidity had declined from 1994 to 1998, the majority
indicated an increase in their saltwater shore fishing avidity, but
a decrease in private boat fishing avidity, in Massachusetts during
the same time period.
EVALUATION OF TRENDS IN ANGLER DEMAND FOR SPECIES-SPECIFIC
MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT FISHING ACTIVITY
Partyboat Anglers
Anglers were asked to rank their top three preferred species to catch
when saltwater fishing (by mode) in Massachusetts. Atlantic cod (27.2%)
was the most preferred species among partyboat anglers, followed by
striped bass (17.7%), bluefish (13.6%), and summer flounder (11.1%)
(Table 51). A relatively
large percentage (15.6%) of partyboat anglers indicated they did not
have a preferred species to catch. Differences in species preferences
were also explored according to specialization level (Table
52). Preference towards catching black sea bass, tautog, and scup
seemed generally to increase with increasing level of partyboat angler
specialization. By contrast, "most specialized" partyboat
anglers were less interested in striped bass, bluefish, and summer
flounder as compared to less-specialized partyboat anglers. MRFSS intercept
data (weighted by fishing effort in trips) were used to determine what
species Massachusetts partyboat anglers actually said they were targeting. Table
53 shows the percentage of partyboat trips targeting each species.
From 1996 to 1998 there was a sharp dropoff in the percentage of angler
trips targeting Atlantic cod. However, in 1999 the percentage of partyboat
trips targeting cod increased, although not to the level of 1996. The
percentage of MRFSS-intercepted partyboat anglers targeting scup increased
from 2.3% in 1996 to 9.6% in 1999.
The difference between what partyboat anglers reported as their preferred
species on our survey (Table 51) and what
they reported as targeting during MRFSS intercepts (Table
53) may reflect the level of control partyboat anglers have over
species targeted. Typically, the partyboat captain decides what species
the boat will target on a given day, and may switch species mid-trip,
depending on a variety of factors (e.g., weather, tide, catch
rates, etc.). Anglers do have some control over species targeted by
means of their selecting a particular boat. However, the species they
prefer to catch may not always be an option due to seasonal availability,
driving distance to a partyboat targeting that species, or cost considerations.
Partyboat anglers were asked a series of questions regarding the
importance of the species that partyboats target as it relates to their
fishing activity. Table 54a shows
that, in general, partyboat anglers did not agree with the following
statement as a reason for fishing from partyboats less often: "partyboats
don't target the types of fish I prefer to catch." When asked
how important were the types of fish that partyboats target as a factor
in deciding to go partyboat fishing versus some other kind of fishing,
the modal response was "moderately important" (Table
54b). The importance of this factor generally increased with partyboat
angler specialization. Nearly 40% of "most specialized" partyboat
anglers indicated that the species that partyboats targeted was an "extremely
important" factor in deciding on whether to go partyboat fishing
as compared to some other type of fishing. The relative importance
of partyboat target species in determining which particular Massachusetts
partyboat to fish with increased greatly with increasing partyboat
angler specialization level (Table 54c).
Private Boat Anglers
Striped bass is by far the most preferred species to catch among private
boat saltwater anglers in Massachusetts (Table
55). This holds for all specialization levels (Table
56). Bluefish were identified as an important second option for
preferred species among most surveyed private boat saltwater anglers.
The percentage of private boat trips targeting striped bass in Massachusetts
increased from 1996 to 1998, before dropping off slightly in 1999,
whereas the percentage targeting bluefish and Atlantic cod decreased
after 1996 (Table 57).
Shore Anglers
Similar to private boat anglers, an overwhelming majority (70.3%)
of Massachusetts saltwater shore anglers preferred to catch striped
bass over any other species (Table
58). Bluefish are important as a secondary species among Massachusetts
saltwater shore anglers. More than one-third (36.2%) of shore anglers
had no preferred third species after striped bass and bluefish. According
to specialization level, the importance of striped bass and bluefish
as a preferred target species seemed to increase with shore angler
specialization level (Table
59). By contrast, winter flounder was a more important target species
among "moderately specialized" anglers than it was among "most
specialized" anglers. From 1996 through 1998, the proportion of
saltwater shore trips in Massachusetts targeting striped bass generally
increased, while the proportion targeting bluefish decreased (Table
60). This trend reversed somewhat in 1999, although striped bass
were still by far the most-targeted species on Massachusetts saltwater
shore fishing trips in 1999.
Mode Comparison
Private boat (75.9%) and shore (70.3%) anglers overwhelmingly selected
striped bass as their most preferred species. No other species was
selected by more than 8% of anglers from either mode. By contrast,
the most-preferred-species selections by partyboat anglers were more
evenly distributed, with five species (Atlantic cod 27.2%, striped
bass 17.7%, bluefish 13.6%, summer flounder 11.1%, and haddock 8.2%)
receiving more than 8% of the vote. Partyboat anglers do, however,
have less control than either shore or private boat anglers over actual
species targeted, since the partyboat captain generally makes this
determination. A much larger percentage of partyboat anglers (15.6%)
than of private boat (0.6%) and shore (7.6%) anglers indicated no primary
species preference. This pattern probably reflects the fact that more
partyboat anglers were "least specialized," and that many
of them were intercepted during their first lifetime partyboat fishing
trip.
Also, when comparing species preferred across modes, it is important
to consider species availability differences. Shore anglers do not
have access to offshore species that can be targeted by private boat
and partyboat anglers. Similarly, private boat anglers with small boats
typically fish within bays and state territorial waters, and therefore
do not have access to open-ocean, deepsea species often targeted by
partyboats.
Differences in species preferences with increased specialization
level were more pronounced for partyboat anglers than for the other
two modes. In particular, "most specialized" partyboat anglers
were far less interested in targeting striped bass and summer flounder
than were "least specialized," "moderately specialized," or "very
specialized" partyboat anglers. Similarly, "most specialized" partyboat
anglers were far more interested in targeting black sea bass, tautog,
and scup than were "least specialized," "moderately
specialized," or "very specialized" partyboat anglers.
Striped bass and bluefish were both very popular preferred species
choices for shore and private boat anglers across all specialization
levels.
DETERMINATION AND EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC EXPENDITURES
AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ACCORDING TO ECONOMIC SECTOR AND FISHING MODE
Total economic impacts generated from saltwater fishing expenditures
by mode and geographical area are summarized in Table
61. The $4.5 million spent by partyboat anglers in Massachusetts
in 1998 generated $6.9 million in sales, $2.7 million in personal income,
and 142 jobs in the commonwealth. In contrast, the $190.9 million spent
by private boat anglers in Massachusetts generated $197.0 million in
sales, $79.1 million in income, and approximately 3,000 jobs. Angler
expenditures on shore fishing trips in Massachusetts ($121.3 million)
resulted in an additional $146.0 million in sales, $60.2 million in
personal income, and 2,477 jobs. In total, partyboat, private boat,
and shore angler expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998 generated $350
million in sales, $142 million in income, and approximately 5,600 jobs
in the commonwealth.
Total partyboat, private boat, and shore angler expenditures in Zone
1 in 1998 ($247 million) generated approximately $267 million in sales,
$110 million in income, and 4,100 jobs (within Zone 1). Total partyboat,
private boat, and shore angler expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998 ($59
million) resulted in approximately $60 million in sales, $24 million
in personal income, and 1,000 jobs (in Zone 2). Partyboat expenditures
and impacts were similar across the two zones, while private boat and
shore impacts were generally 4-6 times higher in Zone 1. The sum of
the expenditures and impacts shown for Zone 1 and Zone 2 are not tantamount
to the estimates shown for Massachusetts. The Massachusetts estimates
capture expenditures and impacts that occur anywhere in the state,
including noncoastal counties that are to the west of the Zone 1 and
Zone 2 boundaries. Thus, the expenditures and impacts shown for Massachusetts
are slightly higher than the sum of the expenditures and impacts that
occurred in Zone 1 and Zone 2.
The estimates of each category of trip-related
expenditures derived from the survey are presented in Tables 62-70.
Expenditures and impacts generated in Massachusetts by mode are presented
first (Table 62, Table 63 and Table 64),
followed by expenditures and impacts accruing to Zone 1 by mode (Table 65, Table 66 and Table 67)
and then to Zone 2 by mode (Table 68, Table 69,
and Table 70).
Partyboat fees paid to for-hire owners were the single most important
expense category for generating sales, income, and jobs from partyboat
angler expenditures in all three Massachusetts geographical regions.
Meals at restaurants and lodging were also important expense categories
for generating sales, income, and jobs from partyboat angler expenditures
in all three regions. Parking was an important expense category for
generating income in Zone 2.
Expenditures for meals at restaurants and for lodging generated the
highest impacts for anglers fishing from private boats in all three
geographical regions. Bait and tackle purchases, launch/docking fees,
and boat fuel purchases by private boat fishermen further contributed
significant impacts to all three geographical regions.
Expenditures for meals at restaurants and for lodging generated the
highest impacts for anglers fishing from shore in Zone 1 and throughout
the commonwealth. Expenditures for meals at restaurants and for bait
and tackle purchases generated the highest impacts in Zone 2.
In some cases, many of the dollars spent by saltwater anglers in
Massachusetts actually impact the economies of other states and countries.
For example, of the $399,000 spent in 1998 by partyboat anglers on
automobiles (within Massachusetts), only $118,000 had a direct impact
on sales in the Massachusetts economy (Table
62). A similar situation existed for purchases of bait and tackle,
groceries, and boat fuel in all three Massachusetts geographical regions.
Of the 14 expenditure categories analyzed in this study, four (i.e.,
automobiles, bait and tackle, groceries, and boat fuel) directly impacted
sales in the economies of other regions, with the single exception
of grocery sales to private boat owners in Zone 2. For the remaining
10 categories, 100% of the expenditures remained within the three geographical
regions (i.e., total expenditures equaled direct impacts on
sales).
The results are conservative in the sense that they include only
trip-related angler expenses. Auxiliary expenditures on fishing equipment
(i.e., rods and reels), clothing, and incidental purchases by
nonfishing companions were not included, even though they may have
occurred as a direct result of fishing. Taken as a whole, the economic
impacts presented in this analysis provide an indication of the dependence
of Massachusetts' economy on marine recreational fishing expenditures.
EVALUATION OF MASSACHUSETTS RECREATIONAL SALTWATER
ANGLERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD SPECIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Anglers were asked a series of questions on their support or agreement
with various fishery management actions. Tables 71-79 summarize the
responses.
Partyboat Anglers
The majority of partyboat anglers opposed the idea of a mandatory
saltwater fishing license (Table
71). Opposition to a saltwater license was consistent for both
Massachusetts residents and out-of-state anglers in all modes. Opposition
to a saltwater license increased with specialization level among partyboat
anglers (Table 72).
In general, surveyed partyboat anglers did not agree with the statement
that "fishing regulations are too restrictive" as a reason
for not saltwater fishing more often (Table
73). Partyboat anglers indicated tremendous support for the use
of minimum size limits as a tool to manage Massachusetts' recreational
saltwater fisheries (Table
74). Nearly three-fourths of partyboat anglers also either "supported" or "strongly
supported" both daily bag limits and seasonal restrictions as
fishery management tools.
According to specialization level, differences in attitudes towards
particular fishery management tools were found between "most specialized" partyboat
anglers and the other three less-specialized groups (i.e., "least," "moderately," and "very"). "Most
specialized" partyboat anglers showed stronger support for minimum
size limits and slot limits, but less support for bag limits and seasonal
restrictions, as compared to less-specialized anglers (Table
75). "Most specialized" partyboat anglers also indicated
fairly strong opposition to prohibiting harvest of striped bass in
federal waters and to simultaneously reducing both the minimum size
limit and the daily bag limit of a hypothetical species.
Private Boat Anglers
The majority of private boat anglers opposed the idea of a mandatory
saltwater fishing license (Table 71). The
proportion opposing a license altogether was 70.0% for Massachusetts
residents and 77.5% for out-of-state residents. No major differences
in opinions about a saltwater license were found across private boat
angler specialization levels.
Private boat saltwater anglers generally disagreed with the statement
that "fishing regulations are too restrictive" as a reason
for not saltwater fishing more often (Table
73).
Private boat anglers generally supported the use of minimum size limits,
bag limits, slot limits, and seasonal restrictions as tools to manage
Massachusetts' recreational saltwater fisheries (Table
76). Opinions among private boat anglers were split on "not
allowing harvest of striped bass in federal waters." As many private
boat anglers either supported or strongly supported this regulation
(36.5%) as did oppose or strongly oppose it (35.5%).
Private boat anglers' attitudes towards the use of the fishery management
tools explored here did not vary tremendously according to specialization
level (Table 77).
Shore Anglers
The majority of surveyed shore anglers opposed the idea of a mandatory
saltwater fishing license (Table 71). The
percentage opposing a license was 75.1% for Massachusetts resident
and out-of-state anglers combined. Shore anglers from other states
showed more support (19.2%) than Massachusetts residents (7.8%) for
a license with a fee, while the reverse was true for a "no fee" license
(2.3% out-of-state versus 11.3% Massachusetts). No major differences
in opinions about a saltwater license were found across shore angler
specialization levels.
In general, shore anglers disagreed with the statement that "fishing
regulations are too restrictive" as a reason for not saltwater
fishing more often (Table 73). Shore anglers
generally supported the use of minimum size limits, bag limits, slot
limits, and seasonal restrictions as tools to manage Massachusetts'
recreational saltwater fisheries (Table
78). Support for bag limits and seasonal restrictions increased
with specialization level among shore anglers (Table
79). Interestingly, "very specialized" shore anglers
were more opposed to the following fishery management tools than either "moderately" or "most
specialized" shore anglers: 1) restricting striped bass harvest
in federal waters, 2) simultaneously reducing both the minimum size
and daily bag limit of a hypothetical species, and 3) simultaneously
increasing both the minimum size and daily bag limit of a hypothetical
species. More investigation is needed to determine why this intermediate
specialization group might be more opposed to the fishery management
tools examined than either less-specialized or more-specialized anglers.
Mode Comparison
The percentage opposing a license altogether was greater for private
boat (72.7%) and shore (75.1%) anglers than for partyboat anglers (56.6%).
The difference was primarily made up by a much larger percentage (22.1%)
of "no opinions" among partyboat anglers as compared to private
boat (3.2%) or shore (4.3%) anglers. The larger percentage of "no
opinions" among partyboat anglers reflects the fact that more
partyboat anglers are "least specialized" and may have no
vested, long-term interest in the sport. Opposition to a saltwater
fishing license increased with increasing specialization level among
partyboat anglers. By comparison, there was no obvious relationship
between saltwater fishing license opposition and specialization level
among either private boat or shore anglers.
Comparisons were made among the three modes regarding angler attitudes
towards the use of fishery management tools for Massachusetts' recreational
saltwater fisheries. Anglers from all modes showed support (or strong
support) for minimum size limits, daily bag limits, and seasonal restrictions.
Partyboat anglers, in general, were somewhat supportive of slot limits
and prohibiting the sale of fish by recreational anglers, although
they were less supportive than either private boat or shore anglers
regarding these fishery management tools. For example, 56.6% of private
boat anglers and 65.1% of shore anglers supported or strongly supported
no sale of fish by recreational anglers. By contrast, only 45.6% of
partyboat anglers supported this fishery management tool.
IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE SELECTION
OF A PARTICULAR PARTYBOAT ON WHICH TO FISH
Partyboat anglers were asked to rate the importance of several items
in their selection of a particular partyboat on which to fish. "Courteous
and helpful crew" was the most important factor overall as two-thirds
of anglers rated this "very important" or "extremely
important" in their selection (Table
80). Other important factors included "previous personal experience" and "cost
of boat fees." The importance of a "courteous and helpful
crew" and "previous personal experience" both increased
with respondent specialization level (Table
81). Similarly, the importance of the number, size, and species
typically caught, of the captain's reputation, and of boat size also
increased with increasing specialization level.
ENDNOTES
- Personal communication: D.A. Van Voorhees, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division, Silver Spring,
MD.
- Personal communication: K. Gillis, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD;
August 2000.
- Personal communication: A. Lowther, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division, Silver Spring,
MD; May 25, 2000.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the following funding sources that contributed
to the completion of this study: NOAA - University of Massachusetts
Cooperative Marine Education and Research Program, the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, and the Department of Natural Resource
Conservation at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. We thank the
following individuals whose assistance with the data collection phase
of this project was greatly appreciated: Kelly Finn, Bill Perry, Rebecca
Sozanski, Brad Curcuru, Jon Duval, Zeke Kaufman, Erin Hughes, Bethaney
Campbell, Rebecca Hull, Ed Labinski, Josefina Lago, Kara Aubochon,
Greg Penesis, Molly Timko, Elizabeth Defeo, Christina Gutierrez, and
David Creque. We also recognize the contributions and expert advice
received from the following NMFS employees: David Van Voorhees, Eric
Thunberg, Kirk Gillis, and Alan Lowther. Finally, this study would
not have been possible without the cooperation of the Massachusetts
partyboat captains and crew who assisted in the development of the
sample frame, and the participation of numerous individual saltwater
anglers in completing the mail survey instrument.
REFERENCES CITED
Ditton, R.B.; Loomis, D.K.; Choi, S. 1992. Recreation specialization:
reconceptualization from a social worlds perspective. J. Leisure
Res. 24(1):35-51.
Gray, G.W.; Kline, L.L.; Osborn, M.F.; Salz, R.S.; Van Voorhees, D.A.;
Witzig, J.F. 1994. MRFSS user's manual -- a guide to the National Marine
Fisheries Service recreational fisheries statistics survey database. Atl.
States Mar. Fish. Comm. Spec. Rep. 37.
NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics & Economics
Division]. 2000. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey <http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html>.
Accessed July 11, 2000.
Ritter, C.; Ditton, R.B.; Riechers, R.K. 1992. Constraints to sport
fishing: implications to fisheries management. Fisheries (Bethesda) 17(4):16-19.
Rossi, P.H.; Wright, J.; Anderson, A. 1983. Handbook of survey research.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Salant, P.; Dillman, D.A. 1994. How to conduct your own survey. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Salz, R.J.; Loomis, D.K. 2000. Development and verification of a specialization
index for angler segmentation. In: Kyle, G., comp., ed. Proceedings
of the 1999 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 1999 April
11-14; Bolton Landing, NY. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-269.
Unruh, D.R. 1979. Characteristics and types of participation in social
worlds. Symbol. Interact. 2:115-130.
Acronyms |
IMPLAN |
= impact analysis for planning |
IOA |
= input-output analysis |
MRFSS |
= (NMFS’s) Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics
Survey |
NMFS |
= National Marine Fisheries Service |
back to top
