Characteristics of Billfish Anglers in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Characteristics of Billfish Anglers in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean MARK R. FISHER and ROBERT B. DITTON Introduction was initiated in response to social and jaw fork length); white marlin, Tet economic research needs identified in rapturus albidus (62 inches lower jaw A mail survey of U.S. billfish tour the Atlantic Fishery Management Plan fork length); and longbill spearfish, nament anglers in the western Atlantic (FMP) for BiJlfish'. Also, better social Tetrapturus pfluegeri (no minimum Ocean (from Maine to Texas, includ and economic information was ex length). Also, there is a prohibition on ing Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin pected to expand constituency support the possession of these species by Islands) was completed to provide a for billfish conservation. Although the longline and driftnet vessels in the Fed social and economic profile of this number of billfish anglers may be eral fisheries jurisdiction (EEZ). The group of anglers and to examine their small, their economic effect may be five councils that approved the FMP fishing activity, attitudes, trip expendi disproportionately high due to greater sought to prevent a domestic market tures, consumer's surplus, catch, and expenditures per angler per day with a for biJlfish with a "no sale" provision. management preferences. The research significant impact on local and regional They recognized a directed commer economies. Without adequate conser cial fishery could result in a substan vation measures for billfish, these ben tial harvest if there was an incentive to Mark R. Fisher and Robert B. Ditton are with l the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sci efits could be reduced or lost. catch billfish • Also, the prohibition of ences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Before August 1988, there was no the sale of incidentally caught billfish TX 77843. approved FMP for Atlantic billfishes, set a precedent because it reserved bill although the five Atlantic Fishery Man fish for the recreational fishery. agement Councils implemented a Pre The billfish FMP' was heavily predi liminary Management Plan2 in March cated on social and economic con 3 1978 and proposed several draft FMP's siderations • Typically, the optimum ABSTRACT-A mail survey of 1,984 from 1976 to 1988. These early plans yield of a fishery (OY) is defined as U.S. billfish tournament anglers was com espoused the idea that billfish were best "... that amount of fish which will pleted to examine their fishing activity, reserved for recreational purposes be provide the greatest overall benefit to attitudes, trip expenditures, consumer's sur cause of their historical and traditional the Nation, with particular reference to plus, catch levels, and manaf?ement prefer ences. A sample of 1,984 anglers was use by anglers, the anglers' custom of food production and recreational op drawn from billfish tournamel1ls in the west releasing a large percentage of their portunities; and which is prescribed as ern Atlantic Ocean (from Maine to Texas, catch, and the economic value of the such on the basis of the maximum sus including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin recreational fishery. tainable yield from such fishery, as Islands) during 1989. A response rate of 61% was obtained (excluding nondeliver By setting minimum length require modified by any relevant economic, so abies). Anglers averaged 13 billfish trips ments and prohibiting the sale of cial, or ecological factor" (16 U.S.C. per year, catching a billfish 40% of the billfishes, the FMP (50 C.ER. 644) 1802). Because of limited biological time while 89% of billfish caught were re seeks to conserve 4 species: Sailfish, data, MSY for billfish could not be de leased with <I billfish per year per angler f stiophorus platypterus (57 inches termined. Optimum yield, however, retained. Catch and retention rates varied by region. Expenditures averaf?ed $1,600 lower jaw fork length); blue marlin, does not have to be expressed numeri per trip, hut varied hy region. The annual Makaira nigricans (86 inches lower cally when MSY is unreliable or ines consumer's surplus was $262 per angler, timable (50 C.ER. 602.11). Therefore, but increased to $448 per angler if billfish 'Fishery management plan, final environmental the councils defined OY as "the great populations were to increase. An estimated impact statement, regulatory impact review, and 7,915 tournament anglers in the U.S. west initial regulatory flexibility analysis for Atlantic est number of billfish that can be caught ern Atlantic spent $/79,425,000 in pursuit bill fishes. 1988. S. Atl. Fish. Manage. Coune., by the recreational fishery in the EEZ"I. of billfish in 1989. Anglers opposed man Southpark Bldg., Suite 306, I Southpark Circle, agement options that would diminish their Charleston, SC 29407 'Preliminary management plan for Atlantic bill 'Source document for the fishery management ability to catch a hillfish, but supported fishes and sharks. 1978. S. Atl. Fish. Manage. plan for the Atlantic bill fishes. 1988. S. Atl. Fish. options limiting the number of billfish Counc., Southpark Bldg., Suite 306, I Southpark Manage. Counc., Southpark Bldg., Suite 306, landed. Circle, Charleston, SC 29407. I Southpark Circle, Charleston, SC 29407. 54(1), 1992 1 The rationale of the FMP was to opti tives: I) To profile the population of A total of 1,984 billfish anglers was mize the social and economic benefits billfish tournament anglers according to selected. Officials from selected tour to the nation by reserving the resource their social and economic characteristics naments were asked to provide a list for the traditional recreational fishery. and to examine their fishing activity, at of participants. A systematic sample of Little quantitative data was included titudes, trip expenditures, consumer's 75 was selected from tournaments with in the FMP regarding social and eco surplus, catch levels, and management >75 participants while all were selected nomic benefits of the recreational bill preferences; 2) to estimate the anglers' from smaller tournaments (5,75 partici fish fishery for several reasons. First, total catch, trip expenditures, and pants). Only those anglers listing a U.S. since billfish anglers account for a small consumer's surplus in the study area; address were considered for sampling. part of the total population of saltwa and 3) to discuss the implications of an A lO-page questionnaire was devel ter anglers, state and Federal fishery gIer attitudes regarding present and fu oped to collect information from an surveys did not intercept many billfish ture billfish management measures. glers. First, anglers were asked about anglers (Fedler and Ditton, 1988). Con their fishing experience: Number of Methods sequently, total billfish participants, years fishing, number of years fishing trips, expenditures, and harvest were A survey of billfish anglers is diffi for billfish, number of days in the pre difficult to estimate accurately. Second, cult because the population of bill fish vious 12 months by setting, and an because irregularly implemented sur anglers is not readily identifiable. No evaluation of their fishing ability com veys have been used to gather infor special license exists that can provide pared with other anglers. Second, they mation on this "rare event" fishery, a list of biIIfish anglers. Therefore, we were asked to identify their top three results were either not applicable over sampled from a list of U.S. anglers who target species and to indicate whether the entire range of the fishery (Figley, had participated in billfish tournaments anyone species commanded most of 1984; Freeman, 1985; Brown and during 1989. This proxy group was their effort. Third, anglers were asked Ofiera, 1987) or were outdated (Hamm identifiable and provided a cost-effec to evaluate several management options and Slater, 1979). tive means of obtaining information and if implementation would cause The economic value of the recre from billfish anglers. them to stop fishing for billfish. An ational billfish fishery was not ad We completed an inventory of 359 glers were also asked if they were fa equately discussed in the FMP. Expen billfish tournaments held during 1989 miliar with the new minimum size lim ditures, which are the usual measure of in the study area (Maine to Texas, in its and if their fishing was affected. the value of a recreational fishing trip cluding Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Fourth, we asked anglers a series of and are essential to understand local eco Islands). Tournaments were located in questions to identify characteristics of nomic impacts, are not a valid measure every coastal Atlantic or Gulf state ex a typical trip and their most recent biIl of the trip's true economic worth. Ex cept Connecticut, Mississippi, and New fish tournament (effort, species tar penditures do not represent an addition Hampshire. Tournaments in the Baha geted, and catch/retention rates). Fifth, to the welfare of the nation because they mas with a U.S. mailing address or tele anglers were asked to report how much would probably be spent for something phone number were included with the they spent for each of 11 expense items else if not for billfish (Huppert, 1983). assumption most entrants were U.S. on their most recent billfishing trip. Furthermore, a fishing trip has much citizens. We used two closed-ended contin greater value than the costs associated A sampling goal of 2,000 billfish an gent valuation (CVM) questions to as with getting to, using, and returning glers was based solely on cost consid certain the amount anglers were will from the resource. Testing one's skills, erations since population size and vari ing to pay for a billfish stamp at current experiencing adventure, relaxing, cama ance were unknown. A sample size of bill fish population levels, and at a 25% raderie with friends. and family are some 380 was considered sufficient to repre increase in the billfish population.