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 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. Each of the other components of a fishing sent a large population (Krejcie and angler was presented non iteratively trip which are also of value to an an­ Morgan, 1970), but a larger sample was with a random offer from a preselected gIer. Estimating the value of these ben­ required to test for group differences. range of eight bid values from $25 to efits (consumer's surplus) can be ascer­ Twenty-seven tournaments could $200. Consumer's surplus was evalu­ tained using contingent valuation provide a total sample of 2,000 if each ated using logistic regression. Logistic methods (CVM) which measure will­ tournament provided names and ad­ regression is appropriate when the ingness to pay in excess of trip expen­ dresses of 75 billfish anglers. Tourna­ dependent variable is a binary indica­ ditures (Huppert, 1983). Consumer's ments were sorted in chronological or­ tor variable (e.g., "yes" or "no"), and surplus is an important concept because der and a random sample of 27 was can be used to determine the threshold it represents an increase in the welfare selected. Tournament directors were level of an angler's willingness-to-pay of the nation as a result of the opportu­ contacted in August 1989 to explain (Agresti, 1990). nity to fish for billfish. the purpose of the survey and to solicit Using data provided by the angler In light of the limited social and eco­ their cooperation. Those who refused sample, we estimated the total number nomic information contained in the Bill­ to participate were replaced with an­ of tournament billfish anglers in the fish FMP, this paper has three objec­ other randomly selected tournament. study area. From this, we estimated to-

2 Marine Fisheries Review tal annual expenditures, consumer's tribution data, a lifetime commitment 73% with blue marlin the most sought surplus, and billfish catch and landings to saltwater fishing is suggested. Most single species (29%). by extrapolation of sample results. (52%) reported fishing for billfish ~ 11 Angler Opinions on A total of 1,171 individuals re­ years (X=14 years). When compared Fisheries Management Options sponded to the mail survey for an over­ with the mean for saltwater fishing, it all response rate of 61.4% (when can be argued most began fishing for Most billfish anglers were opposed nondeliverables were excluded). Mail­ billfish after several years of saltwater to reducing the minimum sizes for bill­ ings were initiated on 27 October 1989 experience. Most (70%) reported they fish in the FMP, no minimum sizes for following the procedures of Dillman did not fish in freshwater or from the tournament-caught fish, no minimum (1978). Since some tournaments in the shore in saltwater during the previous sizes for fish to be mounted by a taxi­ sample had not taken place or provided 12 months. In contrast, 83% reported dermist, banning double hooks, allow­ their list of participants, questionnaires they fished at least 14 days in saltwa­ ing handlining or harpooning for were mailed on 27 October to a partial ter from a boat (X=39 days). In total, recreational purposes, banning "live sample of 966 billfish anglers to mini­ the sample of anglers spent an average baiting," a one billfish per boat per day mize their recall time. A reminder post­ of 44 days fishing in the previous 12 bag limit, and area closures for the card was mailed on 3 November, with months. About 37% rated themselves fishery (Table I). Most supported larger second and third mailings on 20 No­ as "more skilled" than other anglers. minimum sizes for billfish, larger mini­ vember and 9 January, respectively. Almost 93% rated themselves as mum sizes for tournament-caught fish, Surveys were mailed to the remaining "equally or more skilled" with the re­ mandatory "no kill" tournaments, a one 1,018 anglers on 19 February 1990, fol­ mainder "less skilled." billfish per angler per day bag limit, a lowing the same procedures and time zero bag limit, and a billfish stamp. Species Preferences sequence. Anglers were evenly divided over ban­ A telephone survey of non­ Species from the bill fish family ning stainless steel hooks and seasonal respondents was completed to identify (Istiophoridae) were most preferred closures for the fishery. characteristics of nonrespondents for (first choice) by 71% of the respon­ Several alternate billfish regulations comparison with respondents. This was dents. Blue marlin was the most pre­ were so unfavorable to some anglers done to test the assumption that the ferred single species (39%). Also, they reported they would stop fishing two groups were alike for making pro­ istiophorids were most preferred as a tf they were implemented. Area clo­ jections of harvest and expenditures second and third choice by 46% and sures would cause the greatest exit from (Bethlehem and Kersten, 1985). Ques­ 28% of the respondents, respectively. the fishery (12% of respondents), fol­ tions were used regarding years of salt­ White marlin was the second-most pre­ lowed by seasonal closures (11 %), a water fishing experience, species pref­ ferred single species (17%) followed billfish stamp (10%), zero bag limit erence, years of billfishing experience, by sailfish (15%). Over 90% of the re­ (10%), one billfish per boat per day and annual frequency of participation. spondents listed pelagic species only, bag limit (10%), and allowing harpoon­ Telephone calling resulted in 77 com­ and 62% reported they devoted most ing and handlining for recreational pleted surveys from a sample of 190 of their effort to one species. Of this purposes (8%). The strength of oppo­ nonrespondents. Using the Mann­ group, istiophorids were targeted by sition to these regulations (except har- Whitney U or chi-square test, as ap­ propriate, we found no significant dif­ ferences between respondents and nonrespondents at the 0.05 level of sig­ Table 1.-Distribution of billfish anglers by the extent they support/oppose management options for billfish; ranked nificance. Therefore, our use of respon­ by mean score. dents' expenditure and harvest level Percent by category' data for nonrespondents in making pro­ jections was validated. Management option 2 3 4 5 Mean n Increased minimum sizes for tournaments 7.8% 12.1% 18.8% 29.2% 32.1% 3.66 1,060 Results Increased minimum sizes 6.2 136 20.1 29.8 30.2 3.64 1,072 Zero bag limit 110 14.7 16.3 24.1 33.8 3.56 1,077 Mandatory "no kill" tournaments 93 17.0 197 21.3 32.8 351 1,077 Angler Characteristics 1 billfishfanglerfday 15.9 15.0 14.1 27.4 276 3.36 1,065 Billfish stamp 14.4 11.0 25.8 28.7 20.1 3.29 1,080 Thirty-six states (including Puerto No stainless steel hooks 15.5 18.7 27.7 18.8 19.4 3.08 1,074 Seasonal closures 21.0 20.5 21.5 21.3 157 2.90 1,066 Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Area closures 21.7 21.0 24.3 19.8 13.2 2.82 1,058 District of Columbia) were represented 1 billfishfboaVday 23.1 26.8 18.8 14.0 17.3 276 1,058 No "live baiting" 19.7 28.4 29.2 11.4 11.2 2.66 1,069 in the sample of billfish tournament an­ No double hooks 24.0 297 299 8.2 8.2 2.47 1,073 glers. Over 93% resided in coastal No min. sizes for taxidermy mounts 44.7 23.8 15.0 9.5 7.0 2.10 1,049 No min. sizes for nontournament fish 48.3 296 14.0 5.1 3.1 1.85 1,042 states or jurisdictions. Most (58%) an­ Decreased minimum sizes 479 28.4 179 2.5 3.3 1.85 1,050 glers reported fishing 21 years (X=26 Handling/harpooning for recreation 62.4 23.4 8.4 2.0 3.8 1.61 1,049 years). When compared with age dis­ '1 =Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree

54(1),1992 3 pooning and handlining) is not reflected tained) varied by region (Table 2). The Results from Table 2 and Table 3 in Table 1. Anglers who reported they average number of billfish trips per year showed Mid-Atlantic anglers were most would stop fishing were evenly distrib­ varied from 8.7 for Gulf of Mexico an­ successful and released the most bill­ uted in the study area; opposition was glers to 17.3 for Caribbean anglers. Ac­ fish. Gulf of Mexico anglers made the not concentrated in anyone region. cordingly, the average number of suc­ fewest trips per year and were the least Most anglers (81 %) reported the cessful trips (trips with billfish caught) successful. Caribbean anglers made the minimum size limits implemented in varied from 2.4 for Gulf anglers and most trips per year and landed the most 1989 had no effect on their billfishing 7.0 for Caribbean anglers. The success billfish. It would be unwise to provide activity. Of the 9% reporting they were rate was lowest for Gulf anglers (28%) an estimate for New England based on unfamiliar with the size limits, 46% and highest for Mid-Atlantic anglers the results of only 17 respondents, but were from states north of Virginia and (46%). The retention rate varied from trip characteristics were comparable to 37% from Florida. Finally, most (77%) a mean of 0.35 billfish per angler per the other Atlantic regions. respondents reported a limit of one bill­ year in the Mid-Atlantic to 2.87 in the Catch and retention rates varied by fish per boat per day would have no Caribbean. region (Table 3). Mid-Atlantic anglers effect on their fishing behavior, while caught the most billfish per angler and Most Recent 23% reported there would be a nega­ had the highest release rate per angler. Billfish Tournament tive effect if implemented. Gulf of Mexico anglers caught the few­ Anglers reported fishing an average est billfish per angler, and Caribbean Typical Billfish of 2.7 days during their last tournament anglers had the lowest release rate per Fishing Trips with an average of 8.3 hours of fishing angler. per day. Blue marlin was the most com­ Anglers reported an average of 13 Expenditures of monly targeted billfish species (74%), billfish trips per year. With each trip Billfish Anglers lasting about 2.7 days, this resulted in followed by white marlin (49%) and an average of 35 days per year. Each sailfish (43%). While 73% of the re­ On their most recent fishing trip for day averaged 8.0 hours of fishing. Ef­ spondents did not catch a blue marlin billfish, respondents reported an aver­ fort required to catch a billfish was 6.3 during the most recent tournament, the age expenditure of $1,601 (excluding days. Almost 300 respondents (26%) other 27% (307 anglers) caught a total tournament fees) (Table 4). The trip av­ reported they did not catch a billfish in of 607. Of these, 490 blue marlin were eraged 2.59 days in length, with an av­ the previous 12 months. These anglers released (81 %) with the remainder (I I7) erage expenditure of $618 per day. Boat probably did not invest enough time to landed. Similarly, 79% and 82% of the operation costs (fuel, fresh water, etc.) be successful, as 22% of the respon­ respondents did not catch a white mar­ on billfish trips were highest, and food, dents made <3 trips in the previous 12 lin or sailfish, respectively. Neverthe­ drinks, and ice costs were incurred most months. On average, each angler landed less, 522 white marlin and 687 sailfish frequently. The average amount spent <1 (0.7) billfish per year, or I billfish were caught. Almost all white marlin annually on billfish tournament fees every 1.4 years. This should be viewed and sailfish were released, with only 48 was $1,856, or $546 per tournament. with caution, however, as 71 % reported (9%) and 29 (4%), respectively, landed. Since the average number of days spent they did not keep any billfish in the Two of five spearfish caught were re­ per tournament (2.66 days) was com­ past 12 months. Thus, 29% of the bill­ leased. In all, 1,129 anglers caught 1,821 parable to the mean number of days on fish angler population accounted for billfish but landed only 1I% during their their most recent trip (2.59), total ex­ 100% of the fishing mortality. most recent tournaments. Of the 1,625 penditures per angler per tournament Trip characteristics (trips per year, billfish reported as released, 69% were was estimated at $1,601 + $546 = trips to catch a billfish, and billfish re­ tagged. $2,147.

Table 2.-Regional billfishing trip characteristics in the western U.S. Atlantic Ocean. Table 3.-Catch and retention rate from most recent tournament by region.

Successful Billfish Total Total Catch Billfish Trips per trips per Success landed per billtish billtish Percent per landed per year per year per rate year per Region n caught landed release angler angler Region! rY­ angler anglerJ (%) angler Caribbean 100 184 48 74 1.84 048 Caribbean 100' 17.3 6.98 40 287 Gulf 326 270 50 81 0.83 0.15 Gulf 326 8.7 244 28 0.44 Mid-Atlantic 318 687 34 95 216 0.11 Mid-Atlantic 318 13.0 5.98 46 0.35 South Atlantic 343 583 51 91 1.70 0.15 South Atlantic 343 16.5 672 41 0.66 Total 1 1,129 1.821 196 89 1.61 017 Total' 1,129 13.1 5.21 40 0.68 'Includes New England and noncaastal respondents. 'Only 17 respondents were tram New England and are not reponed. 'Only respondents from coastal states (including Pennsylvania) were distributed by regions. 'Trips with billfish caught. 495 respondents were from Puerto Rico. 'Includes New England and noncoastal respondents.

4 Marine Fisheries Review Billfishing expenditures (total expen­ cluded in the final model. The stan­ with the logistic model. There were diture per trip, days fishing per trip, dardized estimates indicate the prob­ no significant regional differences in and cost per day) varied by region ability of a "yes" response decreases mean willingness-to-pay for a billfish (Table 5). The Caribbean region had as the stamp price increases, and in­ stamp. the least expensive trips, on a per day creases as income, trip expenditures, Annual Trip and and per trip basis. Although the most and the number of trips/year increases_ Harvest Estimates expensive trips were in the South At­ The number of billfish trips/year ap­ lantic, it was more expensive per day pears to have the greatest influence on From the results of our tournament in the Gulf of Mexico. New England willingness-to-pay. We also asked an­ inventory (number of tournaments and mean expenditures were comparable to glers the highest price they would pay number of anglers per tournament) and the other Atlantic regions. for a stamp (open-ended) rather than the mail survey (number of tourna­ Tables 6 and 7 report the results of stop fishing for billfish at the current ments per angler), we estimated 7,915 the logistic regression model of the population levels. The average price U.S. tournament billfish anglers in the willingness-to-pay responses and con­ was $247, indicating good agreement western Atlantic Ocean in 1989. This sumer's surplus estimates. Angler char­ group makes a total of 102,895 ± 6,512 acteristics that were expected to affect (90% confidence interval) billfish Table 5.-Logistic regression model of willingness-to­ willingness-to-pay included I) annual pay for a billfish sta!T1p at current billfish population fishing trips per year (both tournament number of billfish trips, 2) years of levels, and consumer's surplus. and nontournament), or 266,498 days fishing experience for billfish, 3) ex­ Parameter per year. On 40% of these trips a bill­ penditures per billfish trip, and 4) an­ estimate Wald Stan- fish was caught. These anglers caught and chi- Prob.> dard- nual household income. Years of fishing Variable standard square chi­ ized 42,301 billfish, released 89% of their experience for billfish was statistically description error value square est. catch, and landed 5,541 ± 715 (90% insignificant (P>0.6) and was not in- Intercept1 0.4006 2.42 0.1200 confidence interval) billfish. The total (0.2576) Stamp price -0.00664 23.23 0.0001 -0.208 catch was composed of 38% sailfish, (0.00138) 33% blue marlin, 29% white marlin, Billfish 0.0305 19.39 0.0001 0.307 Table 4.-Mean expenditures from most recent billfish trips/year (0.0069) and <1% spearfish. Of the billfish trip in the U.S. western Allantic Ocean. Total $/trip 0.000137 6.94 0.0084 0.187 landed, 59% were blue marlin, 24% (0.000052) Mean Annual 9.76x10" 23.59 0.0001 0.207 were white marlin, 15% were sailfish Percent expense household (2.01x10") Mean spent ot anglers to anglers income and the remainder spearfish. Tourna­ Expenditure per who bought who bought item angler each item each item ments accounted for only 25% of the n 1,002 annual billfish landings for this group Food. drinks. ice $152.61 80.2 $190.29 Model chi­ 104.3 of anglers. Whereas we were unable to Boat operation $462.56 72.8 $635.38 square (P

Total (11=1129) $1,600.62 Parameter bi'llfish (tournament and non tour­ estimate Wald Stan- nament trips). This equals $4,242 per llncludes modes of transportation other than automobiles. and chi- Prob.> dard- 21ncludes slip rental, repairs, satellite data, and other mis­ Variable standard square chi­ ized billfish caught or $32,381 per billfish cellaneous items. description error value square est. landed. Included in the total were Intercept 0.6347 4.68 0.0305 billfish tournament expenses of (0.2934) Table 5.-Mean expenditure per billfishing trip, days Stamp price -0.00603 1458 0.0001 -0.189 $58,964,000, of which $14,690,000 fishing per trip, and expenditures per day, by region. (0.00158) Bililish 0.0436 20.39 00001 0.426 were tournament fees. This amounts to Expend- Days Expend­ trips/year (0.0097) $5,576 for every tournament-caught Total $/trip 0.000143 4.83 iture fishing iture 0.0280 0.195 (0.000065) per per per billfish and $42,565 for every tourna­ Annual 1.10xlO-· 22.09 00001 0.229 Region n trip trip day household (2.30xl0") ment-landed biJJfish. income Caribbean 100 $824 2.13 $387 Annual Consumer's Surplus Gulf 326 $1.232 2.18 $565 Mid-Atlantic 318 $1,454 2.72 $535 n 988 in the Study Area South Atlantic 343 $1,905 4.33 $440 Model chi­ 92.7 square (P

54(1 J, 1992 5 for the opportunity to fish for billfish. been established in the fishery and is Literature Cited If the numbers of billfish were to in­ expanding (Prince et aI., 1990). Agresti, A. 1990. Categorical data analysis. John crease by 25%, annual net economic Results support the decision to re­ Wiley and Sons, N.Y., 558 p. benefits would be $3,545,920. Thus, by serve bill fish for the recreational Bethlehem, J. G., and H. M. P. Kersten. 1985. On the treatment of nonresponse in sample subtraction, the net benefits gained fishery. Billfish anglers have a low suc­ surveys. J. Offic. Stat. 1(3):287-300. from a 25% increase in the billfish cess rate and an even lower retention Brown, B., and D. Ofiera. 1987. The 1986 sur­ vey of New Jersey's big game fishery. U.S. population would be $1,472,190 for this rate; their effect on billfish populations Fish Wildl. Serv., Proj. Rep. F-15-R-28, 25 p. group of anglers. is slight, while the economic value of Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone sur­ a billfish trip is great. The annual veys: The total design method. John Wiley Discussion and Sons, N. Y., 325 p. consumer's surplus of a billfish angler Ditton, R. B., D. K. Loomis, A. D. Risenhoover, Billfish tournament anglers are a ($262) is almost 10 times higher than S. Choi, M. O. Osborn, J. Clark, R. Reichers king mackerel anglers in the Gulf of and G. C. Matlock. 1990. Demographics, par­ unique segment of saltwater anglers. ticipation, attitudes, expenditures and manage­ Their fishing frequency of 44 days per Mexico in 1987 ($27) (Stoll et aI., ment preferences of Texas saltwater anglers, year far exceeds the II days reported 1989). Further, aecommercialization of 1986. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Austin, 57 p. the bill fish fishery should increase bill­ Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 1988. A social by saltwater anglers nationwide and economic research agenda in support of (USFWS, 1988). Greater fishing fre­ fish populations and increase social and billfish conservation. In Planning the future of economic benefits to the nation ($448 billfishes: Research and management in the quency and years of previous experi­ 90's and beyond. Part 2. Contributed papers. ence probably account for why almost per angler annually with a 25% increase Proc. Second Int. Billfish Symp., Kailua-Kona, 40% of billfish anglers rated them­ in billfish). Also, current regulations do Hawaii, p. 263-268. Natl. Coalition Mar. not deny commercial fishermen their Conserv., Inc. Savannah, Ga. selves "more skilled" than other an­ Figley, W. 1984. Survey of recreational tuna and glers, contrasted with 13% of the state­ directed fishery (tuna or swordfish). If marlin fishing in the mid-Atlantic, 1983. Rep. wide population of Texas saltwater domestic and foreign longliners are al­ to Billfish Inter-Counc. Steering Committee, lowed to deplete billfish on a bycatch Tampa, Fla., 8 p. anglers (Ditton et aI., 1990). The cost Freeman, B. 1985. Summary of billfish and of a billfish fishing trip ($1,601) is basis to where anglers no longer feel swordfish catches for the middle Atlantic they have an opportunity to catch them, area during 1983. Rep. 10 Billfish Inter­ about 7 times higher than the cost Counc. Steering Committee, St. Augustine, of a king mackerel trip in the Gulf current economic benefits could be lost. Fla., 27 p. of Mexico ($226) (Stoll et aI., 1989). Also, there would be impacts of lost Hamm, D., and B. Slater. 1979. Survey of revenues on providers and local the recreational billfish and shark fisheries, Similarly, per-day billfishing costs May J, 1977 to April 30, 1978. U.S. Dep. ($618) are about 13 times higher communities. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS SEFC­ than general daily saltwater fishing Current U.S. management efforts are 5,16 p. a step in the right direction toward bill­ Huppert, D. D. 1983. NMFS guidelines on eco­ expenses in 1985 ($47) (USFWS, nomic valuation of marine recreational fishing. 1988). fish conservation. Whereas bill fish U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. available to U.S. recreational anglers NMFS-SWFC-32, 35 p. Regulations that would diminish Krejcie, R. Y,. and D. W. Morgan. 1970. Deter­ billfish anglers' ability to catch (not can be affected by overfishing by for­ mining sample size for research activities. land) a billfish would likely meet eign fleets (external to our EEZ), this Educ. Psychol. Measurement 30:607-610. can only be resolved through interna­ Prince, E. D., A. R. Bertolino, and A. M. Lopez. strong opposition. Therefore, if further 1990. A comparison of fishing success and regulation of the recreational fishery tional efforts, i.e., the International average weights of blue marlin and white mar­ becomes necessary, decisionmakers Convention for the Conservation of At­ lin landed by the recreational fishery in the lantic Tunas (ICCAT). western Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and might consider a management regime Caribbean Sea, 1972-1986. In Planning the fu­ that would achieve the desired objec­ ture of billfishes: Research and management Acknowledgments in the 90's and beyond. Part I. Fishery and tive but not de~er or inhibit anglers stock synopses, data needs and management. from catching billfish (e.g., seasonal Partial funding support for this Proc. Second Int. Billfish Symp., Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, p. 159-178. Natl. Coalition Mar. or area closures). Since most billfish project was provided by the Billfish Conserv., Inc. Savannah, Ga. are released, stricter size requirements, Foundation, Miami, Fla., and the Texas Stoll, J. R., R. B. Ditton, and D. A. Gill. 1989. daily limits, or annual bag limits Agricultural Experiment Station. We Recreational angler participation in the Gulf of Mexico king mackerel fishery: Understand­ would have little or no impact on an­ acknowledge the cooperation of the ing the value of the resource and socioeco­ glers who release billfish. Further bill fish tournament directors who pro­ nomic impacts of management options. Rep. regulations may not be necessary if vided access to our sample and the bill­ to Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Southeast Reg. Off., St. Petersburg, Fla, Contrib. No. NA86-WE­ fishery conservation groups generate fish anglers who provided us with the H-MFI32 (RF-86-1015), 213 p. greater support for catch and release data requested. Steve Berkeley, Eric USFWS. 1988. 1985 National survey of fishing, Prince, and Ron Schmied provided hunting, and wildlife associated recreation. programs among Caribbean anglers. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C., Support for catch and release has long helpful comments. 167 p.

6 Marine Fisheries Review