Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Recreational fishing in the United States is an important social and
economic component of many marine fisheries. However, in some cases,
recreational fishing takes more fish than commercial fishing, and in an
increasing number of cases, recreational fishing is the main source of
fishing mortality. In addition, current assessments indicate that some
marine recreational fisheries have exceeded their quotas, raising concern
because fishing effort in marine recreational fisheries is projected to
increase. It is important that catch monitoring systems are adequate for
timely management of these fisheries.
Marine recreational fisheries are not monitored with the same rigor
as commercial fisheries. However, as concerns about the effects of all
types of fishing have grown, more attention has been paid to the possible
impacts of marine recreational fishing. The growing interest in the
effects of recreational fishing on fish stock size and composition has led
to increased demands for timely and accurate data. Although the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration implemented the Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) in 1979 to obtain statistics about
marine recreational fisheries, management goals and objectives have
changed since then, as has the complexity of the recreational fishing
sector. The need for and use of marine recreational fishery statistics in
science and management have changed as well. This committee has
identified several areas in which designers of sampling programs, data
collectors, and users of recreational fisheries data appear to have
incomplete communication, mismatched criteria, or other obstacles.
The MRFSS has two major components: an onsite component, in
which anglers are intercepted and interviewed on the water or at sites
1
OCR for page 2
2 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
such as marinas where they access the water; and an offsite component,
in which anglers are contacted and surveyed by telephone after their trips
are completed. There has been widespread criticism of the nature and use
of the MRFSS information. The MRFSS was (and is) intended to be a
national program, but not all coastal states participate. In some cases,
states have their own surveys of recreational fish landings instead of the
MRFSS; in other cases, states have surveys that complement the
MRFSS. In addition to this lack of uniformity of coverage, the quality of
the MRFSS data for management purposes has also been questioned.
Indeed, it is much more difficult to collect data on recreational
saltwater anglers than on commercial fishing operations. There are far
more saltwater anglers than commercial fishermen--approximately 14
million anglers fished annually in recent years--and they do not land
their catches at specific points where there are dealers, as do commercial
fishermen. In addition, there are many modes of fishing (e.g., anglers
who fish from head boats or charter boats, with guides,1 from shore, on
private boats, from private property), and many anglers release fish they
catch. Some anglers travel far to fish and often fish only a few times each
year, which makes them difficult to encounter in surveys. Others, who
live within 50 miles of the coast, are much more likely to be intercepted
by the MRFSS. Finally, most surveys of anglers depend to some degree
on the anglers' recall and willingness to volunteer valid information. As
a result, designing a survey that will provide accurate and timely
information, with good coverage and at acceptable cost, is a major
challenge.
Despite the complexity of the challenge and its importance for
fishery management, the MRFSS staff have been severely handicapped
in their efforts to implement, operate, and improve the MRFSS,
including implementing the recommendations of earlier reviews. It is not
reasonable to expect such a small staff--and one that lacks a Ph.D.-level
mathematical statistician--to operate a national survey of such complex-
ity, despite the dedication of the small staff the MRFSS does have.
1Head boats, also called party boats, take large groups of anglers (sometimes as
many as 100) on fishing trips; the groups usually are not pre-formed. Charter
boats (also occasionally called party boats) take smaller groups of anglers,
usually four to eight, most often in pre-formed groups. Guided trips are trips in
which a guide takes one or two anglers in a smaller boat. These different cate-
gories operate under different U.S. Coast Guard and state license requirements.
Throughout this report, these sectors are collectively referred to as the for-hire
sector.
OCR for page 3
SUMMARY 3
In addition, the MRFSS is severely limited by the lack of a universal
sampling frame for all saltwater anglers, a lack that is not of the
MRFSS's own making. To make matters even more difficult, some of
the data that the MRFSS depends on are collected by states, which use a
variety of data-collection and sampling protocols. Finally, the financial
resources allocated to the MRFSS are modest in comparison to the
challenge. This committee's findings and recommendations should be
viewed with this in mind.
THE PRESENT STUDY
To help identify solutions to some of the above problems, NMFS
asked the National Academies to assemble a committee to review current
marine recreational fishing surveys and to make recommendations for
improvements--especially to the MRFSS--and to recommend the
implementation of possible alternative approaches. (See Box S.1 for the
committee's statement of task.)
In response, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academies established the Committee on the Review of Recreational
Fishing Survey Methods, composed of experts in survey design and
statistics, biological statistics, fishery management, and the economics
and sociology of recreational fishing. The background and support for
the conclusions and recommendations presented below are found in
subsequent chapters.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Conclusions
· The committee agrees with conclusions of previous NRC
committees that marine recreational fishing is a significant
source of fishing mortality for many marine species and that
adequate scientific information on the nature of that mortality in
time and space is required for successful management of those
species.
· Marine fisheries management goals, objectives, and context have
changed since the MRFSS was begun in 1979. Management
OCR for page 4
4 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
Box S.1
Statement of Task
This study will critically review the types of survey methods used to
estimate catch per unit effort and effort in recreational fisheries, including
state and federal cooperative programs. The committee will examine
representative survey types but will not evaluate every regional or state
survey method currently in use. The study will consider the match or
mismatch between options for collecting recreational fisheries data and
alternative approaches for managing recreational fisheries.
In particular, the committee will assess current types of survey
methods giving consideration to:
· The suitability for monitoring different types of fishing (e.g., charter
boats versus private boats, offshore versus near-shore species,
fisheries with temporally or spatially restricted fishing seasons).
· The adequacy for providing the quality of information needed to
support various approaches for managing recreational fisheries, with
reference to how the management approach might be restricted by
the type of survey method, stratification scheme, and sample size
required. For example, is the management time frame (in-season,
annual, or multi-year) consistent with temporal design of the survey?
Is the geographic scale of management (e.g., state versus regional)
appropriate for the resolution provided by the survey? How would the
survey design need to be modified to match the requirements of the
management approach?
· Make recommendations regarding possible improvements to current
surveys and/or possible implementation of alternative approaches,
including setting priorities for revising monitoring methods that will
yield the greatest improvements in effort and catch per unit effort
estimates.
Current survey methods and recommended alternatives will be
compared with relation to costs, sources of bias, precision, and
timeliness.
decisions are often made at finer spatial and temporal scales than
they were earlier, the mix of recreational and commercial fishing
has changed for many areas and species, and stock-assessment
models now make greater use of data from recreational fisheries.
· The MRFSS is in need of additional financial resources so that
technical and practical expertise can be added to assist in a major
overhaul of the design, implementation, and analysis of data
from the MRFSS. Both the telephone and access components of
the current approach have serious flaws in design or implemen-
OCR for page 5
SUMMARY 5
tation and use inadequate analysis methods that need to be
addressed immediately.
· This committee's review has focused primarily on the MRFSS,
but many of the component surveys of the MRFSS conducted by
state agencies (with various degrees of federal funding) suffer
from the same shortcomings as does the central MRFSS. As a
result, many of this committee's recommendations apply to state
surveys as well as to the MRFSS.
· Many of the independent surveys conducted by the states, as
well as state-run surveys that are components of the MRFSS, are
different from each other and from the central MRFSS in
important ways, including sampling, data collection, and
preparation of estimators.
· The committee concludes that users' concerns about the use of
the MRFSS in fishery management are justified by the above-
mentioned weaknesses, but they also result from inadequate
communication and outreach on the part of the MRFSS mana-
gers at NMFS.
· The for-hire sector of marine recreational fisheries (i.e., charter,
guide, and head boat operations) is more like a commercial
sector than it is like the private-angler sector.
General Recommendations
· The MRFSS (as well as many of its component or companion
surveys conducted either indirectly or independently) should be
completely redesigned to improve its effectiveness and appropri-
ateness of sampling and estimation procedures, its applicability
to various kinds of management decisions, and its usefulness for
social and economic analyses. After the revision is complete,
provision should be made for ongoing technical evaluation and
modification, as needed, to meet emerging management needs.
To improve the MRFSS, the committee further recommends that
the existing MRFSS program be given a firm deadline linked to
sufficient program funding for implementation of this report's
recommendations.
· A much greater degree of standardization among state surveys,
and between state surveys and the central MRFSS, should be
OCR for page 6
6 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
achieved. This will require a much greater degree of cooperation
and coordination among the managers of the various surveys.
· The for-hire sector of marine recreational fisheries should be
considered a commercial sector, and survey methods and report-
ing requirements for that sector therefore should be different
from those for private anglers.
Sampling Issues Conclusions
· The committee concludes that the current methods used in the
MRFSS for sampling the universe of anglers and for determining
their catch and effort are inadequate. Sampling of each group of
anglers (i.e., private, guided, head boat, charter boat) presents
challenges that can differ across the groups. Two complementary
methods of sampling are used in the MRFSS. One is onsite (i.e.,
intercepting anglers while they are fishing or at their access
[landing] points). The other is offsite, which includes a variety of
sampling techniques for contacting anglers after they have com-
pleted their trips. Both onsite and offsite methods suffer from
weaknesses that may lead to biases in catch and effort estima-
tion. Finally, the estimation procedure for information gathered
onsite does not use the nominal or actual selection probabilities
of the sample design and therefore has the potential to produce
biased estimates for both the parameters of interest and their
variances.
· Onsite methods fail to intercept anglers who have private access
to fishing waters or intercept them only sporadically. It is
impossible, using current methods, to obtain information on the
target species of anglers who have private access. In addition,
various physical, financial, and operational constraints often lead
to spatial or temporal biases in onsite sampling coverage that are
not adequately accounted for in the estimation equations.
· Offsite sampling methods that rely on telephone interviews are
complicated by the increasing use of cellular telephones, espec-
ially in surveys of residents of coastal counties. This is because
cellular telephones are not restricted to a geographic region as
are landline telephones. If cellular telephones are excluded, then
undercoverage of the survey will be increasingly problematic
OCR for page 7
SUMMARY 7
over time as the number of people who use only cellular tele-
phones is growing.
· The existing random digit dialing (RDD) survey suffers in
efficiency from the low proportion of fishing households among
the general population and may allow bias in estimation from its
restriction to coastal counties only.
· Reliance on fishing license-based lists of saltwater anglers is not
yet feasible as a means of improving offsite sampling methods to
avoid the inefficiency of RDD, undercoverage due to cellular
telephone use, and restriction to coastal counties. Although many
states collect angler information when a saltwater fishing license
is purchased, there are license exemptions based on age, resi-
dence, access points, existence of a boat license, mode of fishing,
and other factors. As a result, angler information for those states
is incomplete. Some states have more complete information than
others, and in the states that have no saltwater license, there is no
list of saltwater anglers. The lack of a universal sampling frame
(registry or license requirement) for all saltwater anglers is a
major impediment to the development of a reliable and accurate
survey program.
· Catch and release fishing (release of fish that survive capture) is
increasingly common in many marine recreational fisheries.
Although some fish survive capture and release, mortality may
be high, in some cases exceeding 50 percent. The survey fails to
provide a valid and reliable method of adequately accounting for
fish caught and not brought to the dock (including fish released
alive or dead, as well as fish caught for bait or given away before
reaching the dock). This shortcoming affects estimates of catch
and total removals.
· The correct identification of fish species, especially in places
with diverse fish faunas, is a difficult challenge, both for many
anglers and for those conducting surveys. Incorrect identification
obviously has the potential to lead to incorrect conclusions from
survey data.
Sampling Issues Recommendations
· A comprehensive, universal sampling frame with national cover-
age should be established. The most effective way to achieve this
OCR for page 8
8 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
is through a national registration of all saltwater anglers or
through new or existing state saltwater license programs that
would allow no exemptions2 and that would provide appropriate
contact information from anglers fishing in all marine waters,
both state and federal. Any gaps in such a program (e.g., a lack
of registration in a particular region or mode, exemptions of
various classes of anglers) would compromise the use of the
sampling frame and, hence, the quality of the survey program.
An updated, complete registration list would greatly improve
sampling efficiency in terms of time and cost. Although these
savings might not cover the entire cost of maintaining such a
database, the benefit from the increased quantity and quality of
the data would be worth the extra cost, especially if there is an
associated increase in public confidence in the final estimates.
· Future telephone surveys should be based on the above universal
sampling frame.
· Charter boat, head boat, and other for-hire recreational fishing
operations should be required to maintain logbooks of fish
landed and kept, as well as fish caught and released. Providing
the information should be mandatory for continued operation in
this sector, and all the information should be verifiable and made
available to the survey program in a timely manner.
· Additional studies are needed to understand the extent to which
fish are kept and inspected, as well as the extent of catch not
available for inspection to improve the accuracy of catch esti-
mates.
· Panel surveys, which contact individual anglers repeatedly over
time, should be considered in recreational fishing surveys to
gather angler trend data and to improve the efficiency of data
collection.
· The onsite sampling frame for the MRFSS should be redesigned.
The estimation procedure critically depends on the assumption
that catch rate does not vary according to the nature of the access
point. In particular, small or private access points that most like-
ly are missed might have different catch rates than larger access
points, which would lead to bias in the resulting estimators. In
2There is no scientific reason that a state should not continue to allow certain
groups (e.g., seniors) to fish for free, as long as everyone is required to register
in the universal sampling frame or have a state saltwater license.
OCR for page 9
SUMMARY 9
addition, the sampling process requires greater quality control
(less latitude on the part of the samplers) than it has at present.
(See the recommendation below for the establishment of an
independent research group to investigate matters such as these.)
· Dual-frame procedures should be used wherever possible to re-
duce sample bias. For example, if a state has an incomplete list
frame based on licenses, the use of an additional sampling frame
of the state's residents (e.g., RDD) would reduce the bias. The
existence of a universal frame described above would make this
approach unnecessary for offsite sampling.
· Internet surveys should be considered for their potential use in
recreational fishing surveys, especially in panel surveys, as a
way for anglers to submit information.
Statistical Estimation Issues Conclusions
· The designs, sampling strategies, and collection methods of rec-
reational fishing surveys do not provide adequate data for man-
agement and policy decisions. Unknown biases in the estimators
from these surveys arise from reliance on unverified assump-
tions. Unless these assumptions are tested and the degree and
direction of bias reliably estimated, the extent to which the
biases affect final estimates will remain unknown.
· The statistical properties associated with data collected through
different survey techniques differ and often are unknown. The
current estimators of error associated with various survey pro-
ducts are likely to be biased and too low. It is necessary, at a
minimum, to determine how those differences affect survey
results that use differing methods.
Current analysis procedures used in the MRFSS do not exploit
the current knowledge of finite population sampling theory. The
current estimates are particularly deficient when applied to small
areas because they do not use information in adjoining areas or
time periods, nor do they consider relationships between species
that occur together. Therefore, they are of lower precision than
would be possible if this information were used. Improvements
in these estimates would be of great use to managers who need to
make quick decisions concerning spatial areas that are smaller
than typical in the early years of the MRFSS.
OCR for page 10
10 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
Statistical Estimation Issues Recommendations
· The statistical properties of various sampling, data-collection,
and data-analysis methods should be determined. Assumptions
should be examined and verified so that biases can be properly
evaluated.
· A research group of statisticians should design new analyses
based on current developments in sampling theory. These
examinations should include experimentation, such as specific
sampling of activities like nighttime fishing or fishing from pri-
vate property, whose current underrepresentation in the MRFSS
sampling has the potential to create bias.
Human Dimensions Conclusions
· The MRFSS was not designed with human dimensions data (i.e.,
collection of social, behavioral, attitudinal, and economic data)
in mind. The qualities of social, economic, and other human
dimensions data have been compromised for many of the same
reasons that the biological data have been compromised, inclu-
ding such issues as those related to coastal populations, tele-
phone surveys, and sampling protocol. The human dimensions
data have been further compromised by simply being added onto
the biological data collection efforts that have different sampling
requirements and survey design needs. Current surveys are large-
ly focused on biological factors (e.g., numbers, sizes, and species
of fish landed) and not on human dimensions factors. The statis-
tical and sampling problems associated with social, behavioral,
attitudinal, and economic data often can be considerably differ-
ent from those associated with biological factors.
If the number of marine fishing trips increases, it is likely that
additional fishing access sites will be developed. In addition,
social and environmental changes (e.g., changes in the distribu-
tion and numbers of people, a major hurricane) also can affect
the availability and use of access sites. To ensure adequate
coverage of the recreational fishery, a periodic updating of lists
and descriptions of fishing locations and access sites is needed.
OCR for page 11
SUMMARY 11
Human Dimensions Recommendations
· An independent national trip and expenditure survey should be
developed to support economic valuation studies, impact anal-
yses, and other social and attitudinal studies. The sampling and
survey procedures of the independent survey should be designed
for the purpose of social and economic, not biological, analyses.
· Add-on surveys for human dimensions should be continued but
in a more focused way than currently is done to target specific
management needs and to supplement the national data as
needed.
· The national database on marine recreational fishing sites and
their characteristics should be enhanced to support social, eco-
nomic, and other human dimensions analyses. Sites should be
defined at levels as fine as possible. The data set should include
site characteristics that matter to anglers in making fishing
choices, such as boat ramps, facilities, natural amenities, park-
ing, size, and type (e.g., beach, pier, launch point). To account
for changes in the number and patterns of trips and the changing
characteristics of sites, a periodic updating of the data should be
conducted.
Program Management and Support Conclusions
· A large number of complex technical issues associated with sur-
veys of marine recreational fishing remain unsolved, and a
significant investment in intellectual and technical expertise is
needed.
· A greater degree of coordination between federal, state, and
other survey programs is necessary to achieve the national
perspective on marine recreational fisheries that is needed.
· The recommended changes to the design and operation of the
MRFSS and its continued development and operation will
require additional funding above current levels.
OCR for page 12
12 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
Program Management and Support Recommendations
· A permanent and independent research group should be estab-
lished and funded to continuously evaluate the statistical design
and adequacy of recreational fishery surveys and to guide
necessary modifications or new initiatives. Human dimensions
expertise should be included as well.
· Additional funding is needed for a survey office devoted to the
management and implementation of marine recreational surveys,
including coordination between surveys conducted in various
state and federal agencies.
Communication and Outreach Conclusions
· It is difficult for individual anglers to see the effects of recre-
ational fishing on their target species and to distinguish daily and
seasonal fluctuations from trends. As a result, no matter how
well designed and implemented a marine recreational survey is,
it will not fully succeed without the cooperation of anglers.
Unless anglers believe that the survey is well designed and
implemented and that it is being used intelligently to address
appropriate management issues, they are unlikely to participate.
· In particular, anglers need to have a basic understanding of the
relationship between a statistically based sampling scheme and
the frequency with which each of them is (or is not) contacted by
a data collector.
· If anglers believe that their input is influencing the design and
use of surveys, they are more likely to be satisfied with those
surveys than otherwise.
· If anglers understand the basic purposes and decisions to which
recreational fishing survey data are being applied and how those
data are interpreted and used, they are more likely to feel con-
fident that the approaches used are legitimate and are more likely
to participate willingly and provide valid information.
Communication and Outreach Recommendations
· Outreach and communication should be improved in several
ways. The MRFSS managers should advise anglers and data
OCR for page 13
SUMMARY 13
users on the constraints that apply to the use of the data for
various purposes. Managers and anglers also should be informed
clearly about any limitations of the data.
· Outreach and communication should be institutionalized as part
of an ongoing MRFSS program so their importance is ac-
knowledged and appropriate expertise can be developed.
· Angler associations should be engaged as partners with survey
managers through workshops, data collection, survey design, and
participation in survey advisory groups. Many NRC and other re-
ports stress the importance of using local and traditional knowl-
edge, capacity building, and local communities in knowledge-
gathering and dissemination activities. These recommendations
apply, as well, to the recreational fishing community.
OCR for page 14
Representative terms from entire chapter:
recreational fishing
