U.S. Department 

of Commerce 

November 2001 

NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154


A Scientific Paper of the FISHERY BULLETIN


Description of Economic Data 

Collected with a Random Sample 

of Commercial Reef Fish Boats 

in the Florida Keys 

James R. Waters 

Raymond J. Rhodes 

Robert Wiggers 
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

A Scientific Paper of the Fishery Bulletin 

Description of Economic Data 

Collected with a Random Sample 

of Commercial Reef Fish Boats 

in the Florida Keys 

James R. Waters 

Raymond J. Rhodes 

Robert Wiggers 

November 2001 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Seattle, Washington 
Suggested reference 

Waters, James R., Raymond J. Rhodes, and Robert Wiggers. 2001. Description of 

economic data collected with a random sample of commercial reef fish boats in the Florida 

Keys. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 154, 45 p. 

Online dissemination


This report is posted online in PDF format at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov (click on Technical

Reports link).

Purchasing additional copies 

Additional copies of this report are available for purchase in paper copy or microfiche from 

the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; 

1-800-553-NTIS; http://www.ntis.gov. 

Copyright law 

Although the contents of the Technical Reports have not been copyrighted and may be 

reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated. 

Proprietary products 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend, or endorse 

any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned in this publication. No reference 

shall be made to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or 

sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NMFS approves, recommends, or 

endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as 

its purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or 

purchased because of this NMFS publication. 
1 

ABSTRACT–This study summarizes the 

results of a survey designed to provide 

economic information about the financial status of commercial reef fish boats 

with homeports in the Florida Keys. A 

survey questionnaire was administered in 

the summer and fall of 1994 by interviewers in face-to-face meetings with owners 

or operators of randomly selected boats. 

Fishermen were asked for background 

information about themselves and their 

boats, their capital investments in boats 

and equipment, and about their average 

catches, revenues, and costs per trip for 

their two most important kinds of fishing 

trips during 1993 for species in the reef 

fish fishery. Respondents were characterized with regard to their dependence on 

the reef fish fishery as a source of household income. Boats were described in 

terms of their physical and financial characteristics. Different kinds of fishing trips 

were identified by the species that generated the greatest revenue. Trips were 

grouped into the following categories: yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus); mutton 

snapper (Lutjanus analis), black grouper 

(Mycteroperca bonaci), or red grouper (Epinephelus morio); gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus); deeper water groupers and tilefishes; 

greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili); spiny 

lobster (Panulirus argus); king mackerel 

(Scomberomorus cavalla); and dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus). Average catches, revenues, routine trip costs, and net operating 

revenues per boat per trip and per boat 

per year were estimated for each category 

of fishing trips. In addition to its descriptive value, data collected during this study 

will aid in future examinations of the economic effects of various regulations on 

commercial reef fish fishermen. 

Description of Economic Data Collected with a 

Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats 

in the Florida Keys 

James R. Waters 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA


101 Piver’s Island Road


Beaufort, North Carolina 28516


E-mail: Jim.Waters@noaa.gov 

Raymond J. Rhodes 

Robert Wiggers 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources


Marine Resources Division


Office of Fisheries Management


P.O. Box 12559


Charleston, South Carolina 29422


Introduction posed regulations. This report presents results from a recent survey that 

Bays, coral reefs, and offshore waters collected basic economic information 

of the Florida Keys support commer- about commercial fishing for reef 

cial and recreational fisheries for reef fishes in the Florida Keys. Our objecfishes and other species. Many of the tives are to develop a stratified ranreef fishes, including snappers (Lut- dom survey of commercial reef fish 

janidae), groupers (Serranidae), por- boats with homeports in the Florida 

gies (Sparidae), grunts (Haemulidae), Keys; summarize characteristics of 

triggerfishes (Balistidae), wrasses (Lab- respondents and their boats; and 

ridae), tilefishes (Malacanthidae), and estimate average catches, revenues, 

jacks (Carangidae), are vulnerable to routine harvesting costs, and net opoverfishing because of their life his- erating revenues per trip and per year 

tory characteristics that include rela- for commercial reef fish boats. The 

tively sedentary behavior, slow growth, information presented here will be 

low natural mortality, large body size, 

delayed reproduction, and sex rever- 1 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com­ sal for some species (SEFSC, 1992). As mission. 1999. Marine Fisheries Regulations

a result, the Florida Marine Fisheries [Management Plans]. Internet website availCommission1, the South Atlantic Fish- able at http://marinefisheries.org/mfc46.htm. 

ery Management Council2, and the 2 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1983. Fishery Management Plan, Regula- Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management tory Impact Review, and Final Environmental 

Council3 have implemented regula- Impact Statement for the Snapper-Grouper 

tions to conserve and rebuild depleted Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. One 

Southpark Circle, Southpark Building, Suite populations of reef fishes. 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407. 

Scarcity of economic data has been 3 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Couna problem in the development of reg- cil. 1981. (Revised) Environmental Impact 

Statement and Fishery Management Plan for ulations for reef fishes. Data about Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. 

total pounds landed and total ex-ves- Lincoln Center, Suite 881, 5401 West Kensel value are available4, but there is nedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33609. 

little information about the financial 4 Data are maintained by the Office of Fisheries Statistics, National Marine Fisheries Ser­ performance of commercial reef fish vice, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 

boats or the economic effects of pro- Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149. 
2 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

made available to fishery managers to assist in their assessments of the consequences of proposed regulations 

for the commercial reef fish fishery. 

This report is the third in a series of three about economic surveys of the commercial reef fish fisheries in 

the southeastern United States. Waters5 reported on a 

similar survey of 196 commercial reef fish boats in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Waters, Rhodes, Waltz, and Wiggers6 

described a survey of 147 commercial snapper-grouper 

boats along the Atlantic coast from North Carolina to 

south Florida. In an unrelated survey, Suman and Shivlani7 interviewed 337 fishermen in the Florida Keys to 

examine where they fished during 1995 in relation to 

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and to estimate species caught, relative effort in various fisheries, 

and trip costs per fishery. 

Materials and methods 

Our survey consisted of three questionnaires (see 

Appendix 1). First, a screening questionnaire was used 

to record each attempt to telephone owners of randomly selected boats, verify their boat’s eligibility for 

inclusion in the survey, and set up an appointment 

for a face-to-face interview with the owner or operator. 

Second, the basic questionnaire was used to obtain 

background information about respondents and their 

boats and to identify the primary species caught during 

the year. Third, supplemental questionnaires were used 

to obtain detailed information about average catches, 

revenues, and costs per trip for each boat’s two most 

important kinds of trips for reef fishes in terms of their 

contributions to annual revenues. If a boat made only 

one kind of trip for reef fish, then a second supplemental questionnaire was administered regarding the 

most important kind of non-reef fishing trips, if any. 

We decided to collect supplemental information about 

only two kinds of fishing trips per boat as a way to limit 

the length of each interview, although it reduced the 

amount of resulting information about the profitability 

of fishing alternatives for boats that engaged in three or 

5 Waters, James R. 1996. An economic survey of commercial reef fish 

vessels in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Unpubl. report for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 

28516. 

6 Waters, James R., Raymond J. Rhodes, Wayne Waltz, and Robert 

Wiggers. 1997. An economic survey of commercial reef fish boats 

along the U.S. south Atlantic coast. Unpubl. report for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 

28516. 

7 Suman, D. O., and M. P. Shivlani. 1997. Catch and effort profiles 

of commercial fishermen in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unpubl. report of the Division of Marine Affairs and Policy, 

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of 

Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149. 

more kinds of fishing trips. Interviews were performed 

under subcontract by Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc., a 

firm that specializes in research surveys for both the 

public and private sectors. 

Sampling design 

The Florida Keys, by virtue of their unique location 

between the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, establish the boundary between the federal jurisdictions of 

the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has responsibility for management 

of fisheries in federal waters south and east of the Florida Keys, whereas the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has jurisdiction in federal waters west and 

north of the Keys. Depending on where they fish, fishermen may have to comply with regulations established 

by one or both regional fishery management councils, 

as well as the state of Florida which manages fisheries in 

state waters. 

To fish commercially for reef fishes in federal waters, 

both regional fishery management councils require permits. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issues reef fish permits for boats that fish commercially 

for reef fishes managed by the Gulf Council under its 

Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources 

of the Gulf of Mexico.8 NMFS issues snapper-grouper 

permits for boats that fish commercially for reef fishes 

managed by the South Atlantic Council under its Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery 

of the south Atlantic Region.9 The primary criterion to 

obtain a Gulf reef fish permit is that at least 50% of total earned income must come from commercial fishing, 

but not necessarily from reef fish fishing. The primary 

criterion to qualify for an Atlantic snapper-grouper permit is that at least 50% of total earned income or at least 

$20,000 in gross revenues must come from commercial 

fishing, but not necessarily from reef fish fishing. Permits are issued annually. 

We established the population of boats to be sampled 

from data files that recorded boats with permits for the 

Atlantic snapper-grouper and Gulf reef fish fisheries.10 

8 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1989. Amendment 

Number 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. 3018 U.S. 

Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619. 

9 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1991. Amendment 

4, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

and Environmental Assessment for the Fishery Management Plan 

for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. 

One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407. 

10	 Data were obtained from the Fisheries Permits Team, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702. The terms 

“boats” and “vessels” are used interchangeably in this report. 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 3 

There were 811 boats with homeports in the Florida 

Keys that held either an Atlantic snapper-grouper permit, a Gulf reef fish permit, or both during 1993. The 

owners of most boats with federal permits apparently 

expected to fish on the Atlantic side of the Keys, or in 

both Atlantic and Gulf waters, but few expected to fish 

only in the Gulf of Mexico. Three hundred four boats 

held both an Atlantic snapper-grouper permit and a 

Gulf reef fish permit, 479 boats held a snapper-grouper 

permit and no reef fish permit, and only 28 boats held 

a reef fish permit and no snapper-grouper permit. 

Given the project’s limited budget, the survey was 

designed to reduce the chance of randomly selecting 

boats with minimal levels of participation in the fishery 

during the 1993 survey period.11 We excluded boats 

whose owners let their permits expire during the first 

three months of 1993 or that obtained a new permit 

during the last three months of 1993. We further reduced the size of the sampling universe by focusing 

on gear types commonly used on boats in the snappergrouper and reef fish fisheries. Applicants for federal 

permits were asked to: 

“Select by letter up to four gears used by this vessel (1. 

Most important - 4. Least important) 

1. _____________ 3. ______________ 

2. _____________ 4. ______________ 

a. Shrimp trawl g. Surface longline 

b. Fish trap/pot h. Bottom longline 

c. Runaround gillnet i. Lobster trap 

d. Reef fish bandit j. Diver 

e. Hand/troll line k. Other (specify) 

f. Rod & reel ____________________.” 

Boats with applications that reported the use of fish 

traps (choice b), vertical lines with bandit reels (d), 

rods and reels (f), bottom longlines (h), or diving gear 

(j) as among their top four gear choices were retained 

in the sampling universe. 

The total population to be sampled consisted of 653 

boats with homeports in the Florida Keys that, for at 

least three months during 1993, held an Atlantic snapper-grouper and/or a Gulf reef fish permit to fish commercially for reef fishes in federal waters and that also 

claimed on their permit applications the use of one 

or more common reef fish gears in their commercial 

fishing activities. Other boats in the Keys that fished 

commercially or recreationally for reef fishes or other 

11	 We would have preferred to have had access to a list of boats that 

actively participated in the reef fish fishery, and if the survey were 

to be repeated, we would use logbook trip reports as the basis 

for the sampling universe. However, the logbook program on the 

Atlantic had recently begun at the time of this survey and the 

NMFS was still working to improve the industry’s awareness of the 

reporting requirements. 

Table 1 

Final sample design and sampling outcome for the 

Florida Keys. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Keys Keys Keys Total 

Boats in population 112 163 378 653 

Percent of total 17 25 58 100 

Planned sample 17 25 58 100 

Boat owners contacted 

Completed interviews 21 24 57 102 

Eligible but refused 9 6 19 34 

Did not fish in 1993 6 17 31 54 

Reef fish < 5% of 

annual boat revenues 1 6 9 16 

Total 37 53 116 206 

Unsuccessful attempted contacts 

Not found 6 5 21 32 

Deceased 0 0 2 2 

Total 6 5 23 34 

Estimated number of 

boats eligible for 

inclusion in survey 91 92 248 431 

species but did not meet these conditions were not included in the sampling universe. 

Boats in the population to be sampled were stratified 

by homeport area as reported on their permit applications. Boats with homeports between Bahia Honda 

and Long Key were allocated to the Middle Keys region. Boats with homeports to the northeast of Long 

Key were allocated to the Upper Keys region, and boats 

with homeports southwest of Bahia Honda were allocated to the Lower Keys region. There were 112 boats 

(17% of the population of boats to be sampled) in the 

Upper Keys, 163 boats (25%) in the Middle Keys, and 

378 boats (58%) in the Lower Keys. 

The survey design called for a stratified random sample of 100 boats, with the planned number of interviews 

to be proportional to the total number of boats in each 

area. Hence, the sample design called for 17 interviews 

in the Upper Keys, 25 interviews in the Middle Keys, 

and 58 interviews in the Lower Keys (Table 1). Boats 

within each stratum were randomly ordered, and interviewers attempted to schedule meetings with boat owners or operators about their boat’s fishing operations 

according to their position in the randomly ordered 

lists. Interviewers were instructed to make at least eight 

attempts to contact boat owners before selecting a replacement boat from the list. Owners of 32 boats could 

not be located and 2 others were deceased (Table 1). 

Upon successfully contacting a boat owner, interviewers were instructed to determine if the owner actively 
4 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

participated in the reef fish fishery in the Keys, with active participation defined as 5% or more of annual revenues having been earned from the sale of reef fishes. 

Seventy boats were contacted and ruled ineligible for 

inclusion in the survey: 54 did not land reef fishes during 1993 due to an owner’s illness or the boat having 

been in disrepair, sold, or having fished for other species; and 16 did not earn at least 5% of their annual revenues from the sale of reef fishes (Table 1). Thirty-four 

additional boats were eligible for inclusion in the survey 

but refused to schedule an interview. 

The final sample consisted of interviews about the operations of 102 boats: 21 in the Upper Keys, 24 in the 

Middle Keys, and 57 in the Lower Keys (Table 1). Primary cities of residence for respondents in the Upper 

Keys included Islamorada (9 respondents), Tavernier 

(7), and Key Largo (4); in the Middle Keys included 

Marathon (21) and Long Key (3); and in the Lower 

Keys included Key West (24), Big Pine Key (17), and 

Summerland Key (13). 

Statistical methods 

This study describes economic characteristics of boats 

that actively participated in the reef fish fishery, as 

defined by the 5% eligibility criterion for inclusion in 

the survey. Responses from the screening questionnaire 

were used to estimate the number of boats that actively 

participated in the reef fish fishery as the ratio of boats 

eligible for the survey to the total number of boats contacted, with the ratio multiplied by the number of boats 

in the sampling universe. It was estimated that approximately 81% (30 of 37) of the boats in the Upper Keys, 

57% (30 of 53) of the boats in the Middle Keys, and 

66% (76 of 116) of the boats in the Lower Keys actively 

participated in the reef fish fishery (Table 1). The estimated number of eligible boats was 91 with a standard 

error of 6 in the Upper Keys, 92 with a standard error 

of 9 in the Middle Keys, and 248 with a standard error 

of 14 in the Lower Keys. 

Responses from the basic questionnaire were summarized by area, with area defined as the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Keys, and for all areas combined. Equations 

for stratum means and standard errors were obtained 

from sampling texts by Cochran (1977) and Thompson (1992). Equations for stratum totals and standard 

errors were adapted from Cochran’s (1977) discussion 

of double sampling because the total number of active 

boats in the population had to be estimated.12 Phase 

1 in the double sampling context consisted of the tele12 Richard S. Sigman of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Economic 

Statistical Methods and Programming Division, pointed out the relevance of double sampling to this survey and derived the equation 

for the variance of stratum totals. 

phone screening portion of the survey which gathered 

information about each boat’s eligibility for inclusion 

in the survey. The phase 2 subsample consisted of eligible (i.e., active) boats. 

Responses from the supplemental questionnaire 

about each kind of fishing trip were grouped into selected subpopulations, such as trips on which boats 

caught primarily yellowtail snapper, regardless of stratum. Equations with which to estimate the average response by boats within each subpopulation were obtained from Cochran (1977) and modified to account 

for the extra variance associated with having to estimate 

the total number of active boats in each stratum. 

It was assumed that non-respondents were not different from respondents, although this assumption was 

not tested due to a lack of prior information. Differences in the rates of non-response across strata are accounted for in the weighting scheme used to estimate 

overall population means and totals and their standard 

errors. However, the assumption remains that non-respondents were not different from respondents within 

each stratum. 

The survey was structured and responses interpreted 

to minimize the potential for recall bias that could occur since fishermen were asked about their fishing activities and financial performance at the end of the year. 

Face-to-face interviews usually were scheduled at each 

fisherman’s place of business so that financial records 

could be examined, especially for fixed costs and other 

infrequently incurred costs. In addition, respondents 

were asked about their average revenues and costs per 

trip rather than an exact accounting of revenues and 

costs for specific trips. Averages were easier to provide 

and are interpreted as expectations of revenues and 

costs based on the respondent’s fishing experience 

throughout the year. Fishermen must make decisions 

about embarking on additional trips based on their anticipated revenues and costs although actual revenues 

and costs may differ at the conclusion of any specific 

trip. 

Results 

Characteristics of respondents 

Respondents ranged in age from 22 to 82 years, with 

the overall average age being 52 years (Table 2). There 

were 17 respondents between 30 and 39 years of age, 

19 respondents in the 40–49 year age group, 25 respondents in the 50–59 year age group, and 24 respondents 

in the 60–69 year age group. Six respondents were 

younger than 30, and eleven were 70 or older. On average, respondents in the Upper Keys were significantly 

younger than respondents in the Middle and Lower 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 5 

Table 2 

Estimated means, medians, and standard errors of the means for selected characteristics of respondents. 

Variable Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys All strata 

Age of respondent in years Mean 42.9 58.9 52.9 52.1 

Standard error 2.5 2.7 1.7 2.5 

Median 39.0 63.5 53.0 52.0 

Years residence in current county Mean 13.8 17.4 18.2 17.1 

Standard error 2.0 1.9 1.3 1.2 

Median 13.0 14.5 15.0 15.0 

Number of persons in household Mean 2.7 2.1 2.3 2.3 

Standard error 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 

Median 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Percent household income from reef fish Mean 51.6 24.8 35.9 36.9 

Standard error 6.8 5.5 4.6 3.6 

Median 50.0 17.5 20.0 25.0 

Percent household income from other fishing Mean 18.6 30.1 14.2 18.5 

Standard error 6.2 7.8 3.3 3.0 

Median 0.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 

Percent household income from other sources Mean 29.8 45.1 49.9 44.6 

Standard error 6.8 8.3 5.4 4.3 

Median 19.0 45.0 70.0 50.0 

Years experience as commercial fisherman Mean 15.4 18.6 16.1 16.5 

Standard 2.5 3.2 1.4 1.4 

Median 13.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 

Number of different gears ever used Mean 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.7 

Standard error 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 

Median 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

error 

Keys. As a group, respondents were well-educated, with 

82 of them having completed high school or having 

had additional education after high school (Table 3). 

Respondents reported having lived an average of 17 

years in Monroe County (Table 2). 

Household size ranged from 1 to 6 persons, including 

the respondent, with an overall average of 2.3 persons 

(Table 2). Someone other than the respondent was also 

employed in approximately 2 out of 5 households, although this ratio differed among areas (Table 4). More 

than 50% of the respondents in the Upper Keys reported that someone else in the household was employed, 

while less than 50% of the respondents in the Middle 

and Lower Keys reported other household members 

who were employed. Only 1 out of 6 households included a family member who was employed in commercial 

fishing with the respondent (Table 5). 

Household incomes ranged from less than $10,000 

to more than $150,000, with approximately two-thirds 

(52 of 78) of those who responded to the question citing household incomes of less than $40,000 (Table 6). 

For all areas combined, respondents averaged approximately 37% of household income from commercial 

fishing for reef fishes, 18% from other types of commerTable 3 

Amount of formal education by respondents. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

None 0 1 

Grades 1-8 1 9 

Some high school 2 10 

High school graduate 8 6 23 37 

Vocational/technical 0 5 

Some college 4 5 12 21 

College graduate 6 19 

Total 21 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

None 0 4 

Grades 1-8 4 36 

Some high school 9 4 30 43 

High school graduate 35 23 100 158 

Vocational/technical 0 8 13 21 

Some college 17 89 

College graduate 26 80 

Total 91 92 248 431 

Keys Keys 

0 1 

5 3 

1 7 

2 3 

5 8 

24 57 

0 4 

19 13 

19 53 

19 35 
6 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 4 

Number of households in which someone other than 

respondent was employed. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Yes 12 7 23 42 

No 9 17 34 60 

Total 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Yes 52 27 100 179 

No 39 65 148 252 

Total 91 92 248 431 

Table 5 

Number of households with members who were 

employed with respondent. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Yes 4 2 11 17 

No 17 22 46 85 

Total 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Yes 17 8 48 73 

No 74 84 200 358 

Total 91 92 248 431 

Keys 

cial fishing, and 45% from all other sources including 

incomes earned in non-fishing jobs held by the respondent and other household members, pensions, investments, and so forth (Table 2). 

When compared to respondents in other areas, respondents in the Upper Keys reported the greatest reliance on commercial fishing for reef fishes as a source 

of household income and the least reliance on sources 

other than commercial fishing (Table 2). On average, 

commercial fishing for reef fishes accounted for 52% 

of household income in the Upper Keys. Four respondents (19%) reported that 100% of their household 

income came from commercial fishing for reef fishes, 

whereas 11 respondents (52%) reported no household 

income from other types of commercial fishing, and 7 

respondents (33%) reported no non-fishing sources of 

household income. 

In contrast, respondents in the Middle Keys reported the least reliance on commercial fishing for reef 

fishes (Table 2). One-half of the respondents reported 

Table 6 

Household income of respondents for 1993. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Did not know 0 3 8 11 

Declined to answer 3 8 2 13 

Under $10,000 2 1 5 8 

$10,000–19,999 1 10 16 

$20,000–29,999 2 5 9 

$30,000–39,999 6 9 19 

$40,000–49,999 1 5 6 

$50,000–59,999 1 2 3 

$60,000–69,999 0 7 7 

$70,000–79,999 0 2 2 

$80,000–89,999 0 1 2 

$90,000–99,999 0 0 2 

$100,000–124,999 0 0 1 

$125,000–149,999 0 0 0 

$150,000 or more 1 1 1 3 

Total 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Did not know 0 11 35 46 

Declined to answer 13 31 9 53 

Under $10,000 9 4 22 35 

$10,000–19,999 4 43 69 

$20,000–29,999 7 22 38 

$30,000–39,999 23 39 79 

$40,000–49,999 4 22 26 

$50,000–59,999 4 9 13 

$60,000–69,999 0 30 30 

$70,000–79,999 0 9 9 

$80,000–89,999 0 4 8 

$90,000–99,999 0 0 9 

$100,000–124,999 0 0 4 

$125,000–149,999 0 0 0 

$150,000 or more 4 4 4 12 

Total 91 92 248 431 

5 

2 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

22 

9 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

9 

4 

0 

less than 17.5% of household income from commercial fishing for reef fishes, and only four respondents 

(18%) reported that more than 50% of their household income came from commercial fishing for reef 

fishes. Similarly, one-half of the respondents reported 

less than 10% of household income came from other 

types of commercial fishing. On average, non-fishing 

sources of income accounted for 45% of household income in the Middle Keys. 

Respondents in the Lower Keys reported the greatest 

reliance on non-fishing sources of household income, 

with one-half of the respondents having received 70% 

or more of their household income from sources other 

than commercial fishing (Table 2). Fifty percent of re-
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 7 

Table 7 

Position of respondent on sampled boat. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Position Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Owner/captain 20 21 55 96 

Owner/not captain 1 2 2 5 

Captain/not owner 0 1 0 1 

Total 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Owner/captain 87 80 239 406 

Owner/not captain 4 8 9 21 

Captain/not owner 0 4 0 4 

Total 91 92 248 431 

Keys 

spondents reported less than 20% of their household 

income came from commercial fishing for reef fishes, 

and 54% reported no income from commercial fishing 

for other species. 

Nearly all respondents (96 of 102) were owners and 

operators of the boats selected for the survey (Table 7). 

Five of the remaining respondents were owners who did 

not captain their boats and the sixth was a hired captain. Respondents reported between 2 and 66 years experience as commercial fishermen, with an overall average of 16.5 years (Table 2). The average number of 

years experience was about the same in all three areas 

of the Keys. 

Respondents usually reported experience with several kinds of fishing gear (Table 2). All but five respondents reported experience with rods and reels (Table 

8). In addition, respondents in all areas frequently cited 

experience with bandit reels, trolling lines, handlines, 

and spiny lobster and/or stone crab traps. Respondents 

in the Upper and Lower Keys cited experience with 

spear fishing, usually without powerheads. Twenty-two 

respondents reported having ever used just one gear, 

usually rods and reels. 

Approximately 25% of the respondents reported 

some form of employment in addition to their commercial fishing activities (Table 9). The proportion of respondents who reported other employment was greatest in the Upper Keys (8 of 21=38%), least in the Middle 

Keys (4 of 24=17%), and about average in the Lower 

Keys (13 of 57=23%). Approximately 24% of respondents with other employment (6 out of 25) cited some 

type of commercial chartering activity, including fishing charters and guide services (Table 10). Other employment exhibited a seasonal component in the Lower 

Keys where employment was highest between April and 

September, but was not seasonal in the Upper or Middle Keys (Table 11). 

Characteristics of sampled boats 

Sampled boats were primarily of fiberglass construction 

(Table 12) and ranged in length from 18 to 65 feet, with 

an overall average of 28.9 feet (Table 13). The 20–24 

ft length class with 21 boats, the 25–29 ft length class 

with 38 boats, and the 30–34 ft length class with 28 boats 

were the most frequently occurring. Only 3 out of 102 

sampled boats were smaller than 20 feet and 2 were 

longer than 45 feet. Boats did not differ significantly in 

average length by area within the Keys. The average age 

of boat was 14 years (Table 13). 

The boats’ engines ranged from 80 to 670 horsepower 

(hp), with an overall average of 247 hp (Table 13). Most 

sampled boats (83 out of 101) were reported to have 

engines with 100 to 399 hp. Fuel capacity ranged from 

12 to 1600 gallons, with two-thirds of the boats having a 

capacity of less than 250 gallons and all but seven boats 

having a capacity of less than 500 gallons. Fifty percent 

of sampled boats in all areas combined had a fuel capacity of less than 135 gallons (Table 13). A majority 

of boats in the Upper and Middle Keys used diesel-powered engines, whereas a majority of boats in the Lower 

Keys used gasoline-powered engines (Table 14). 

Boats were equipped with holding boxes or insulated 

coolers for ice and fish. These ranged in capacity from 

80 to 10,000 pounds, with an overall average of 1,355 

pounds (Table 13). The average capacity of fish boxes 

did not differ significantly by area for boats in the Keys. 

Fifty percent of the sampled boats in all areas combined 

had a holding capacity of less than 600 pounds. 

One-third of the sampled boats were documented 

with the U.S. Coast Guard. Nearly all were equipped 

with LORAN-C, VHF radios, and some form of depth 

recorder or fish finder (Table 15). Twenty-three of 102 

sampled boats had GPS in 1993, and it is expected that 

many of the remaining boats have purchased GPS units 

since then. 

Most (88) sampled boats were purchased by their current owners since 1980 for an original investment ranging between $2,000 and $400,000, with an overall average investment of $41,647 per boat and a median 

investment of $33,000 per boat (Table 16). The average 

investment for boats in the Upper Keys was numerically 

greater than the average investments for boats in the 

Middle and Lower Keys, but was not statistically different after accounting for variation of the responses. The 

estimated total investment for all 431 active boats in the 

sampled population was $17.9 million: $6.0 million for 

boats in the Upper Keys, $3.6 million for boats in the 

Middle Keys, and $8.3 million for boats in the Lower 

Keys (Table 16). 

Respondents estimated that the value of their boats at 

the time of the survey ranged from $1,500 to $115,000. 

Boats in the Upper Keys averaged $32,733; boats in the 
8 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 8 

Gears that respondents have ever used. 

Gear type Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Rods and reels 21 22 54 97 

Bandit reels 13 8 20 41 

Trolling lines 8 13 19 40 

Lobster/stone crab traps 9 8 20 37 

Handlines 5 8 20 33 

Spear fishing—no powerheads 5 2 15 22 

Hand held electric reels 6 2 13 21 

Other fish pots 3 8 9 20 

Bottom longlines 4 6 7 17 

Gill nets 0 6 8 14 

Surface longlines 2 6 2 10 

Spear fishing—powerheads 1 6 8 

Other gears 1 1 5 7 

Shrimp/fish trawls 1 0 4 5 

Hand/trolling lines 0 1 4 5 

Sea bass pots 0 0 3 3 

Buoys 0 1 0 1 

Number of respondents 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Rods and reels 91 85 235 411 

Bandit reels 56 31 87 174 

Trolling lines 35 50 83 168 

Lobster/stone crab traps 39 31 87 157 

Handlines 22 31 87 140 

Spear fishing—no powerheads 22 8 65 95 

Hand held electric reels 26 8 56 90 

Other fish pots 13 31 39 83 

Bottom longlines 17 23 30 70 

Gill nets 0 23 35 58 

Surface longlines 9 23 9 41 

Spear fishing—powerheads 4 26 34 

Other gears 4 4 22 30 

Shrimp/fish trawls 4 0 17 21 

Hand/trolling lines 0 4 17 21 

Sea bass pots 0 0 13 13 

Buoys 0 4 0 4 

Total number of boats 91 92 248 431 

1 

4 

Middle Keys averaged $18,587; and boats in the Lower 

Keys averaged $21,807 (Table 16). Average resale values were not statistically different among areas after accounting for variation of the responses. The overall average resale value was $23,421 per boat, with a median 

value of $18,000 per boat. 

The estimated total resale value for all boats in the 

sampled population was $10.1 million (Table 16). This 

is loosely interpreted as the estimated total value of 

capital currently invested in the commercial reef fish 

fishery in the Florida Keys, although some boats in 

the sampled population participated in other fisheries, 

and other boats with minimal participation in the reef 

fish fishery were excluded from the sampling universe. 

Boats were worth an estimated $3.0 million in the Upper Keys, $1.7 million in the Middle Keys, and $5.4 million in the Lower Keys (Table 16). 

Resale value depends, in part, on the expected profitability of fishing. One measure of expected future profitability is profit during the current year. Average annual gross revenues and net incomes were highest for 

boats in the Upper Keys, lowest for boats in the Middle 

Keys, and about average for boats in the Lower Keys 

(Table 16). Revenues averaged $49,581 per boat per 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 9 

Table 9 

Number of respondents with employment other than 

commercial fishing. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Yes 8 4 13 25 

No 13 20 44 77 

Total 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Yes 35 15 57 107 

No 56 77 191 324 

Total 91 92 248 431 

Table 10 

Number of respondents by type of employment other 

than commercial fishing. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Charter boat 2 0 2 4 

Fishing guide 0 0 2 2 

Private captain 1 0 0 1 

Fishery research 0 0 1 1 

Tropical fish collector 1 0 0 1 

Aquaculture 0 0 1 1 

School teacher 1 0 0 1 

Guidance counselor 0 0 1 1 

Mechanic 0 1 0 1 

Appliance service 1 0 0 1 

Submarine cable repair 0 0 1 1 

Bartender 0 1 1 2 

Sales 1 0 1 2 

Meat cutter 0 0 1 1 

Barber 0 1 0 1 

Antique dealing 0 0 1 1 

Security guard 0 1 0 1 

Paramedic 1 0 0 1 

Other 0 0 1 1 

Total 8 4 13 25 

Keys Keys 

year in the Upper Keys, $13,714 in the Middle Keys, 

and $28,027 in the Lower Keys, but most boats earned 

less than the average. Fifty percent of the sampled boats 

earned less than $35,395 in the Upper Keys, less than 

$10,956 in the Middle Keys, and less than $13,000 in 

the Lower Keys (Table 16). Median gross revenue was 

$15,000 per boat for all areas combined. 

Net incomes were small, with an overall average of 

$6,879 per boat per year. Approximately 75% of reTable 11 

Seasonal employment of respondents in other jobs. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Month Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

January 8 4 9 21 

February 8 4 9 21 

March 8 4 8 20 

April 8 4 12 24 

May 8 3 13 24 

June 8 3 12 23 

July 7 3 10 20 

August 7 3 10 20 

September 8 3 11 22 

October 8 3 8 19 

November 8 3 7 18 

December 8 4 7 19 

Total 8 4 13 25 

Table 12 

Primary material used in construction of hull for 

commercial reef fish boats. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Fiberglass 20 97 

Wood 1 4 

Wood/fiberglass 0 1 

Total 21 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Fiberglass 87 80 244 411 

Wood 4 16 

Wood/fiberglass 0 4 

Total 91 92 248 431 

Keys Keys 

Keys Keys 

21 56 

2 1 

1 0 

24 57 

8 4 

4 0 

sponses (67 out of 89) reported annual net incomes 

of less than $10,000, including 18 responses of $0 or 

less. Fifty percent of the sampled boats earned less than 

$7,981 in the Upper Keys, less than $800 in the Middle 

Keys, and less than $2,500 in the Lower Keys (Table 

16). Thirteen people declined to respond to questions 

about net income. 

Estimated total revenues for 1993 when aggregated 

over all boats in the sampled population were approximately $12.7 million, with aggregate net incomes of 

$3.0 million (Table 16). Boats earned an estimated $4.5 

million in revenues and $1.0 million in net income in 

the Upper Keys, $6.9 million in revenues and $1.65 

million in net income in the Lower Keys, and $1.3 mil-
10 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 13 

Estimated means, medians, and standard errors of means for selected physical characteristics of commercial reef fish 

boats. 

Variable Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys All strata 

Total length of boat (feet) Mean 30.4 29.0 28.3 28.9 

Standard error 2.2 1.4 

Median 29.0 27.0 

Age of boat (years) Mean 13.6 17.2 12.8 13.9 

Standard error 1.5 0.9 

Median 14.0 13.0 

Engine horsepower (hp) Mean 296.9 237.8 232.7 247.3 

Standard error 32.5 15.5 

Median 245.0 220.0 

Fuel capacity (gallons) Mean 182.2 213.9 223.0 212.5 

Standard error 29.9 24.5 

Median 150.0 135.0 

Capacity of fish boxes (pounds) Mean 1,364.3 1,433.0 1,323.4 1,355.5 

Standard error 315.9 185.3 

Median 600.0 600.0 

0.9 0.9 

28.5 26.0 

1.8 0.9 

16.0 12.0 

22.7 14.6 

222.5 212.5 

40.4 35.0 

144.5 125.0 

329.2 256.9 

700.0 550.0 

Table 14 

Type of fuel used on commercial reef fish boats. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Response Keys Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Diesel 12 16 27 55 

Gasoline 9 8 30 47 

Total 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers of active boats 

Diesel 52 61 118 231 

Gasoline 39 31 130 200 

Total 91 92 248 431 

lion in revenues and $0.3 million in net income in the 

Middle Keys. 

Fishing activities 

Nearly all boats fished for reef fishes in the Keys (Table 

17), which accounted for an overall average of 60% of 

each boat’s annual revenues (Table 18). One-half of the 

boats reported that reef fishes in the Keys accounted 

for more than 70% of their annual revenues. More than 

two-thirds of them also fished for other species in the 

Keys (Table 17), which accounted for an overall average 

of 20% of annual revenues (Table 18). One-half of the 

sampled boats reported that other species in the Keys 

accounted for less than 10% of annual revenues. 

Approximately one-third of the boats in the Middle and 

Lower Keys also fished for reef fishes and other species 

in Gulf waters outside of the Keys (Table 17), with a combined average contribution for reef fishes and other species of 14–15% of annual revenues per boat (Table 18). 

Few boats fished in Atlantic waters outside of the Keys 

(Table 17), with a correspondingly small average contribution to annual revenues (Table 18). Only seven boats 

in the sample, including two from the Upper Keys, one 

from the Middle Keys, and four from the Lower Keys, reported revenues from charter fishing (Table 17). Nevertheless, these few boats earned relatively high fractions 

of their annual revenues from chartering, which resulted 

in unexpectedly high overall average contributions to annual revenues, especially in the Upper Keys (Table 18). 

Given a list of 31 important reef and non-reef species, 

respondents ranked the species caught during 1993 in 

terms of their importance to annual revenues. To derive estimates of the total number of boats that fished 

for each species, survey responses were expanded to the 

entire population of eligible (active) boats within each 

stratum and then added over all strata. The estimated 

total numbers of boats are not additive across species 

because boats that harvested more than one species 

would be counted more than once. 

Yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) clearly was the 

most important species in all three areas of the Keys. 

Eighteen of 21 respondents (86%) in the Upper Keys 

fished for yellowtail snapper, with 14 of them citing it 

as their most important species in terms of annual revenues. In the Middle Keys, 20 of 24 respondents (83%) 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 11 

Table 15 

Number of boats with selected kinds of electronic equipment on board. 

Upper Middle Lower Upper Middle Lower 

Electronics on board Keys Keys Keys Total Electronics on board Keys Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

LORAN-C 18 23 54 95 

GPS 10 3 10 23 

EPIRB 7 7 15 29 

Radar 3 0 6 9 

Color scope 14 9 22 45 

LCD fish finder 6 8 26 40 

Paper recorder 7 11 20 38 

Plotter 3 0 8 11 

VHF radio 19 24 56 99 

Cellular phone 6 2 8 16 

Single sideband radio 1 1 1 3 

Computer 1 0 2 3 

Other 3 4 5 12 

Sampled boats 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers of active boats 

LORAN-C 78 88 235 401 

GPS 43 12 43 98 

EPIRB 30 27 65 122 

Radar 13 0 26 39 

Color scope 61 35 96 192 

LCD fish finder 26 31 113 170 

Paper recorder 30 42 87 159 

Plotter 13 0 35 48 

VHF radio 82 92 243 417 

Cellular phone 26 8 35 69 

Single sideband radio 4 4 4 12 

Computer 4 0 9 13 

Other 13 15 22 50 

Estimated total boats 91 92 248 431 

Table 16 

Estimates of financial characteristics of reef fish boats. 

Upper Middle Lower All 

Variable Keys strata 

Estimated means, medians, and standard errors of means per boat 

Investment in boat and gear ($) Mean 65,785 39,423 33,625 41,647 

Standard error 20,461 8,046 2,735 5,172 

Median 33,500 33,000 32,000 33,000 

Resale value of existing boat ($) Mean 32,733 18,587 21,807 23,421 

Standard error 6,657 2,320 2,532 2,278 

Median 20,000 16,000 19,000 18,000 

Gross revenue in 1993 ($) Mean 49,581 13,714 28,027 29,505 

Standard error 9,694 2,648 4,777 3,662 

Median 35,395 10,956 13,000 15,000 

Net income before taxes ($) Mean 11,129 3,301 6,653 6,879 

Standard error 2,761 1,859 3,411 2,102 

Median 7,981 800 2,500 3,000 

Estimated totals and standard errors of totals for all eligible (active) 

boats in the sampled population (thousands of dollars) 

Investment in boat and gear ($) Total 5,974 3,637 8,327 17,939 

Standard error 1,899 825 823 2,228 

Resale value of existing boat ($) Total 2,973 1,715 5,401 10,088 

Standard error 635 273 697 981 

Gross revenue in 1993 ($) Total 4,503 1,265 6,941 12,709 

Standard error 928 275 1,246 1,577 

Net income before taxes ($) Total 1,011 305 1,648 2,963 

Standard error 259 174 850 905 

Keys Keys 
12 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 17 

Kinds of fishing activities for commercial reef fish boats. 

Upper Middle Lower 

Fishing activities Keys Keys Keys Total 

Numbers of respondents, by stratum 

Reef fish in Keys 21 23 55 99 

Other species in Keys 16 18 37 71 

Reef fish in Gulf 3 8 23 34 

Other species in Gulf 4 5 14 23 

Reef fish in Atlantic 2 4 5 11 

Other species in Atlantic 1 3 4 8 

Charter/head boat 2 1 4 7 

Number of respondents 21 24 57 102 

Estimated total numbers among active boats 

Reef fish in Keys 91 88 239 418 

Other species in Keys 69 69 161 299 

Reef fish in Gulf 13 31 100 144 

Other species in Gulf 17 19 61 97 

Reef fish in Atlantic 9 15 22 46 

Other species in Atlantic 4 12 17 33 

Charter/head boat 9 4 17 30 

Total number of boats 91 92 248 431 

fished for yellowtail snapper, with 16 of them citing it 

as their most important species. Similarly, 47 of 57 respondents (82%) in the Lower Keys fished for yellowtail snapper, with 38 of them citing it as their most 

important species. Overall, it was estimated that 359 

out of 431 active boats (83%) in the sampled population fished for yellowtail snapper, and that 287 of them 

(67%) ranked yellowtail snapper as their most important species in terms of annual revenues (Table 19). 

Yellowtail snapper was an important source of revenue throughout the year. Fifty percent or more of the 

sampled boats fished for yellowtail snapper each month 

between December and June in the Upper Keys, between December and April in the Middle Keys, and between October and June in the Lower Keys. Yellowtail 

snapper was the most frequently landed species even 

in the remaining months. The estimated total number 

of active boats that landed yellowtail snapper as an important source of revenue ranged from 141 in August 

to 278 in March (Table 20). Other boats harvested yellowtail snapper incidentally while fishing primarily for 

other species (Table 21). 

Boats fished for other species too, but none were cited as frequently or ranked as highly as yellowtail snapTable 18 

Estimated means, medians, and standard errors of means for the percentages, by source, of annual revenues per boat. 

(Note: This table shows percentages of annual boat revenues from each type of fishing enterprise, and should not be 

confused with information presented in Table 2 which shows percentages of household income from different sources.) 

Variable Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys All strata 

Percent revenues from reef fish in Keys Mean 60.2 58.0 61.4 60.4 

Standard error 7.2 7.7 4.3 4.2 

Median 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 

Percent revenues from other species in Keys Mean 23.7 21.7 18.9 20.5 

Standard error 5.2 5.9 2.9 2.5 

Median 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Percent revenues from reef fish in Gulf Mean 3.6 10.4 9.7 8.6 

Standard error 2.9 4.6 2.5 1.9 

Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Percent revenues from other species in Gulf Mean 2.4 4.1 4.4 3.9 

Standard error 1.5 2.8 1.2 1.0 

Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Percent revenues from reef fish in Atlantic Mean 1.3 3.0 2.4 2.3 

Standard error 1.0 1.6 1.8 1.1 

Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Percent revenues from other species in Atlantic Mean 0.4 1.7 0.8 0.9 

Standard error 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.4 

Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Percent revenues from charter fishing Mean 8.3 0.9 2.5 3.4 

Standard error 5.7 0.9 1.5 1.5 

Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 13 

per as an important source of annual revenues. Spiny 

lobster (Panulirus argus) was the species cited second 

most frequently as being most important in terms of 

annual revenues (Table 19). Lobsters were landed between August and March with the estimated number 

of boats declining each month (Table 20). It was estimated that about 20% of the active population of boats 

fished for spiny lobster during the early months of the 

lobster season. 

Black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), mutton snapper 

(Lutjanus analis), gray snapper (L. griseus), and king 

mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) were commonly mentioned as the second, third, fourth, or lower ranked species (Table 19), principally in the Upper and Lower 

Keys. Black grouper were harvested year-round both as 

an important source of revenue (Table 20) and as an 

incidentally caught species (Table 21), with the greatest 

levels of directed effort occurring between November 

and April. Gray snapper also were harvested throughout the year (Tables 20 and 21), with the greatest directed effort occurring between May and August in the 

Lower Keys, between June and August in the Upper 

Keys, and between February and July in the Middle 

Keys. Mutton snapper were harvested year-round, but 

primarily between October and July and primarily as 

an incidentally caught species (Tables 20 and 21). King 

mackerel were caught seasonally during the late fall 

and spring, with the greatest number of boats fishing 

during December and January (Tables 20 and 21). 

Less frequently ranked species included stone crab 

(Menippe mercenaria), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), 

and greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), among others 

(Table 19). Stone crab were harvested primarily between 

October and March (Table 20). Red grouper was ranked 

no higher than the third leading producer of revenues 

(Table 19), primarily in the Lower Keys, whereas other 

Table 19 

Number of boats that ranked each main species in terms of total revenues for 1993. 

Rank 

Primary species 1 2 4 6 7 10 11 12 13 14+ Total 

Estimated total number of active boats in sampled population, all areas combined 

Black grouper 9 78 16 4 — 4 4 — — — — 170 

Gag — — 4 9 9 — 8 — — — 4 — — 38 

Red grouper — — 17 17 8 8 9 — 4 4 — — — 84 

Scamp — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 4 

Snowy grouper 9 4 9 4 4 — — — — — — — 43 

Yellowedge grouper 4 — — — — — 4 — — — — — — 4 12 

Warsaw 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 

Other groupers — 13 — 9 — 4 — — — — — — — — 26 

Gray snapper 9 51 29 26 4 8 — — — — — — 139 

Mutton snapper 4 30 21 4 13 8 4 — — — — — 136 

Red snapper — — — — — — — 4 — — — 4 — — 8 

Vermilion snapper — — — — 4 — — — — — — — — 4 8 

Yellowtail snapper 287 30 21 8 4 9 — — — — — — — — 359 

Other snappers 13 8 8 4 — — — — — — — — — 4 37 

Hogfish — — 13 8 — — — — 4 — — — — 4 29 

Amberjacks 4 13 4 9 13 — — — — — 4 — 59 

Porgies — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 — 4 

Golden tilefish — — 4 4 — — — — — — — — — 4 12 

Other tilefishes 8 13 9 — 4 9 — — 4 — 4 — — — 51 

Other reef fishes 8 — — — — — — — — 4 — — — — 12 

King mackerel — 29 47 34 17 4 — 4 — 4 — 161 

Sharks — — — 4 4 4 — — — 4 — — — — 16 

Spiny lobster 59 26 13 — 4 4 — — — — — — — — 106 

Stone crab 13 21 17 4 4 — — — — — — 75 

Tuna — 4 4 — — — — — — — — 4 20 

Other non reef fishes — 41 9 — 4 — — 4 — — 91 

Total 431 352 280 203 126 92 62 16 12 12 28 

3 5 8 9 

34 17 4 

4 

17 

9 4 

8 4 

35 17 

4 8 

9 9 4 

8 4 4 

4 4 

12 13 4 4 

54 24 12 
14 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 20 

Number of boats that fished each month, by main species, excluding boats for which this species was an incidental catch. 

Primary species Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Nov Dec 

Estimated total number of active boats in sampled population, all areas combined 

Black grouper 104 116 112 91 73 68 60 56 82 

Gag 17 17 4 4 4 0 9 13 13 

Red grouper 34 30 26 33 21 0 17 34 

Snowy grouper 34 34 43 34 26 26 26 26 

Yellowedge grouper 4 9 9 0 0 0 4 4 

Warsaw 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 

Other groupers 9 9 4 0 0 0 4 4 

Unspecified groupers 9 13 16 8 8 4 4 9 

Gray snapper 46 58 62 58 76 101 119 42 33 

Mutton snapper 51 69 56 63 29 30 56 64 

Red snapper 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Vermilion snapper 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Yellowtail snapper 259 275 263 166 141 149 193 242 

Other snappers 8 8 4 8 8 8 4 4 

Unspecified snappers 0 4 4 8 4 0 0 0 

Hogfish 9 9 13 21 17 8 9 4 9 

Amberjacks 17 17 17 0 0 4 4 4 9 

Golden tilefish 4 4 4 0 0 0 4 4 

Other tilefishes 26 26 39 22 17 17 26 26 

Other reef fishes 4 4 4 0 0 0 4 8 

King mackerel 116 56 21 4 0 0 9 17 43 

Sharks 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Spiny lobster 59 55 46 0 4 9 9 80 63 

Stone crab 54 54 37 4 4 9 13 59 59 

Tuna 9 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 13 

Other non-reef fishes 29 25 24 33 37 21 8 12 

Charter boat fishing 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 

Feb Oct 

43 30 86 

9 8 8 

26 29 29 30 

30 39 39 30 

9 0 0 0 

4 0 4 0 

9 0 0 4 

16 12 12 13 

73 47 41 

65 56 64 42 

0 4 4 0 

0 4 4 0 

278 217 225 253 

4 8 8 4 

4 8 8 4 

13 13 17 

22 34 21 

0 4 9 4 

26 34 30 21 

4 0 0 8 

56 13 98 

0 0 4 0 

94 89 72 

54 29 59 

9 4 0 

21 50 45 28 

4 4 4 9 

boats caught them incidentally while fishing for other 

species (Table 21). Greater amberjack were landed during the spring as an important source of revenue (Table 20), primarily in the Upper Keys. Dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) was the most frequently harvested species 

within the “other non-reef fish” category. 

Financial performance on different kinds of 

fishing trips 

Some boats fished in one kind of activity year-round 

whereas others rotated among several kinds of fishing 

trips according to seasonal availability of fish, seasonal 

variation in prices, fishery regulations, and so forth. 

One objective of this survey was to estimate average net 

operating revenues per boat per trip and per boat per 

year earned on the most important kinds of fishing trips 

taken by reef fish boats. For this purpose, respondents 

completed supplemental questionnaires about fishing 

effort, catches, revenues, and routine operating costs 

for their two most important kinds of fishing trips for 

reef fish. Boats that engaged in only one kind of fishing 

for reef fish were asked about it and also about trips for 

their highest ranked non-reef fish species, if any. Seventy-seven respondents completed supplemental questionnaires about two kinds of fishing trips and 25 others 

completed questionnaires about one kind of trip, for a 

total of 179 supplemental questionnaires. 

Each kind of fishing trip was defined by noting the 

species with the largest contribution to the total revenues of the trip. A majority of respondents cited yellowtail snapper as one of their most important sources of 

revenues, and other kinds of trips were described less 

frequently (Table 22). Small sample sizes necessitated 

that several kinds of trips be combined to estimate average catches, revenues, routine trip costs, and net operating revenues per boat per trip and per boat per year. 

Trips for yellowtail snapper, gray snapper, and greater 

amberjack were examined separately, while trips for 

mutton snapper, black, red, and unspecified groupers 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 15 

Table 21 

Number of boats that fished each month, by incidental species. 

Incidental species Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Nov Dec 

Estimated total number of active boats in sampled population, all areas combined 

Black grouper 77 92 92 101 75 58 55 72 76 

Gag — — 8 8 8 8 9 4 4 

Red grouper 38 51 39 51 42 34 34 47 42 

Snowy grouper 17 13 26 30 13 9 17 17 8 

Warsaw 4 4 8 8 4 — — — — — 

Other groupers — — — — 4 4 4 4 — — — — 

Unspecified groupers 82 73 56 39 35 43 65 82 69 

Gray snapper 80 80 76 67 63 50 63 71 67 

Mutton snapper 104 132 119 124 103 77 64 94 107 103 

Yellowtail snapper 42 39 34 41 46 4 25 33 29 

Other snappers 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 

Unspecified snappers 22 22 17 17 17 13 13 22 22 

Hogfish 9 9 9 17 26 22 13 13 9 4 

Amberjacks 35 35 30 35 39 35 35 35 30 

Porgies 30 34 39 22 30 17 9 17 21 

Other tilefishes 4 4 9 9 9 9 4 4 4 

Unspecified tilefishes 9 4 9 13 4 — 4 4 — 

Triggerfishes 9 9 4 9 9 4 4 4 4 

Other reef fishes 41 46 42 63 43 21 26 45 25 

King mackerel 56 55 42 42 21 26 34 52 52 

Sharks 4 13 9 13 9 9 4 — — 4 4 4 

Spiny lobster 4 4 4 4 4 — 4 — 4 

Tuna — — — — 4 4 4 4 — — — 

Other non-reef fishes 107 91 108 73 52 52 39 65 86 98 

Table 22 

Number of trip interviews by main species and area. 

Upper Middle Lower Upper Middle Lower 

Main species Keys Keys Keys Total Main species Keys Keys Keys Total 

Black grouper 6 0 10 16 

Red grouper 1 0 0 1 

Snowy grouper 2 0 2 4 

Warsaw grouper 1 0 0 1 

Yellowedge grouper 0 0 1 1 

Unspecified groupers 0 1 1 2 

Gray (mangrove) snapper 3 7 10 20 

Mutton snapper 4 1 2 7 

Silk snapper 1 0 0 1 

Yellowtail snapper 16 20 47 83 

Unspecified snappers 0 0 1 1 

Amberjacks 4 8 

Hogfish 0 2 

Tilefishes 0 4 

Other reef fishes 0 2 

Dolphin 1 6 

King mackerel 0 8 

Spiny lobster 1 8 

Stone crab 0 1 

Tunas 0 2 

Other species 0 1 

Total 40 179 

Feb Oct 

97 92 63 

8 4 4 

51 55 34 

13 17 13 

4 4 

95 99 35 

80 85 67 

112 133 

38 34 26 

9 4 4 

26 26 13 

13 17 

39 39 43 

22 13 13 

4 4 9 

9 9 4 

4 9 4 

54 49 39 

60 55 21 

4 4 4 

4 

116 112 

1 3 

1 1 

1 3 

2 0 

2 3 

3 5 

2 5 

0 1 

0 2 

0 1 

41 98 

were combined because these species frequently were fish (Caulolatilus microps), golden tilefish (Lopholatilus 

landed together. Also, trips for deeper water species chamaeleonticeps), and silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus) 

such as snowy grouper (E. niveatus), yellowedge grou- were combined. Relatively few observations were obper (E. flavolimbatus), warsaw (E. nigritus), blueline tile- tained for non-reef fish species because respondents 
16 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 23 

Average net operating revenues per trip, per day fished, and per person per day fished for different kinds of fishing trips 

by commercial reef fish boats in the Florida Keys. 

Kind of trip 

Yellowtail Black grouper/ Gray Deepwater Greater 

Variable mutton snapper snapper species amberjack 

Net operating revenues per trip $337 $323 $195 $162 $563 

Days fished per trip 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 

Net operating revenues per day fished $190 $225 $563 

Persons aboard per trip 1.8 1.7 2.3 1.6 2.5 

Net operating revenues per person per day $110 $134 $ 76 $107 $206 

Trips per boat per year 52 33 25 32 25 

Net operating revenues per boat per year $9,901 $9,062 $4,469 $5,049 $14,912 

Estimated number of boats per year1 350 112 33 

Net operating revenues per year $3,468,216 $1,012,542 $372,448 $232,251 $498,145 

Spiny King 

Variable mackerel Dolphin 

Net operating revenues per trip $1,838 $106 $88 

Days fished per trip 2.6 1.0 1.0 

Net operating revenues per day fished $627 $106 $88 

Persons aboard per trip 2.3 1.7 2.0 

Net operating revenues per person per day $363 $68 $45 

Trips per boat per year 40 18 18 

Net operating revenues per boat per year $47,552 $2,238 $2,236 

1 The estimated number of boats per year differs in definition, and hence in magnitude, from that presented in Table 19. This table presents estimates of the 

total number of boats that participated in particular kinds of trips as defined by the species with the greatest contribution to total revenues of the trip. Table 

19 presents estimates of the number of boats for which each species was an important source of annual revenue regardless of the kind of trip on which it 

was caught. 

snapper 

$149 $173 

83 46 

lobster 

were asked to complete supplemental questionnaires 

about the two most important types of trips for reef fishes even if non-reef fish alternatives made larger contributions to the annual revenues of the boat. Trips for 

spiny lobster, king mackerel, and dolphin were seasonal 

alternatives to fishing for reef fishes. 

The economic performance of each kind of fishing 

activity was evaluated from the perspective of boat 

owner, captain, and crew combined, rather than from 

the perspective of the boat owner only, because the 

share system of payments in commercial fisheries distributes the economic surplus from the fishing operation among boat owner, captain, and crew. Although 

share payments to captain and crew may represent labor costs to the boat owner, they may exceed actual, 

but unknown, opportunity costs of labor, which is the 

appropriate definition of cost from the perspective of 

society as a whole. Opportunity cost could be assumed 

equal to the average wage paid in the major local industry, but this wage varies geographically and it may be 

difficult to accurately determine the circumstances relevant to each sampled boat. Therefore, economic performance is evaluated in terms of total share payments 

to owner, captain, and crew without imposing assumptions about opportunity cost that may or may not be relevant. Estimates of share payments for owner, captain, 

and crew separately are tabulated for readers who desire more detailed information. 

Three measures of overall economic performance 

were calculated for each kind of fishing trip: net operating revenues per trip, per day fished, and per person 

per day fished (Table 23). Net operating revenues per 

trip were defined as the combined share payments to 

boat owner, captain, and crew after deducting routine 

trip expenses, which included fuel, bait, ice, lost gear, 

food, packing charges if any, and other miscellaneous 

supplies. Net operating revenues per day fished were 

calculated as net revenue per trip divided by days fished 

per trip to correct for observed variations in net revenue due to differences in the duration of fishing trips 

among boats and between fishing activities. Net revenues per person per day fished were calculated as net 

revenue per day fished divided by the number of persons aboard to correct for observed variations in net 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 17 

Table 24 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when yellowtail snapper made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of yellowtail snapper 82 1,500 182 33 116 249 

Total pounds, all species 82 2,064 246 45 156 336 

Percent pounds by yellowtail snapper 82 100 77 2 73 80 

Revenue from yellowtail snapper 82 3,400 413 80 254 572 

Total revenue, all species 83 4,852 510 98 315 704 

Percent revenue by yellowtail snapper 82 100 81 1 78 83 

Routine trip costs 83 1,808 173 33 109 238 

Cost as percent of total revenue 83 136 43 2 38 48 

Net to boat, captain and crew 83 3,044 337 69 200 473 

Payment to boat owner 82 2,216 103 33 37 170 

Payment to captain 83 1,221 141 22 97 184 

Payment to crew 83 1,220 94 25 44 143 

Days fished 83 10 1.6 0.2 1.2 1.9 

Number of persons aboard 83 4 1.8 0.1 1.7 2.0 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 82 1,580 137 21 95 179 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 83 2,441 190 33 123 256 

Net revenue per person per day 83 1,221 110 17 76 145 

revenue due to differences in crew size.13 Net revenue 

per person per day fished reflects the overall fishing 

operation’s economic performance rather than an accounting of actual wages earned by individual crew 

members. 

Share payments should not be interpreted as profit, 

especially when examining averages per boat per year 

and the estimated totals for all boats that participated 

in each kind of fishing. Each kind of fishing represented one of several kinds of fishing trips on which boats 

and fishermen may have participated during the year. 

Hence, estimates of net operating revenues for each 

kind of fishing exclude the contributions of other fishing activities to the boat’s overall net income. Also, boat 

owners incurred overhead expenses, other fixed costs, 

and other variable costs that were not routinely encountered per trip and which were not accounted for 

in these calculations. Likewise, overhead expenses incurred by crew members as independent contractors to 

boat owners were not accounted for in these calculations. Estimates of net income (before taxes) per boat 

per year for all fishing activities combined and for the 

fishery as a whole were presented in Table 16. 

13	 Net revenues per day fished and per person per day fished were 

calculated for each boat, and the resulting individual observations 

were used to estimate averages and standard errors per boat for 

each kind of fishing. 

A secondary objective was to estimate total catches, 

revenues, trip costs, and net operating revenues for all 

boats engaged in each kind of fishing trip. Estimates 

of fishery-wide totals in Table 23 were determined as 

the average per boat per year multiplied by the estimated total number of active boats that participated 

in each kind of fishing. However, the number of boats 

that participated in the less important reef fishing activities and the non-reef fish alternatives likely would 

be underestimated in the sample compared to the actual fishery because of the need to limit each interview 

to a maximum of two supplemental questionnaires if 

the respondent participated in more than two kinds 

of trips. Hence, the possibility for errors in estimating 

fishery-wide totals is greater than when estimating averages per boat per trip or per boat per year. In fact, 

estimates of fishery-wide totals were not made for the 

non-reef fish alternatives because respondents specifically were not asked about them if they had at least two 

kinds of trips for reef fishes. 

Yellowtail snapper (Tables 24–26) was the most commonly sought species by commercial reef fish boats in 

the Florida Keys. In all, 350 boats were estimated to 

have made trips with yellowtail snapper as their primary species (Table 26). Collectively, they were estimated 

to have made 18,215 trips, fished for 20,445 days, and 

caught over 2.4 million pounds of fish worth about $5.2 

million. Yellowtail snapper trips returned an estimated 
18 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 25 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when yellowtail snapper made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of yellowtail snapper 82 26,250 5,213 627 3,961 6,466 

Total pounds, all species 82 53,550 6,986 945 5,097 8,875 

Percent pounds by yellowtail snapper 82 100 77 2 73 80 

Revenue from yellowtail snapper 82 66,528 11,815 1,504 8,806 14,823 

Total revenue, all species 83 99,015 14,716 1,960 10,799 18,633 

Percent revenue by yellowtail snapper 82 100 81 1 78 83 

Routine trip costs 83 22,050 4,815 471 3,876 5,754 

Cost as percent of total revenue 83 136 43 2 38 48 

Net to boat, captain and crew 83 76,965 9,901 1,551 6,799 13,004 

Payment to boat owner 82 25,620 2,336 561 1,215 3,458 

Payment to captain 83 33,360 5,363 723 3,919 6,808 

Payment to crew 83 25,620 2,232 549 1,132 3,333 

Number of trips 83 215 52 5 42 62 

Days fished 83 215 58 5 49 68 

Table 26 

Estimated totals for all boats in sampled portion of the reef fish fishery when yellowtail snapper made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Average Estimated Estimated 

Sample per boat number of total for Std. error Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year boats all boats of total conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of yellowtail snapper 82 5,213 350 1,822,091 248,204 1,326,468 2,317,714 

Total pounds, all species 82 6,986 350 2,441,672 365,325 1,711,695 3,171,649 

Revenue from yellowtail snapper 82 11,815 350 4,129,274 587,986 2,953,381 5,305,168 

Total revenue, all species 83 14,716 350 5,154,851 760,223 3,635,439 6,674,263 

Routine trip costs 83 4,815 350 1,686,635 196,619 1,294,703 2,078,566 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 83 9,901 350 3,468,216 586,121 2,295,885 4,640,547 

Payment to boat owner 82 2,336 350 816,547 202,890 411,002 1,222,092 

Payment to captain 83 5,363 350 1,878,650 279,912 1,319,570 2,437,730 

Payment to crew 83 2,232 350 781,959 198,521 383,756 1,180,162 

Number of trips 83 52 350 18,215 2,053 14,114 22,315 

Days fished 83 58 350 20,445 2,103 16,245 24,645 

$3.5 million to boat owners, captains, and crew members after payment of routine trip costs. 

The popularity of yellowtail snapper trips was attributable to the species’ ubiquitousness rather than its profitability. Trips were taken year-round and in all three areas 

of the Keys. Boats averaged 246 pounds worth $510 per 

trip, of which yellowtail snapper represented about 77% 

of catch and 81% of revenues (Table 24). Boats paid an average of $173 in routine trip costs and earned an average 

of $337 per trip to be shared by boat owner, captain, and 

crew. After accounting for variation among boats in days 

fished per trip and numbers of persons aboard, yellowtail 

snapper trips returned an average of $110 per person per 

day fished (Table 24) and $9,901 per boat per year (Table 

25). Net operating revenues per trip for yellowtail snapper 

averaged more than on trips for gray snapper, deep water 

reef fishes, king mackerel, or dolphin; they were about the 

same as on trips for black grouper and mutton snapper, 

but were less than on trips for spiny lobster or greater amberjack (Table 23). Yellowtail snapper trips yielded smaller 

net returns than trips for black grouper and mutton snapper when evaluated per day fished and per person per day 

because yellowtail snapper trips were slightly longer and 

carried slightly more people aboard. 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 19 

Table 27 

Number of boats that fished each month for alternative target species and that otherwise fished for yellowtail snapper. 

Target species Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Nov Dec 

Estimated total number of active boats in all areas combined 

Black grouper 56 34 30 30 21 17 30 43 39 

Gag 13 13 9 0 4 4 4 9 9 

Red grouper 21 20 20 25 16 0 9 25 17 

Snowy grouper 26 30 30 30 21 21 17 17 21 

Yellowedge grouper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Warsaw 4 0 4 4 4 0 4 4 0 

Other groupers 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 

Unspecified groupers 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gray snapper 25 51 71 90 60 39 21 25 16 

Mutton snapper 42 38 42 46 29 26 43 51 34 

Red snapper 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 

Vermilion snapper 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 

Yellowtail snapper 259 217 225 166 141 149 193 242 253 

Hogfish 0 0 4 8 8 8 0 0 0 

Amberjacks 17 26 21 0 0 4 4 4 9 

Other tilefishes 13 22 22 17 13 13 13 13 9 

Other reef fishes 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 

King mackerel 107 13 4 0 0 9 17 39 89 

Sharks 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Spiny lobster 39 0 4 9 9 64 55 51 42 38 

Stone crab 46 25 4 4 9 9 46 50 50 

Tuna 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 9 

Other non reef fishes 20 50 41 29 33 17 8 8 20 

Charter boat fishing 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 

Feb Oct 

60 56 39 

4 4 0 

17 13 13 

26 26 34 

4 4 4 

4 4 0 

4 4 0 

0 4 4 

37 37 28 

52 47 43 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

275 278 263 

0 0 0 

17 17 17 

17 17 26 

0 0 0 

52 52 21 

0 0 0 

39 34 

41 41 33 

4 4 4 

20 16 20 

4 4 4 

Boats that targeted yellowtail snapper also fished for 

other species. Alternatives included black grouper or 

mutton snapper year-round with peak activity between 

January and March, gray snapper in the summer, especially in June and July, spiny lobster between August 

and March, stone crab between October and May, and 

king mackerel in the winter, especially in December 

and January (Table 27). 

Spiny lobster (Tables 28–29) was cited second most 

frequently as being the most important species in terms 

of annual revenues (Table 19), and averaged higher net 

returns than any other kind of fishing trip examined in 

this study (Table 23). After deducting routine trip costs, 

boat owners, captains, and crew members shared $1,838 

per trip, which was five times greater than net operating 

revenues on yellowtail snapper trips. Although lobster 

trips were nearly twice as long, on average, as yellowtail 

snapper trips and carried a relatively large number of 

persons aboard, average net returns for lobster trips 

evaluated per day fished and per person per day were 

more than three times higher than for yellowtail snapper trips. High net returns on spiny lobster trips were 

due to both a high average catch per trip and high 

ex-vessel price. Boats averaged 659 pounds of lobsters 

worth $2,383 per trip (Table 28). 

Lobsters were targeted between August and March, 

with the estimated number of boats declining as the season progressed. Boats averaged 40 spiny lobster trips 

per year and earned $47,552 per year to be shared by 

boat owners, captains, and crew members (Table 29). 

Greater amberjack fishing (Tables 30–32) was the 

highest volume activity examined in this study. On average, boats landed 1,212 pounds on trips that averaged only one day’s duration (Table 30). The high volume of landings enabled greater amberjack to produce 

higher net returns than other reef fishes despite the 

relatively low ex-vessel price per pound. Boat owners, 

captains, and crew members shared $206 per person 

per day fished (Table 30) and $14,912 per boat per 

year (Table 31) after deducting routine trip costs; these 

were the highest returns among the activities for reef 

fishes examined in this study (Table 23). It was estimated that boats in the sampled population landed nearly 

0.9 million pounds of greater amberjack on trips for 

which it contributed the greatest portion of total revenues per trip (Table 32). Boats fished for greater am-
20 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 28 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when spiny lobster made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of spiny lobster 8 3,000 659 330 –216 

Total pounds, all species 8 3,000 659 330 –216 

Percent pounds by spiny lobster 8 100 100 0 100 100 

Revenue from spiny lobster 8 11,250 2,383 1,242 –919 

Total revenue, all species 8 11,250 2,383 1,242 –919 

Percent revenue by spiny lobster 8 100 100 0 100 100 

Routine trip costs 8 2,507 545 288 –199 

Cost as percent of total revenue 8 63 21 6 5 37 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 8 8,743 1,838 969 –759 

Payment to boat owner 8 5,561 824 656 –921 

Payment to captain 8 1,064 625 134 297 954 

Payment to crew 8 2,121 388 245 –252 

Days fished 8 8 0.4 4.8 

Number of persons aboard 7 4 2.3 0.3 1.4 3.2 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 8 400 215 41 112 317 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 8 1,182 627 133 299 954 

Net revenue per person per day 7 1,000 363 109 29 698 

1,535 

1,535 

5,685 

5,685 

1,289 

4,434 

2,569 

1,028 

2.6 0.9 

Table 29 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when spiny lobster made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year per year per year conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of spiny lobster 8 51,600 16,480 6,130 359 32,601 

Total pounds, all species 8 51,600 16,480 6,130 359 32,601 

Percent pounds by spiny lobster 8 100 100 0 100 100 

Revenue from spiny lobster 8 154,800 56,012 19,918 6,401 105,622 

Total revenue, all species 8 154,800 56,012 19,918 6,401 105,622 

Percent revenue by spiny lobster 8 100 100 0 100 100 

Routine trip costs 8 32,591 8,460 3,594 –786 

Cost as percent of total revenue 8 63 21 6 5 37 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 8 152,478 47,552 18,090 249 94,855 

Payment to boat owner 8 72,293 12,343 8,457 –10,105 

Payment to captain 8 137,256 27,749 14,259 –23,033 

Payment to crew 8 27,573 7,459 3,363 –883 

Number of trips 8 129 40 13 –1 

Days fished 8 129 65 13 30 100 

17,707 

34,792 

78,532 

15,801 

82 

berjack during the spring, with the greatest number of Trips for black grouper and/or mutton snapper (Tathem fishing in May (Table 20). Participation in the bles 33–35) were related in several respects to trips for 

fishery was limited by regulations that prohibited com- yellowtail snapper. Black grouper and mutton snapper 

mercial sales of greater amberjack in April during the were the two species most frequently cited as incidental 

spawning period.9 catches on yellowtail snapper trips, and yellowtail snap-
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 21 

Table 30 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when greater amberjack made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of greater amberjack 8 3,000 1,135 315 364 1,905 

Total pounds, all species 8 3,000 1,212 302 471 1,954 

Percent pounds by greater amberjack 8 100 90 5 78 103 

Revenue from greater amberjack 8 1,650 652 157 266 1,037 

Total revenue, all species 8 1,650 765 148 399 1,131 

Percent revenue by greater amberjack 8 100 85 7 68 102 

Routine trip costs 8 340 202 38 105 298 

Cost as percent of total revenue 8 180 47 19 –26 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 8 1,400 563 132 239 888 

Payment to boat owner 7 700 173 87 –51 

Payment to captain 8 520 258 66 49 468 

Payment to crew 8 350 153 42 48 258 

Days fished 8 1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 

Number of persons aboard 8 3 2.5 0.3 1.8 3.2 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 8 3,000 1,212 302 471 1,954 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 8 1,400 563 132 239 888 

Net revenue per person per day 8 467 206 45 93 318 

120 

397 

Table 31 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when greater amberjack made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of greater amberjack 8 79,000 26,749 8,088 6,589 46,910 

Total pounds, all species 8 86,900 29,595 8,626 8,249 50,940 

Percent pounds by greater amberjack 8 100 90 5 78 103 

Revenue from greater amberjack 8 63,200 17,576 6,392 1,481 33,672 

Total revenue, all species 8 71,100 21,461 7,083 3,946 38,977 

Percent revenue by greater amberjack 8 100 85 7 68 102 

Routine trip costs 8 23,305 6,549 2,511 350 12,748 

Cost as percent of total revenue 8 180 47 19 –26 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 8 47,795 14,912 4,739 3,157 26,667 

Payment to boat owner 7 10,500 3,359 1,353 –160 

Payment to captain 8 24,095 6,861 2,461 629 13,093 

Payment to crew 8 23,700 5,113 2,524 –1,278 

Number of trips 8 79 25 8 6 44 

Days fished 8 79 25 8 6 44 

120 

6,879 

11,504 

per was one of the most common incidentally caught 77% of the revenues from black grouper, red grouper, 

species on black grouper or mutton snapper trips. or mutton snapper (Table 33). Although the average 

Catches, revenues, and net returns were comparable. net return of $323 per trip was about the same as on 

Boats landed an average of 209 pounds of fish per trip yellowtail snapper trips, black grouper or mutton snapworth $438, with approximately 73% of the pounds and per trips were slightly shorter and carried slightly fewer 
22 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 32 

Estimated totals for all boats in sampled portion of the reef fish fishery when greater amberjack made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Average Estimated Estimated 

Sample per boat number of total for Std. error Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year boats all boats of total conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of greater amberjack 8 26,749 33 893,559 404,286 –159,505 

Total pounds, all species 8 29,595 33 988,608 439,640 –165,158 

Revenue from greater amberjack 8 17,576 33 587,132 290,131 –191,910 

Total revenue, all species 8 21,461 33 716,912 336,415 –192,774 

Routine trip costs 8 6,549 33 218,767 110,820 –86,810 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 8 14,912 33 498,145 229,910 –115,852 

Payment to boat owner 7 3,359 29 98,140 52,441 –47,458 

Payment to captain 8 6,861 33 229,198 113,306 –55,309 

Payment to crew 8 5,113 33 170,806 101,501 –109,066 

Number of trips 8 25 33 840 382 –176 

Days fished 8 25 33 840 382 –176 

Table 33 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when mutton snapper or black or red grouper 

made the greatest contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of black grouper/mutton snapper 26 800 149 40 66 232 

Total pounds, all species 26 1,200 209 58 87 332 

Percent pounds by black grouper/mutton snapper 26 100 73 5 62 83 

Revenue from black grouper/mutton snapper 26 1,770 323 88 140 506 

Total revenue, all species 26 2,712 438 128 166 709 

Percent revenue by black grouper/mutton snapper 26 100 77 4 68 85 

Routine trip costs 26 795 114 31 49 180 

Cost as percent of total revenue 26 103 36 4 27 44 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 26 1,958 323 103 106 541 

Payment to boat owner 26 479 51 20 9 94 

Payment to captain 26 979 167 43 77 257 

Payment to crew 26 979 105 52 –6 

Days fished 26 8 1.4 0.3 0.8 2.0 

Number of persons aboard 26 3 1.7 0.1 1.5 2.0 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 26 1,000 149 37 70 228 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 26 1,958 225 72 69 381 

Net revenue per person per day 26 979 134 37 55 213 

1,946,622 

2,142,374 

1,366,173 

1,626,599 

524,345 

1,112,142 

243,739 

513,705 

450,678 

1,855 

1,855 

215 

persons aboard. Hence, the average net return per per- Although gray (mangrove) snapper (Tables 36–38) is 

son per day fished was higher (Table 23). Boats took an one of the most common species in the Keys, net operaverage of 33 trips per year for black grouper and/or ating revenues were lower than for the other reef fishes 

mutton snapper, which produced an average of $9,062 examined in this report because catch rates and dockper year to be shared by owner, captain, and crew (Ta- side prices were relatively low. Respondents landed an 

ble 34). It is estimated that, in aggregate, they landed average of 163 pounds of fish worth $301 per trip (Taapproximately 0.7 million pounds of fish worth $1.4 ble 36). After accounting for variation in crew size and 

million (Table 35). trip duration, boat owners, captains, and crew members 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 23 

Table 34 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when mutton snapper or black or red grouper 

made the greatest contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year per year per year conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of black grouper/mutton snapper 26 26,000 4,462 1,400 1,489 7,436 

Total pounds, all species 26 36,400 6,293 1,854 2,394 10,192 

Percent pounds by black grouper/mutton snapper 26 100 73 5 62 83 

Revenue from black grouper/mutton snapper 26 58,200 9,700 2,992 3,368 16,033 

Total revenue, all species 26 61,440 12,714 3,573 5,265 20,163 

Percent revenue by black grouper/mutton snapper 26 100 77 4 68 85 

Routine trip costs 26 25,272 3,652 1,144 1,216 6,089 

Cost as percent of total revenue 26 103 36 4 27 44 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 26 46,440 9,062 2,607 3,657 14,466 

Payment to boat owner 26 10,504 1,355 527 209 2,500 

Payment to captain 26 34,020 5,599 1,666 2,137 9,060 

Payment to crew 26 19,580 2,108 962 115 4,101 

Number of trips 26 104 33 7 19 47 

Days fished 26 148 38 8 22 55 

Table 35 

Estimated totals for all boats in sampled portion of the reef fish fishery when mutton snapper or black or red grouper made 

the greatest contribution to trip revenue. 

Average Estimated Estimated 

Sample per boat number of total for Std. error Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year boats all boats of total conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of black grouper/mutton snapper 26 4,462 112 498,635 173,569 129,627 867,642 

Total pounds, all species 26 6,293 112 703,172 234,063 211,289 1,195,056 

Revenue from black grouper/mutton snapper 26 9,700 112 1,083,916 372,290 295,002 1,872,830 

Total revenue, all species 26 12,714 112 1,420,630 456,212 468,185 2,373,075 

Routine trip costs 26 3,652 112 408,088 141,556 105,920 710,255 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 26 9,062 112 1,012,542 332,305 322,461 1,702,624 

Payment to boat owner 26 1,355 112 151,378 62,279 13,881 288,876 

Payment to captain 26 5,599 112 625,585 212,029 184,656 1,066,514 

Payment to crew 26 2,108 112 235,579 113,953 –812 

Number of trips 26 33 112 3,677 938 1,729 5,626 

Days fished 26 38 112 4,266 1,095 1,973 6,559 

471,970 

shared an average of only $76 per person per day fished 

(Table 36) and $4,469 per boat per year (Table 37) after deducting routine trip costs. It was estimated that 

boats on gray snapper trips landed 0.3 million pounds 

of fish worth nearly $0.6 million (Table 38). Gray snapper were targeted throughout the year, but primarily 

between May and August (Table 20). 

Other, less frequently targeted species included the 

deep water groupers and tilefishes (Tables 39–41), of 

which snowy grouper and blueline tilefish were the 

most common. Average net operating revenues on deep 

water reef fish trips were lower than on yellowtail snapper trips (Table 23). Boat owners, captains, and crew 

members shared an average of $107 per person per day 

fished after deducting routine trip costs. The estimated 46 boats that targeted deep water groupers and tilefishes landed an estimated 0.25 million pounds worth 

approximately $0.37 million (Table 41), and returned 

$5,049 per boat per year to be shared by owners, captains, and crew members (Table 40). Fishing for deep 
24 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 36 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when gray snapper made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of gray snapper 20 270 115 18 77 154 

Total pounds, all species 20 600 163 30 98 227 

Percent pounds by gray snapper 20 100 73 5 63 83 

Revenue from gray snapper 20 540 216 37 138 294 

Total revenue, all species 20 1,200 301 62 167 436 

Percent revenue by gray snapper 20 100 74 4 66 83 

Routine trip costs 20 415 113 23 64 162 

Cost as percent of total revenue 20 233 51 10 27 74 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 20 785 195 43 102 289 

Payment to boat owner 20 262 49 15 17 82 

Payment to captain 20 261 89 17 53 125 

Payment to crew 20 262 57 16 23 91 

Days fished 20 3 0.1 1.6 

Number of persons aboard 20 11 2.3 0.4 1.3 3.3 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 20 275 125 17 90 161 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 20 369 149 27 92 205 

Net revenue per person per day 20 185 76 13 47 104 

1.3 1.0 

Table 37 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when gray snapper made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year per year per year conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of gray snapper 20 12,000 2,921 724 1,374 4,469 

Total pounds, all species 20 16,500 3,968 995 1,860 6,076 

Percent pounds by gray snapper 20 100 73 5 63 83 

Revenue from gray snapper 20 24,000 5,326 1,400 2,301 8,351 

Total revenue, all species 20 34,800 7,055 1,889 2,982 11,129 

Percent revenue by gray snapper 20 100 74 4 66 83 

Routine trip costs 20 16,200 2,967 979 886 5,047 

Cost as percent of total revenue 20 233 51 10 27 74 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 20 18,600 4,469 1,107 2,102 6,837 

Payment to boat owner 20 6,360 1,131 392 289 1,973 

Payment to captain 20 12,240 2,218 642 832 3,604 

Payment to crew 20 4,080 1,120 307 461 1,780 

Number of trips 20 120 25 6 12 39 

Days fished 20 120 28 6 15 41 

water species occurred throughout the year with a sea- the reef fishes examined in this study (Table 23). Boat ownsonal peak in April, May, and June, and a seasonal low ers, captains, and crew members shared $68 per person 

in August and September (Table 20). per day fished and $2,238 per boat per year after deducting 

King mackerel trips (Tables 42–43) produced lower net routine trip costs. King mackerel fishing was seasonal, and 

operating revenues, on average, than did trips for any of occurred primarily in December and January (Table 20). 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 25 

Table 38 

Estimated totals for all boats in sampled portion of the reef fish fishery when gray snapper made the greatest contribution 

to trip revenue. 

Average Estimated Estimated 

Sample per boat number of total for Std. error Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year boats all boats of total conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of gray snapper 20 2,921 83 243,440 79,021 75,295 411,585 

Total pounds, all species 20 3,968 83 330,664 107,625 103,348 557,979 

Revenue from gray snapper 20 5,326 83 443,810 149,832 121,244 766,375 

Total revenue, all species 20 7,055 83 587,938 200,353 158,363 1,017,513 

Routine trip costs 20 2,967 83 247,206 96,326 43,295 451,116 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 20 4,469 83 372,448 121,083 112,821 632,076 

Payment to boat owner 20 1,131 83 94,264 38,547 10,337 178,191 

Payment to captain 20 2,218 83 184,823 65,917 44,087 325,558 

Payment to crew 20 1,120 83 93,362 32,170 22,809 163,915 

Number of trips 20 25 83 2,113 661 687 3,540 

Days fished 20 83 2,357 881 3,833 

Table 39 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when deep water groupers and tilefish made the 

greatest contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of deep water reef fishes 11 250 126 22 77 174 

Total pounds, all species 11 545 166 41 71 262 

Percent pounds by deep water reef fishes 11 100 88 6 73 102 

Revenue from deep water reef fishes 11 456 210 42 116 305 

Total revenue, all species 11 782 257 59 120 394 

Percent revenue by deep water reef fishes 11 100 88 6 74 102 

Routine trip costs 11 330 95 23 38 152 

Cost as percent of total revenue 11 154 53 12 25 82 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 11 452 162 42 66 258 

Payment to boat owner 10 151 46 18 3 89 

Payment to captain 11 205 75 20 27 122 

Payment to crew 11 150 45 16 8 83 

Days fished 10 1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 

Number of persons aboard 11 2 1.6 0.2 1.3 2.0 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 10 545 172 45 61 282 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 10 452 173 45 68 278 

Net revenue per person per day 10 226 107 28 42 171 

28 690 

Average net operating revenues on dolphin trips (Tables Discussion 

44–45) were the lowest from among the alternatives examined in this study (Table 23). Boat owners, captains, This report describes the financial performance of comand crew members shared only $45 per person per day mercial reef fish boats when participating in different 

fished and $2,236 per boat per year after deducting rou- kinds of fishing trips in the Florida Keys. The survey 

tine trip costs. Trips on which dolphin was the most confirmed that commercial fishermen in the Keys usuimportant species were made between April and Sep- ally were generalists rather than specialists. While some 

tember, with peak fishing activity occurring in May and boats engaged in only one kind of fishing, most alterJune. nated among two or more different kinds of fishing 
26 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 40 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when deep water groupers and tilefish made the 

greatest contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year per year per year conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of deep water reef fishes 11 10,250 3,691 951 1,401 5,981 

Total pounds, all species 11 27,250 5,430 2,126 60 10,800 

Percent pounds by deep water reef fishes 11 100 88 6 73 102 

Revenue from deep water reef fishes 11 22,800 6,302 1,822 1,913 10,692 

Total revenue, all species 11 39,100 8,147 2,992 643 15,650 

Percent revenue by deep water reef fishes 11 100 88 6 74 102 

Routine trip costs 11 16,500 3,098 1,246 –133 

Cost as percent of total revenue 11 154 53 12 25 82 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 11 22,600 5,049 1,828 607 9,492 

Payment to boat owner 10 7,550 1,724 784 –164 

Payment to captain 11 7,550 2,011 591 601 3,420 

Payment to crew 11 7,500 1,463 639 –97 

Number of trips 11 86 32 7 16 48 

Days fished 10 86 33 7 16 50 

Table 41 

Estimated totals for all boats in sampled portion of the reef fish fishery when deep water groupers and tilefish made the 

greatest contribution to trip revenue. 

Average Estimated Estimated 

Sample per boat number of total for Std. error Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year boats all boats of total conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of deep water reef fishes 11 3,691 46 169,786 65,040 609 338,962 

Total pounds, all species 11 5,430 46 249,751 120,556 –72,716 

Revenue from deep water reef fishes 11 6,302 46 289,890 117,177 –19,842 

Total revenue, all species 11 8,147 46 374,725 173,601 –89,330 

Routine trip costs 11 3,098 46 142,475 70,116 –43,789 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 11 5,049 46 232,251 106,512 –49,985 

Payment to boat owner 10 1,724 42 72,476 38,974 –35,732 

Payment to captain 11 2,011 46 92,478 37,817 –2,535 

Payment to crew 11 1,463 46 67,296 35,046 –21,363 

Number of trips 11 32 46 1,466 522 276 2,657 

Days fished 10 33 42 1,416 523 208 2,624 

6,328 

3,612 

3,023 

572,217 

599,622 

838,781 

328,738 

514,486 

180,685 

187,492 

155,956 

trips. Although we did not inquire about motivations 

for switching behavior, switching probably occurred for 

a variety of reasons including disparities in net returns 

per unit of fishing effort, seasonal availability of fish, 

regulated openings and closings, experience with alternative kinds of fishing, and so forth. 

In the short-term, fishermen maximize profits or 

minimize losses by taking additional trips for a particular species if expected trip revenues exceed expected 

variable costs per trip. In theory, fishermen will switch 

among fishing activities if they expect to earn more in 

the new fishery than they could in their existing fishery 

after accounting for switching costs. Over time, disparities among fishing activities in potential net returns per 

unit of effort tend to disappear because each entrant 

into the new fishery disperses a portion of the available catch among a greater number of participants, 

and hence reduces net return per unit of effort. Similarly, each defection from the existing fishery reallocates slightly larger catches to the remaining participants, thereby increasing their net return per unit of 

effort. 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 27 

Table 42 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when king mackerel made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of king mackerel 7 500 188 62 21 356 

Total pounds, all species 7 500 195 61 34 356 

Percent pounds by king mackerel 7 100 95 4 85 105 

Revenue from king mackerel 7 315 156 41 51 261 

Total revenue, all species 8 315 167 35 80 253 

Percent revenue by king mackerel 7 100 93 6 74 111 

Routine trip costs 8 117 60 10 35 86 

Cost as percent of total revenue 8 490 90 52 –98 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 8 205 106 27 35 177 

Payment to boat owner 8 68 15 11 –12 

Payment to captain 8 146 74 18 23 125 

Payment to crew 8 68 17 10 –10 

Days fished 8 1 0.0 1.0 

Number of persons aboard 7 4 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.9 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 7 500 195 61 34 356 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 8 205 106 27 35 177 

Net revenue per person per day 7 146 68 20 16 120 

Table 43 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when king mackerel made the greatest 

contribution to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year per year per year conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of king mackerel 7 16,000 3,959 1,957 –1,567 

Total pounds, all species 7 16,000 4,150 1,943 –1,270 

Percent pounds by king mackerel 7 100 95 4 85 105 

Revenue from king mackerel 7 9,600 3,130 1,120 164 6,095 

Total revenue, all species 8 9,600 3,318 1,033 775 5,862 

Percent revenue by king mackerel 7 100 93 6 74 111 

Routine trip costs 8 3,040 1,080 302 332 1,828 

Cost as percent of total revenue 8 490 90 52 –98 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 8 6,560 2,238 757 382 4,095 

Payment to boat owner 8 2,176 320 262 –366 

Payment to captain 8 4,380 1,581 497 366 2,796 

Payment to crew 8 2,176 338 259 –346 

Number of trips 8 32 18 3 10 26 

Days fished 8 32 18 3 

279 

43 

44 

1.0 1.0 

9,485 

9,569 

279 

1,006 

1,021 

10 26 

In practice, net returns probably never will be truly ence with alternative fishing techniques may preclude 

equalized due to a variety of impediments to switching. some fishermen from switching. And geographic, seaFor example, imperfect information about opportuni- sonal, or regulatory restrictions may limit switching beties in alternative kinds of fishing, the need for capital havior that would tend to equalize net returns per unit 

investment in specialized gear, or the lack of experi- of effort. 
28 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

Table 45 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per year in the Florida Keys when dolphin made the greatest contribution 

to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per year per year per year conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of dolphin 6 6,200 2,092 892 –429 

Total pounds, all species 6 7,285 2,308 1,015 –612 

Percent pounds by dolphin 6 100 88 9 56 120 

Revenue from dolphin 6 12,400 3,398 1,718 –1,752 

Total revenue, all species 6 13,702 3,688 1,879 –2,046 

Percent revenue by dolphin 6 100 88 9 53 123 

Routine trip costs 6 3,780 1,452 575 –194 

Cost as percent of total revenue 6 149 68 18 17 120 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 6 10,602 2,236 1,525 –2,898 

Payment to boat owner 5 3,534 1,023 618 –1,003 

Payment to captain 6 3,534 804 499 –855 

Payment to crew 6 3,534 580 525 –1,335 

Number of trips 6 45 18 6 0 35 

Days fished 6 45 18 6 0 35 

Table 44 

Estimated means and standard errors per boat per trip in the Florida Keys when dolphin made the greatest contribution 

to trip revenue. 

Maximum Average Std. error 

Sample per boat per boat per boat Lower 95% Upper 95% 

Variable size per trip per trip per trip conf. limit conf. limit 

Pounds of dolphin 6 200 92 24 21 163 

Total pounds, all species 6 235 104 27 23 186 

Percent pounds by dolphin 6 100 88 9 56 120 

Revenue from dolphin 6 400 145 49 –8 

Total revenue, all species 6 442 165 52 –5 

Percent revenue by dolphin 6 100 88 9 53 123 

Routine trip costs 6 101 77 8 54 100 

Cost as percent of total revenue 6 149 69 18 17 120 

Net to boat, captain, and crew 6 342 88 49 –68 

Payment to boat owner 5 114 41 21 –28 

Payment to captain 6 114 34 20 –20 

Payment to crew 6 114 20 17 –41 

Days fished 6 1 1.0 1.0 

Number of persons aboard 6 3 2.0 0.2 1.0 3.0 

Pounds (all species) per day fished 6 235 104 27 23 186 

Net revenue per day fished per trip 6 342 88 49 –68 

Net revenue per person per day 6 126 45 22 –20 

4,613 

5,229 

8,548 

9,422 

3,097 

7,371 

3,048 

2,463 

2,494 

298 

335 

245 

110 

89 

82 

1.0 0.0 

245 

111 

Regulation of one kind of fishing activity often pre- ing possible switching behavior among different kinds 

cipitates a transfer of fishing effort to other species, of fishing. 

some of which may be overfished or nearly overfished. The different kinds of fishing examined in this study 

These data can be used to model the supply of fishing included trips for yellowtail snapper, black grouper or 

effort to help predict the effects of regulation, includ- mutton snapper, greater amberjack, gray snapper, deep 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 29 

water groupers and tilefishes, spiny lobster, king mackerel, and dolphin. Several of the reef fish species such as 

yellowtail snapper and black grouper are available yearround, while others such as greater amberjack, mutton 

snapper, and gray snapper are available in seasons that 

probably correspond with aggregations of spawning 

fish. Spiny lobster and king mackerel are available during regulated seasons. Each kind of fishing was evaluated by comparing average net operating revenues per 

trip as a measure of the combined share payments to 

boat owner, captain, and crew after deducting routine 

trip expenses. 

Spiny lobster produced the highest average share payments per trip from among the kinds of fishing examined in this study, due to high catch rates and high 

dockside prices. About 20% of the sampled boats participated in the spiny lobster fishery despite the need 

for trap certificates, which are marketable fishing privileges issued by the state of Florida, and lobster traps 

and trap pullers as specialized gear. Fishing effort in the 

spiny lobster fishery was greatest in August at the beginning of the season and tended to shift to stone crab 

when its season opened or to reef fishes and other species as lobster densities and catch rates declined. 

We were surprised to find that greater amberjack trips 

yielded higher average share payments per trip than 

other kinds of fishing for reef fishes. Net operating 

revenues were high, on average, because low ex-vessel 

prices were more than offset by large catches per trip. 

Despite high net returns per trip, the estimated participation levels such as numbers of boats and trips were 

relatively low, probably due to the seasonal nature of 

greater amberjack abundance and regulatory restrictions during the peak months of abundance. 

The yellowtail snapper resource supported the principal kind of fishing among reef fish boats in the Keys. 

More than 80% of the sampled boats fished for yellowtail snapper at some time during the year, with most of 

them ranking it as their most important source of revenue on an annual basis. The high rate of participation 

in the yellowtail snapper fishery probably reduced average share payments by splitting the overall catch among 

the competing trips. 

Trips for black grouper or mutton snapper were the 

next most frequently cited kind of fishing in our sample. 

Given the year-round availability of black grouper and 

mutton snapper as primary or secondary species, we expected some boats to switch between black grouper/ 

mutton snapper trips and yellowtail snapper trips with 

the result that average net returns per unit of effort 

would tend to equality. In fact, the estimated average 

net operating revenues per trip were approximately 

equal even though average net operating revenues per 

day fished and per person per day fished were higher 

for black grouper than for yellowtail snapper. 

In addition to their descriptive value, these data can 

be used in future analyses of regulation in the reef fish 

fishery. The economic effects of regulation on commercial fishermen are measured as changes in producers’ 

surplus, loosely defined as payments earned by capital 

and labor in excess of their opportunity costs. Ideally, 

changes in producers’ surplus would be calculated as 

the lesser of the change in producers’ surplus in the 

regulated fishery, or the reduction in producers’ surplus between the regulated fishery and the next-best alternative kind of fishing. For example, the economic 

effects of seasonal closures would be the loss of producers’ surplus in the closed fishery if no alternative kind of 

fishing existed during the closed season, or the reduction in producers’ surplus between the closed and alternative fisheries if an alternative existed. 

Financial performance was reported in terms of net 

operating revenues to boat owner, captain, and crew 

(i.e., total share payments), which differs from producers’ surplus. Opportunity costs should be deducted 

from net operating revenues to obtain a measure of 

producers’ surplus. Opportunity costs are determined 

by the next-best earnings opportunities, such as the major local industry, available to fishermen. These opportunities vary geographically, and their determination is 

an important topic for future research. 

In conclusion, this study provides a snapshot of the 

financial performance of commercial reef fish boats on 

different kinds of fishing trips in the Florida Keys. The 

research can assist fishery managers in evaluating the 

consequences of regulation in the commercial reef fish 

fishery. While it cannot be claimed that these data and 

analyses will alter regulation in the reef fish fishery, it is 

our belief that this information will enable fishery managers to make better-informed decisions among regulatory alternatives. 

Acknowledgements 

This study would not exist except for the substantial 

efforts by hundreds of individuals, including data collectors and respondents. Field supervisors, interviewers, editors, and data-entry personnel performed an outstanding 

job in a difficult task. Staats Abrams and Gerry Kremenko, from Crossley Surveys, a division of Roper Starch 

Worldwide, Inc., supervised the collection of data and 

the data entry process. The data collection phase of this 

study was funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service through contract 50WCNF306028 with Roper Starch 

Worldwide, Inc., and MARFIN award NA47FS0014 with 

the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 

We are especially thankful to the fishermen who as a 

group spent hundreds of hours being interviewed. One 

hundred two fishermen were interviewed over a wide 
30 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 

geographic region, and many were contacted again by 

telephone to check responses that may have seemed 

unusual or inconsistent with answers to other questions. 

Their patience and willingness to provide information 

about themselves and their fishing activities have led to 

a better understanding of the financial aspects of commercial fishing for reef fishes. 

Also, we thank two anonymous reviewers for their 

helpful comments and suggestions. 

Literature Cited 

Cochran, William G. 

1977. Sampling techniques, third edition. John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., New York, 428 p. 

SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries Science Center). 

1992. Status of fishery resources off the southeastern United 

States for 1992. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-326, 89 p. 

Thompson, Steven K. 

1992. Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 343 p. 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 31 

Appendix 1


Survey Questionnaires: Screening Questionnaire, Basic Questionnaire, Supplemental Questionnaire


(OVER) 
32 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 33 
34 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 35 
36 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 37 
38 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 39 
40 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 41 
42 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 43 
44 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 154 
Waters et al.: Description of Economic Data Collected with a Random Sample of Commercial Reef Fish Boats in the Florida Keys 45