NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-718 

doi:10.7289/V5/TM-SEFSC-718

ECONOMIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR UNITED STATES 

VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMERCIAL FISHERIES 

By

CHLOE S. FLEMING, ASHLEIGH ARMENTROUT AND SCOTT CROSSON 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

75 Virginia Beach Drive 

Miami, Florida 33149 

December 2017

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-718
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-718

doi:10.7289/V5/TM-SEFSC-718

ECONOMIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR UNITED STATES 

VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

BY

CHLOE S. FLEMING, ASHLEIGH ARMENTROUT AND SCOTT CROSSON

National Marine Fisheries Service

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, Florida 33149

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Wilbur Ross, Secretary

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Timothy Gallaudet, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere (Acting)

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

December 2017

This Technical Memorandum series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary 

results, interim reports, or similar special-purpose information. Although the memoranda are not subject 

to complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing, they are expected to reflect sound 

professional work.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-718
ii

NOTICE

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

product of 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 imply that NMFS 

approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein 

which has as its purpose any intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or 

purchased because of this NMFS publication.

This report should be cited as follows:

Fleming, C. S., A. Armentrout, and S. Crosson. 2017. Economic survey results for United States Virgin 

Islands commercial fisheries. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-718. 33 p.

doi:10.7289/V5/TM-SEFSC-718

This report will appear on the SEFSC website at URL: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/

Cover photos by Scott Crosson: a diver filets up his catch on St Croix (left), and fishermen unloading 

spiny lobsters on St Thomas (right).

Copies may be obtained by writing:

Scott Crosson

NOAA Fisheries

75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, Florida 33149

Scott.Crosson@noaa.gov
iii

ECONOMIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR UNITED STATES 

VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

Abstract

In 2014, an economic survey of commercial fishermen in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) was conducted 

in tandem with the Marine Outreach and Education – Virgin Islands Style (MOES) fishermen 

workshops to expand data collection. Fishing is traditionally a profound aspect of life and culture in the 

USVI. This study discusses 1) fishermen background, 2) fixed costs, including vessels, dive gear, and 

fish and lobster trap ownership, and 3) variable costs, including fuel, bait, air, food and crew costs for St. 

Thomas and St. John (STT/STJ) fishermen, St. Croix (STX) fishermen, and USVI fishermen as a whole. 

After merging survey results with landings data records, we estimated respondent and fleet trip 

profitability. 

We find that net revenues and estimated annual profits were slightly higher for STX fishers than for

STT/STJ fishers. The STT respondent profit rate was 20%. After weighting for non-respondents, the 

annual profit rate was reduced to 15%. In comparison, the STX respondent profits rate was 33%, but 

after adjusting for non-respondents, the annual profit rate settled at 17%. We show that USVI fishermen 

are receptive to filling out economic surveys so long as they are a part of the regular and required 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources process.
iv

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................1

2. Background ...............................................................................................................................................1

3. Methods....................................................................................................................................................5

4. Survey Results Overall...............................................................................................................................6

4.1 Respondent Fishermen Background...................................................................................................6

4.2 Respondent Fishermen Fixed Costs....................................................................................................8

4.2.1 Fishermen Vessels........................................................................................................................8

4.2.2 Fishermen Diving Gear.................................................................................................................8

4.2.3 Fishermen Trap Ownership........................................................................................................11

4.2.4 Fishermen “Other” Fixed Costs..................................................................................................13

4.3 Respondent Fishermen Variable Costs.............................................................................................13

5. Respondent and Fleet Trip Profitability ..................................................................................................15

5.1 STT/STJ Respondent and Fleet Trip Profitability...............................................................................15

5.2 STX Respondent and Fleet Trip Profitability .....................................................................................18

6. Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................20

7. References ..............................................................................................................................................22

Appendix 1: Survey Form............................................................................................................................25
v

List of Tables

Table 1. Fishermen Background....................................................................................................................7

Table 2. Vessel Ownership............................................................................................................................9

Table 3. Dive Gear Ownership ....................................................................................................................10

Table 4. Fish Trap Ownership......................................................................................................................11

Table 5. Lobster Trap Ownership................................................................................................................12

Table 6. Other Fixed Costs..........................................................................................................................13

Table 7. Variable Costs................................................................................................................................14

Table 8. STT/STJ Fleet Case Summaries and Annual Profit Estimates........................................................17

Table 9. STX Fleet Case Summaries and Annual Profit Estimates...............................................................19
1

1. Introduction

In 2014, we conducted an economic survey of U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) commercial 

fishermen. As required by the 2006 revision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, each of the eight

Fisheries Management Councils are required to set Annual Catch Limits for all federally 

managed fisheries in conjunction with the recommendations of their Scientific and Statistical 

Committees (Crosson 2013). This process requires reliable biological and economic data, and as 

a result, the Social Science Research Group at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center has 

focused on expanding data collection in the currently data-poor U.S. Caribbean. We saw an 

opportunity to integrate the data collection into the territory’s 2014 commercial fisheries 

workshops: Marine Outreach and Education – Virgin Islands Style (MOES). Commercial 

fishermen were required to attend the workshops as part of the fisheries registration process, so 

collecting economic data at this stage seemed more efficient and effective than traditional field 

or telephone surveys. That was indeed the case, and special thanks are given to NOAA 

contractor Lia Ortiz and the staff from the USVI Division of Fish and Wildlife for aiding us in

this process. Without their support, this process would have been impossible. We also hoped to 

put the USVI commercial fisheries community at ease with the regular collection of economic 

cost data, and with the goal of perhaps integrating it into the landings data records. In this sense, 

the survey was intended as a pilot study for both gathering baseline data and conducting

community outreach.

This document is structured as follows: Section 2 provides background; Section 3 

describes the methods and response rates; Section 4 gives the overall results, including 

respondent fishermen background, vessels, gear, fixed costs, and variable costs for all fishermen; 

Section 5 estimates 2013 landings and annual profitability; and Section 6 provides discussion 

and conclusions.

2. Background

The USVI of St. Thomas (STT), St. Croix (STX), and St. John (STJ) are located within 

the northeastern Caribbean Sea. This U.S. territory has an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 

over 33,000 square kilometers, with an inshore fishing area of 1,536 square kilometers. The 

territory’s waters hold 0.2% of the world’s coral reefs, as well as sixteen marine protected areas 

(Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015). Since Columbus reported seeing these islands in 1493, Spain, 
2

France, Holland, England, Denmark, and the United States have each claimed this area at 

different times. In the 17th century, the Danes began to colonize the USVI with the hopes of 

cultivating sugar cane; however, when Denmark abolished slavery in 1848, the sugar industry 

subsided, and a century-long period known as the “subsistence era” ensued. From fear of 

German capture during World War I, the United States bought the USVI and about 50 smaller 

islands from Denmark, and has controlled the territory ever since (National Geographic, 2015).

The USVI has a total population of 106,405 (USC, 2011). STT and STX hold 

approximately 48% each of the total population, while STJ has roughly 4% of the region’s 

population (Fleming, Tonioli and Agar, 2014). These three islands have a reported non-farm 

employment of approximately 39,000, with the most employment in the government and trade, 

transportation, and utilities sectors (BLS, 2014). Gross domestic product in 2013 was an 

estimated $3.8 billion (BEA, 2014). 

Although there are similarities, each USVI island is distinct in its geography, culture, and 

economy. STT is composed of hill ridges with relatively no flat areas (VInow, 2015c), and 

because of this, has very little agricultural activity (VInow, 2015b). This island has an idyllic 

natural harbor, and in 1815 became a duty free port, specializing as a trade center and 

distributing point for the West Indies. This trading center and natural harbor later developed into 

an ideal destination for cruise ships and tourism, catering to high-end tourism, specifically

(VInow, 2015b). 

In comparison, STX has a rocky terrain on the eastern end of the island, but has rolling 

pasturelands and flat farming land with fertile soil throughout most of the central and western 

parts (VInow, 2015c). STX’s history is nested in agricultural activities, as it produced and 

exported sugar, rum, cotton, molasses, and hard woods through the use of slavery. After many 

slave revolts and the subsequent abolishment of slavery, STX’s agricultural focus declined 

(VInow, 2015a). In 1966, Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation began construction on the 

Hovensa oil refinery (Virgin Islands Daily News, 2013). This oil refinery grew to be one of the 

world’s ten largest crude oil refineries, and became a substantial economic sector on STX; 

however, in February 2012, Hovensa closed, and it now serves as a storage terminal (Fleming, 

Tonioli and Agar, 2014). The existence of Hovensa provided such a massive economic impact 

that STX did not have to rely on tourism for many decades. With its closure, its revenue stream 

has largely halted and most of its jobs have ended, resulting in Crucians attempting to generate 
3

income through the island’s weaker tourism sector (Plaskett, 2013). Today, agriculture and 

tourism are the island’s two main industries (VInow, 2015a).

STJ has the smallest population of the three islands, and was once home to plantation life. 

Following the abolishment of slavery, residents maintained small scale subsistence farming and 

fishing (VInow, 2017a). STJ is now home to the Virgin Islands National Park, which protects 

over half of the 12,500 acre island. As a result, the island caters to ecotourism and camping, in 

addition to high-end tourism. Since STJ does not have its own airport, tourists and residents alike 

must take a ferry to and from STT (VInow, 2017b).

Fishing has historically been a profound aspect of life and culture in the USVI. A 

dependence on the territory’s natural resources, including fisheries resources, has been 

demonstrated throughout the islands’ history, and although the level of dependence has changed 

over time, USVI culture remains deeply connected to the sea, its fisheries resources, and the 

livelihoods created from these resources (Ortiz, 2014). Most commercial fishermen carry out all 

aspects of fishing themselves, including fish catch, gear and vessel repairs, and product 

marketing (Kojis and Quinn, 2011). 

Although the islands of the USVI are often grouped together, their fisheries are almost as 

distinct as the islands themselves. Many studies group STT and STJ together for comparison 

purposes (Impact Assessment, Inc., 2007; Kojis, 2004; Kojis and Quinn, 2006; Kojis and Quinn, 

2011), due to the small population of STJ and its geographic location (they occupy the same 

oceanic platform, and access to STJ is via ferry from STT). In this study, we follow this practice 

by grouping these islands together.

Valdés-Pizzini et al. (2010) suggested that fishing for economic purposes in STX has 

historically played a smaller role in comparison to the plantation economy and manufacturing 

and tourism industries on the island because it supported only a small percentage of local 

employment. Although fishing’s economic contribution is smaller than other industries in STX, 

the study found that fishing is ultimately at the core of Crucian identity and culture, and has 

provided sustenance to the island’s inhabitants of a diverse ethnic background. Additionally, 

fishing in STX supports the island’s tourism industry since it provides fresh fish to restaurants 

and marketplaces (Valdés-Pizzini et al., 2010).

Valdés-Pizzini et al. also found that many Crucian fishermen did not exclusively fish as 

their main source of income. Kojis and Quinn (2011) found that only 41% of Crucian fishers 
4

spent more than 36 hours per week on fishing related activities, that approximately 25% of 

Crucian fishers spent between 15-36 hours per week, and that 28% of fishers spent less than 15 

hours per week on fishing related activities. This varied slightly in comparison to STT and STJ, 

where only 30% of fishermen reported spending more than 36 hours per week on fishing-related 

activities, roughly 25% spent between 15-36 hours per week and 30% spent less than 15 hours 

per week. Lastly, there are not place-based fishing communities on STX; instead, the whole 

island can be classified as a fishing community due to social capital constructs and network 

relations among fishers (Valdés-Pizzini et al., 2010).

Similar to STX, Stoffle et al. (2011) suggested that the complex social relations and

history of economic development on STT has impacted and helped create a fishery that is deeply 

entwined in the social fabric and identity of the local community. However, on STT fishing plays 

a more important economic role. Both the commercial and recreational fisheries help support a 

strong tourism industry by providing not only fishing charters, but also fresh fish to restaurants 

and fish markets. The fishermen of STT also play an important role in the island’s politics 

through the St. Thomas Fishermen’s Association. In addition to community benefits and 

involvement from these fishers, Stoffle et al. found that more than 80% of STT fishers serviced 

their vessels and engines locally, more than 60% bought their fishing and navigational gear 

locally, and more than 90% bought their bait locally. Stoffle et al.’s findings suggest that the 

entire island of STT can also be defined as a fishing community (2011).

In terms of specific fisheries, Kojis and Quinn found that between 2003 and 2004 the 

majority of USVI landings were reef fish, followed next by coastal pelagics, lobster, deepwater 

snapper, conch, and deep pelagics (2006). From 2007-2008, STX fishermen caught the majority 

of parrotfish by freediving, SCUBA, gillnets, and traps. The gillnet and trammel net ban in 2008 

increased the use of freediving methods, and snappers were caught primarily by line fishing. In 

comparison, STT and STJ fishermen landed the overwhelming majority of parrotfish with traps, 

and caught snappers with a combination of line fishing, traps, and seine nets (McCarthy, 2011). 

Agar et al. (2008) further demonstrated a dependence on trap fishing, and found that the 

STT/STJ fleet was larger and more capital-intensive than the STX fleet.
5

3. Methods

In July 2014, Marine Outreach and Education USVI Style (MOES) organized the 

Commercial Fisher Workshop and Registration on STT and STX. The goals of these workshops 

were to 1) develop and implement effective and efficient USVI commercial fishermen catch 

report training, 2) develop and implement an effective and efficient fishing license registration 

protocol for the USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) Division of Fish 

and Wildlife (DFW) and Division of Environmental Enforcement, 3) improve fishing community 

awareness of current fisheries issues, rules, and regulations, and 4) improve fishermen 

compliance with fisheries regulations (NOAA CRCP, 2014). It was during these workshops that 

we administered economic surveys. STX’s registrations were held at the DPNR office on July 

7

th, 8th, and 9th while the STT/STJ districts were held at the DPNR conference rooms at Cyril E. 

King Airport on July 14th, 15th, and 16th. We brought survey forms in both English and Spanish, 

the latter being edited and revised by Dr. Juan Agar, as well as an “About This Survey” page 

given to each fisherman in their registration packets, again available in both English and Spanish. 

STX had 3 groups registered per day. DPNR staff gave a presentation on how to properly 

fill out commercial catch report forms and the importance of reporting accurately. Following 

this, the Coast Guard spoke to the fishermen about a mandatory safety inspection on October 15, 

2015. A representative from the Caribbean Oceanographic and Restoration Education 

Foundation (CORE) gave background information on lionfish and gave a short, 6-question 

survey about fishermen perception on lionfish and the nascent market for it. Lastly, we presented 

our survey. Crosson informed the fishermen that we wanted to gather data on what it costs a 

fisherman to run his/her business. Crosson explained that collecting this economic data would 

help scientists and government officials understand how economic conditions and regulations 

(i.e. marine protected areas and seasonal closings) would affect the commercial fishing industry. 

The CORE representative assisted in bridging the language gap for Spanish speaking fishermen. 

We also offered to fill out the survey forms via individual interviews if a fisherman did not want

to fill out a survey on his own. Because we were the last to present, we had the advantage of 

being less restricted by time, as fishermen had to wait to be individually called for license 

renewals with DPNR staff. There was a total of 190 fishers engaged in the MOES July 2014 

workshops from both districts, representing 66% of the total fishers on DFW’s August 2014 
6

rosters. Of the 93 fishers from STX, 68 fishers took the survey in-person. Roughly a dozen 

fishers from both districts took surveys and return envelops with them to fill out at a later point.

The STT/STJ district sessions were held in the DPNR conference rooms on the second 

floor of the airport on the Western side of STT. Four sessions were held per day. Staff from the 

DPNR reviewed the requirements for commercial catch reports, and the Coast Guard 

presentation on the upcoming safety inspections followed. Crosson then gave his presentation. 

Many were again very open to taking our survey and sharing their cost information. No one 

needed a Spanish version during these registration days, but we still offered to sit down and help 

people fill out their surveys (although there was a steep decline in the number of individuals who 

opted for this method). Of the entire 3-day registration period, 62 people filled out surveys inperson. For STT/STJ fishers, 90 were present of the 97 who had officially signed up. 

The survey form (see Appendix 1) asked a series of questions regarding fixed costs and 

variable trip expenses, as well as basic demographic information (i.e. age and other occupations). 

The front page began with background information on each individual, and next asked about 

business investments and capital, number of vessels owned and their current market value, 

numbers of tanks owned for diving and their value, and number of traps owned and their total 

value. The survey continued by inquiring about variable/per-trip costs such as oil and gas, ice, 

food, and crew pay. This was considered the most critical information because these costs cannot 

be avoided when making a fishing trip, are variable and constantly changing, and strongly 

influence when and where a fisherman will be able to fish. The last page asked for annual/fixed 

costs, such as mooring or dockage, lawyers or other accounting fees, and fishing related loan 

payments.

4. Survey Results Overall

4.1 Respondent Fishermen Background

Table 1 shows that approximately two thirds of all respondent fishermen reported 

themselves as full-time fishermen, while the remaining one third considered themselves parttime fishermen. Of the respondent fishermen actively engaged in fishing activities, their mean 

percentage of household income from fishing activity was 65.4% and their median percentage of 

household income was 80%. For respondent fishermen who listed other income sources, it was 

reported that the top other sources were handyman work and non-labor activities (see Table 1 for 

a more detailed breakdown). The mean and median ages of all respondent fishermen were 53.5
7

and 54, respectively, ranging from 21 to 83. The mean years of fishing experience was 30.8, but 

the experience ranged from 2 to 83 years. Approximately one third reported themselves as first 

generation fishermen.

Table 1. Fishermen Background

Fishermen Background

All USVI STT/STJ STX

Fishermen 

Status

N 128 63 65

Part-time 41 (32.0%) 25 (39.7%) 16 (24.6%)

Full-time 87 (68.0%) 38 (60.3%) 49 (75.4%)

% of 

Household 

Income from 

Fishing

N 115 55 60

Mean % Household 

Income from Fishing

65.4 59.1 71.2

Median % Household 

Income from Fishing

80 50 100

Other Income 

Sources

N 40 25 15

Handyman Work 23.8% 6 4

Non-labor Income 23.8% 4 6

Farming/Landscaping 9.5% 2 2

Government 14.3% 3 3

Sales 14.3% 6 0

Maritime Non-fishing 

Work

9.5% 4 0

Other 4.8% 2 0

Age N 129 63 66

Mean 53.5 50.4 56.4

Median 54 53 55

Min 21 23 21

Max 83 74 83

Years 

Fishing 

Experience

N 119 55 64

Mean 30.8 29.9 31.5

Median 30 30 30

Min 2 2 5

Max 83 71 83

First 

Generation

N 128 64 64

Yes 39 (30.5%) 10 (18.5%) 29 (44.6%)

No 89 (69.5%) 54 (84.4%) 35 (54.7%)

Table 1 also shows respondent fishermen background information for STT/STJ and STX 

fishermen, independently. STX fishermen reported a higher mean percentage of household 
8

income from fishing than did STT/STJ fishermen, and also claimed a larger proportion of first 

generation fishing. Age and years of fishing experience were similar between the two 

populations, as were top sources of other income, with the exception that STT/STJ fishermen 

included sales and maritime non-fishing work as top income sources and STX did not. 

4.2 Respondent Fishermen Fixed Costs

4.2.1 Fishermen Vessels

Table 2 shows that the majority of all respondent fishermen reported owning and 

operating their own vessels. The majority of owner operators reported owning 1 vessel. The 

mean vessel length reported was 22.8 ft., but vessels ranged from 6 ft. to 43 ft. The mean and 

median current values of these vessels differed considerably, with a mean value of $25,786, and 

a median value of $15,000. The minimum and maximum recorded values also greatly differed: 

between $900 and $250,000. Mean and median reported 2013 maintenance costs for these 

vessels were considerably different, as the mean was $5,172, and the median was $2,500. Similar 

to the range of vessel value, the minimum and maximum reported maintenance costs ranged 

from $75 to $50,000. For non-owner operators, a slight majority described themselves as owner 

but not operator, approximately 46% described themselves as the captain of someone else’s boat, 

less than one third considered themselves crew, and the remaining portion reported that their 

boat was not in service.

Table 2 also indicates fishermen vessel data for STT/STJ and STX fishermen, 

independently. The mean vessel value and maintenance costs were higher for STT/STJ 

fishermen than for STX fishermen, but median STX values and costs were similar to those 

reported for the STT/STJ population. Other metrics were roughly comparable between the two 

populations.

4.2.2 Fishermen Diving Gear

Table 3 shows that slightly more than two thirds of all respondent fishermen reported 

owning SCUBA gear. Similarly, approximately 82% reported owning free dive gear. Fishermen 

who owned SCUBA gear (35) reported its mean and median values at $5,027.86 and $4,000, 

respectively, with values ranging from $150 to $18,000.00. Yearly maintenance costs for this 

gear had mean and median values of $328.75 and $140, respectively, but a maximum value of 

$2,000. Fishermen who owned free dive gear reported its mean and median values at $702.17 
9

and $500.00, respectively, with values ranging from $70 to $4,000. Yearly maintenance costs for 

this free dive equipment had similar mean and median values (just under $100 and $55, 

respectively), and a smaller overall range than for SCUBA gear maintenance. 

Table 2. Vessel Ownership

Vessel Ownership

All USVI STT/STJ STX

Own and 

Operate

N 130 64 66

Yes 117 (90%) 58 (90.6%) 59 (89.4%)

No 13 (10%) 6 (9.4%) 7 (10.6%)

If “no”... N 13 6 7

Crew 4 2 2

Captain Someone 

Else’s Boat

6 3 3

Owner Not Operator 7 4 3

Boat Not in Service 1 1 0

Number of 

Vessels 

Owned

N 127 63 64

0 5 (3.9%) 3 (4.8%) 2 (3.1%)

1 91 (71.7%) 47 (74.6%) 44 (68.8%)

2 27 (21.3%) 11 (17.5%) 16 (25%)

3 4 (3.2%) 2 (3.2%) 2 (3.1%)

Vessel 

Length

N 153 76 77

Mean 22.8 22.8 22.8

Median 22 21 22

Min 6 6 13

Max 43 43 42

≤ 19 ft. 51 31 20

20-35 ft. 94 40 54

≥ 36 ft. 8 5 3

Current 

Market Value

N 135 63 72

Mean $25,786 $28,828 $23,476

Median $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

Min $900 $62 $1,000

Max $250,000 $250,000 $250,000

Maintenance 

Costs

N 117 59 58

Mean $5,172 $6,134 $4,520

Median $2,500 $2,500 $2,000

Min $75 $58 $75

Max $50,000 $50,000 $34,000
10

Table 3 also shows diving gear data for STT/STJ and STX fishermen, independently. A 

higher proportion of STT/STJ fishermen reported owning SCUBA equipment than did STX 

fishermen, but more STX fishermen reported owning free dive equipment than did STT/STJ 

fishermen. Gear value and maintenance costs were similar between the two populations for each 

SCUBA and free dive, although the overall range of values and costs for each category was 

higher for STX fishermen than for STT/STJ fishermen.

Table 3. Dive Gear Ownership

Dive Gear Ownership

All USVI STT/STJ STX

Own SCUBA 

Gear

N 136 66 70

Yes 100 (73.5%) 60 (90.9%) 40 (57.1%)

No 36 (26.5%) 6 (9.1%) 30 (42.9%)

Own Free 

Dive Gear

N 136 66 70

Yes 111 (81.6%) 50 (75.8%) 61 (87.1%)

No 25 (18.4%) 16 (24.2%) 9 (12.9%)

SCUBA Gear 

Value

N 35 6 29

Mean $5,027.86 $5,000 $5,033.62

Median $4,000 $4,000 $4,000

Min $150 $1,000 $150

Max $18,000 $10,000 $18,000

SCUBA Gear 

Maintenance 

Cost

N 36 6 30

Mean $328.75 $350 $324.50

Median $140 $250 $140

Min $0 $0 $0

Max $2,000 $1,000 $2,000

Free Dive 

Gear Value

N 23 14 9

Mean $702.17 $646.43 $788.89

Median $500 $500 $300

Min $70 $70 $100

Max $4,000 $2,000 $4,000

Free Dive 

Gear 

Maintenance 

Cost

N 22 14 8

Mean $99.55 $86.43 $122.50

Median $55 $55 $50

Min $0 $0 $0

Max $400 $300 $400
11

4.2.3 Fishermen Trap Ownership

Tables 4 and 5 provide details on reported fish and lobster trap ownership and costs. 

Approximately one third of all respondent fishermen reported owning fish traps. Of the 

fishermen who reported owning fish traps, the mean and median number of traps each individual 

owned in 2013 was 109.3 and 67, respectively, with a large range of 4 to 547 fish traps. The 

mean and median cost per fish trap was approximately $250, but ranged from $40 to $500, and 

fishermen reported these traps to last a mean of 4.7 years.

Table 4. Fish Trap Ownership

Fish Trap Ownership

All USVI STT/STJ STX

Fish Trap 

Ownership

N 136 66 70

Yes 39 (28.7%) 24 (36.4%) 15 (21.4%)

No 97 (71.3%) 42 (63.6%) 55 (78.6%)

Number 

Traps Owned 

in 2013

N 38 24 14

Mean 109.3 151.3 37.4

Median 67 131 17

Min 4 20 4

Max 527 527 160

Number 

Traps Lost in 

2013

N 35 23 12

Mean 28.8 36.8 13.3

Median 20 25 10

Min 0 0 0

Max 227 227 40

Number 

Traps 

Purchased/ 

Made in 

2013

N 34 23 11

Mean 33.9 34.5 32.6

Median 25 25 25

Min 0 0 0

Max 227 227 130

Cost per Trap N 35 23 12

Mean $247.91 $268.35 $208.75

Median $250 $250 $200

Min $40 $97 $40

Max $500 $500 $500

Lifespan of

Trap

N 32 24 8

Mean in Years 4.7 5.5 2.0
12

Table 5. Lobster Trap Ownership

Lobster Trap Ownership

All USVI STT/STJ STX

Lobster Trap 

Ownership

N 136 66 70

Yes 19 (14.0%) 16 (24.2%) 3 (4.3%)

No 117 (86.0%) 50 (75.8%) 67 (95.7%)

Number 

Traps Owned 

in 2013

N 19 16 3

Mean 188.9 220.6 20

Median 107 160 -

Min 10 10 -

Max 600 600 -

Number 

Traps Lost in 

2013

N 17 15 3

Mean 12.5 14.2 0

Median 2 6 -

Min 0 0 -

Max 60 60 -

Number 

Traps 

Purchased/ 

Made in 

2013

N 15 14 3

Mean 23.2 24.9 0

Median 0 1.5 -

Min 0 0 -

Max 100 100 -

Cost per Trap N 15 15 0

Mean $177.46 $177.47 -

Median $175 $175 -

Min $57 $57 -

Max $300 $300 -

Lifespan of 

Trap

N 12 12 0

Mean in Years 7.4 7.4 -

Lobster trap ownership varied even more greatly than for fish traps, with one individual 

reporting 10 lobster traps and another reporting 600. The cost per lobster trap was lower than for 

fish traps, with similar mean and median values of approximately $175, and the range was 

almost as wide as for fish trap costs. The mean lifespan of these traps was greater than that of 

fish traps at 7.4 years.

Tables 4 and 5 also indicate trap ownership date for STT/STJ and STX fishermen, 

independently. A higher proportion of STT/STJ fishermen owned both fish and lobster traps 

compared with STX fishermen. Such a small number of STX fishermen reported owning lobster 

traps that comparisons between STX fish and lobster trap ownership cannot be made, nor can 

comparisons between STX lobster trap ownership and STX fish trap ownership. 
13

4.2.4 Fishermen “Other” Fixed Costs

Table 6 indicates that when asked if they had “other” fixed costs, a slight majority of all 

respondent fishermen said no. More STT/STJ fishermen reported “other” fixed costs than STX 

fishermen. Mooring and dockage fees were considerably higher for STT/STJ fishermen than for 

STX fishermen, as were costs for office supplies, but STX fishermen spent more on licensing 

and business loans than did STT/STJ fishermen. 

Table 6. Other Fixed Costs

Other Fixed Costs

All USVI STT/STJ STX

Other Fixed 

Costs

N 136 66 70

Yes 63 (46.3%) 38 (57.6%) 25 (35.7%)

No 73 (53.7%) 28 (42.4%) 45 (64.3%)

Mooring/ 

Dockage 

Fees

N 25 20 5

Mean $3,561.72 $3,725.25 $2,905.60

Median $2,500 $2,640 $1,000

License

Costs

N 32 15 17

Mean $304.09 $201.27 $394.82

Median $95 $50 $100

Office 

Supplies

N 34 24 9

Mean $1,963.56 $2,358.88 $794.22

Median $980 $980 $600

Professional 

Services

N 11 11 0

Mean $505.91 $505.91 -

Median $325 $325 -

Business 

Loans

N 9 5 4

Mean $11,677.78 $9,620 $14,250

Median $6,000 $6,000 $8,000

4.3 Respondent Fishermen Variable Costs

Table 7 shows that almost 90% of all respondent fishermen reported they had variable 

expenses. The most popular recorded variable costs included boat fuel, ice, food, and truck fuel. 

For all respondent fishermen, the mean cost per trip was $256.09, while the median cost per trip 

was $194. For all respondent fishermen who reported variable costs, the mean cost per trip was 

adjusted to $292.43, and the median cost per trip was adjusted to $240. Those who reported 

variable costs averaged an increased mean and median cost per trip.
14

Table 7. Variable Costs

Variable Costs

All USVI STT/STJ STX

Variable 

Costs

N 136 66 70

Yes 119 (87.5%) 57 (86.4%) 62 (88.6%)

No 17 (12.5%) 9 (13.6%) 8 (11.4%)

Boat Fuel N 119 57 62

Mean $121.44 $135.32 $108.68

Median $100 $125 $80

Gallons Used 

Per Trip

N 79 47 32

Mean 29.7 29 30.8

Median 24 25 20

Truck Fuel N 86 34 52

Mean $33.19 $33.82 $32.77

Median $25 $20 $30

Ice N 101 52 50

Mean $29.80 $38.73 $20.93

Median $20 $25 $15

Bait N 69 41 28

Mean $54.52 $70.90 $30.54

Median $30 $45 $20

Food N 97 45 52

Mean $22.07 $24.50 $19.98

Median $20 $20 $20

Air N 27 4 23

Mean $36.30 $28.75 $37.61

Median $30 $27.50 $30

Crew N 41 13 28

Mean $149.02 $201.92 $124.460

Median $100 $150 $80

Mean number of Crew 1.5 1.3 1.7

Other 

Variable 

Expenses

N 16 11 5

Mean $220 $64.09 $163

Median $80 $50 $80

Total Per 

Trip Cost for 

All 

Respondents

Total Mean $256.09 $277.74 $235.68

Total Median $194 $225 $167

Total Per 

Trip Cost for 

Respondents 

Reporting 

Variable 

Costs

Total Mean $292.43 $337.35 $248.94

Total Median $240 $229 $194
15

Table 7 also shows variable costs data for STT/STJ and STX fishermen, independently. 

Approximately the same proportion of fishermen reported having variable costs for each 

population. Boat fuel, ice, bait, and crew costs were higher for STT/STJ fishermen than for STX 

fishermen, while STX fishermen reported higher costs associated with air and “other” variable 

costs. The total cost per trip (mean and median) was higher for STT/STJ fishermen than for STX 

fishermen, as was total cost per trip for those who reported variable costs. 

5. Respondent and Fleet Trip Profitability

Respondent trip profits were estimated by merging their questionnaire answers with 

every logged trip within their commercial catch report (CCR). For missing cases when 

calculating total fleet profits, a hot deck imputation method was used (Lew et al. 2015): We 

filled in the data for fishermen with landings who were not in the respondent pool by substituting 

the cost data from a respondent from the same island who predominantly used the same gear and 

had the nearest annual fishing revenue.

Annual profits were calculated for actual respondents, non-respondents through hot deck 

imputation, and the two categories combined. To calculate annual profits, fixed costs were 

subtracted from previously calculated profits. Fixed costs included annual fixed expenses from 

the last page of the questionnaire, and included costs such as office expenses and dockage fees

(see section 4.2).

5.1 STT/STJ Respondent and Fleet Trip Profitability

Table 8 shows that with 41 STT/STJ respondents, the mean sum of value landed was an 

estimated $24,540.49, the median sum was $9,971.60, and the sum of these sums was 

$1,006,160. The mean and median sums of total variable costs were estimates of $12,193.90 and 

$4,290.00, respectively, and the sum of these sums was $499,950.00. The mean sum of net 

revenue for STT/STJ respondents was estimated at $12,346.59, the median sum was $2,287.60, 

and the sum of these sums was $506,210.15. The mean and median sums of net revenue minus 

crew shares was estimated to be $6,967.21 and $1,653.40, respectively, and the sum of sums was 

$285,655.63. With 28 STT/STJ respondents reporting their fixed costs, the mean sum of these 

costs was an estimated $6,306.29, the median sum was $2,802.50, and the sum of these sums 
16

was $176,576.00. This resulted in annual profits of an estimated mean of $7,234.95, a median of 

$1,799.80, and a sum of $202,578.55.
17

Table 8. STT/STJ Fleet Case Summaries and Annual Profit Estimates

STT/STJ

Value Landed 

Sum

Total Variable 

Costs Sum

Net Revenue 

Sum

Net Revenue 

minus Crew 

Shares Sum

Fixed Costs 

Sum

Annual 

Profits

Annual 

Profit 

Rates

Actual 

Respondents

N 41 41 41 41 28 28

Mean 24540.5 12193.9 12346.6 6967.2 6306.3 7234.9

Median 9971.6 4290.0 2287.6 1653.4 2802.5 1799.8

Sum 1006160.2 499950.0 506210.2 285655.6 176576.0 202578.6 20%

Hot Deck 

Imputed 

Fishermen

N 23 23 23 23 17 17

Mean 21690.7 12472.2 9218.6 6253.8 10447.2 1245.4

Median 9260.0 4900.0 4138.4 2242.3 3001.0 -1466.0

Sum 498886.8 286860.0 212026.8 143838.2 177602.0 21172.5

Total 

Combined

N 64 64 64 64 45 45

Mean 23516.4 12293.9 11222.5 6710.8 7870.6 4972.2

Median 9759.6 4315.0 2636.3 2155.8 3000.0 1762.0

Sum 1505047.0 786810.0 718237.0 429493.8 354178.0 223751.1 15%
18

Table 8 also shows net revenue and annual profits for the remaining 23 STT/STJ 

fishermen after hot deck imputed estimates had been made. These values were then added to the 

41 respondent STT/STJ fishermen to adjust total estimated net revenue and annual profits. The 

adjustments accounted for by the inclusion of hot deck imputed fishermen resulted in an increase 

of all metrics, but a decrease in annual profit rates from 20% (actual respondents) to 15% 

(adjusted rate). Sums for value landed, total variable costs, net revenue, and net revenue minus 

crew shares increased by about one third, while fixed costs increased by about 50% and annual 

profits by only about 10%.

5.2 STX Respondent and Fleet Trip Profitability

Table 9 shows that with 38 STX respondents, the mean estimated sum of value landed 

was $38,306.50, the median sum was $10,511.99, and the sum of these sums was $1,455,647.14. 

The mean and median sums of total variable costs were estimated at $14,493.05 and $4,665.00, 

respectively, and the sum of these sums was $550,736.00. The estimated mean sum of net 

revenue for STX respondents was $23,813.45, the median sum was $2,931.70, and the sum of 

these sums was $904,911.14. The estimated mean and median sums of net revenue minus crew 

shares was $15,705.27 and $1,844.88, respectively, and the sum of sums was $596,800.20. With 

13 STX respondents reporting their fixed costs, the estimated mean sum of these costs was 

$2,285.23, the median sum was $1,060.00, and the sum of these sums was $29,708.00. This 

resulted in estimated annual profits of a mean of $36,545.82, a median of $5,855.00, and a sum 

of $475,095.70.

Table 9 also shows net revenue and annual profits for the remaining 40 STX fishermen 

after hot deck imputed estimates had been made. These values were then added to the 38

respondent STX fishermen to adjust total estimated net revenue and annual profits. The 

adjustments accounted for by the inclusion of hot deck imputed fishermen resulted in an increase 

of all metrics, except for a decrease in the sum of annual profits and in annual profit rates from 

33% (actual respondents) to 17% (adjusted rate). Sums for value landed, total variable costs, net 

revenue, and net revenue minus crew shares increased by about 50%, while fixed costs increased 

by about 65%. Annual profits decreased by approximately 1%.
19

Table 9. STX Fleet Case Summaries and Annual Profit Estimates

STX

Value Landed 

Sum

Total Variable 

Costs Sum

Net Revenue 

Sum

Net Revenue 

minus Crew 

Shares Sum

Fixed Costs 

Sum

Annual 

Profits

Annual 

Profit 

Rates

Actual 

Respondents

N 38 38 38 38 13 13

Mean 38306.5 14493.1 23813.5 15705.3 2285.2 36545.8

Median 10512.0 4665.0 2931.7 1844.9 1060.0 5855.0

Sum 1455647.1 550736.0 904911.1 596800.2 29708.0 475095.7 33%

Hot Deck 

Imputed 

Fishermen

N 40 40 40 40 14 14

Mean 32590.7 11196.8 21393.9 12546.5 3621.4 -39.8

Median 6524.2 2980.5 1392.0 1146.1 1570.0 -597.6

Sum 1303627.5 447873.1 855754.4 501860.5 50700.0 -557.8

Total 

Combined

N 78 78 78 78 27 27

Mean 35375.3 12802.7 22572.6 14085.4 2978.1 17575.5

Median 7396.3 3707.0 2178.2 1749.4 1200.0 1154.0

Sum 2759274.7 998609.1 1760665.6 1098660.8 80408.0 474537.9 17%
20

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This study finds that net revenues and estimated annual profits were slightly higher for 

STX fishers than for STT/STJ fishers. These results both support and conflict with a 2005 study 

on U.S. Caribbean fish trap costs and earnings that showed higher annual financial profits in the 

STX trap fishery than in the STT/STJ trap fishery, but lower annual economic profits in the STX 

trap fishery than in the STT/STJ trap fishery (Agar et al., 2005). These differences could result 

from changes over time, or from the fact that the 2005 Agar et al. study focused on profits from 

trap fisheries and this study encompassed all modes of fishing. We also found a significant 

disparity between the median and mean fishing income, with the former being much lower than 

the latter, which is indicative of the fact that a relatively few highliners tend to dominate the 

fisheries on both island groups. The low median fishing income is not sufficient to survive on 

the islands, and the degree to which underreporting affects these numbers is unknown. Nor do 

we have estimates for other household income sources in the form of outside jobs or social 

assistance.

This study also indicates that USVI fishermen are receptive to filling out economic 

surveys as long as it is a part of the regular and required DPNR process (Crosson and Hibbert, 

2017). Our high response rates were largely due to our incorporation into DPNR and the MOES 

workshops. Our short and succinct survey style also led to our positive reception by the 

fishermen and increased our response rates. This study methodology was unique in its ability to 

adapt throughout the multiple day workshops (Crosson and Hibbert, 2017). Although the survey 

instrument itself was consistent throughout surveying, our introduction presentation and 

interpersonal connections were modified as a result of respondent verbal or non-verbal feedback. 

For example, we learned to generally avoid the word “economics,” and instead emphasize that 

we were collecting “business costs.” We also learned to explain our reasoning for collecting this 

information as an attempt to help scientists understand how market conditions and regulations 

might affect local fishermen’s businesses. Many respondents reacted favorably to this 

communication effort, and openly discussed their businesses with us (i.e. completed the survey 

instrument) (Crosson and Hibbert, 2017). Together, our survey methodology and survey 

instrument resulted in savings in staff time and labor costs. This demonstrates that integrating the 

surveys into the registration process was a much more time efficient means of gathering cost data 
21

than trying to interview fishermen in the field or over the phone, and should be considered as an 

option for other fisheries with a centralized registration process.
22

7. References

Agar, J. J., J. R. Waters, M. Valdés-Pizzini, M. Shivlani, T. Murray, J. E. Kirkley, and D. 

Suman. 2008. “U.S. Caribbean Fish Trap Fishery Socioeconomic Study.” Bulletin of Marine 

Science 82(3): 315-331.

Agar, J. J., M. Shivlani, J. R. Waters, M. Valdés-Pizzini, T. Murray, J. Kirkley and D. Suman, 

2005. U.S. Caribbean Fish Trap Fishery Costs and Earnings Study. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC- 534, 127 p.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2014. United States Department of Commerce. News 

Release: The Bureau of Economic Analysis Releases 2013 Estimates of Gross Domestic Product 

for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Accessed on February 25, 2015 at 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/general/terr/2014/VIGDP_081914.pdf. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2014. United States Department of Labor Establishment Data: 

State and Area Employment Annual Averages. Accessed on February 25, 2015 at 

http://www.bls.gov/sae/eetables/sae_annavg113.pdf. 

Crosson, S. 2013. The impact of empowering scientific advisory committees to constrain catch 

limits in US fisheries. Science and Public Policy. 40(2): 261-273.

Crosson, S. and L. Hibbert. 2017. Integrating Commercial Fisheries Registration, Education, and 

Social Science in the U.S. Virgin Islands. North American Journal of Fisheries Management

37(2): 349-352.

Fleming, C.S., F. Tonioli, and J.J. Agar. 2014. A review of principle coastal economic sectors 

within the southeast United States and U.S. Caribbean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-669. 44 p.

Impact Assessment, Inc., 2007. Community Profiles and Socioeconomic Evaluations of Marine 

Conservation Districts: St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. NOAA Series on U.S. 

Caribbean Fishing Communities. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-557, 123 p. 

Agar, J. J. and B. Stoffle (editos).

Kojis, B.L. 2004. Census of Marine Commercial Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean 

Fishery Management Council.

Kojis, B.L. and N.J. Quinn. 2006. “A census of US Virgin Islands commercial fisheries at the 

start of the 21st century.” Proceedings of 10th International Coral Reef Symposium 1326-1334.

Kojis, B.L. and N.J. Quinn. 2011. Census of the Marine Commercial Fishers of the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 
23

Lew, D. K., Himes-Cornell, A., & Lee, J. 2015. Weighting and Imputation for Missing Data in a 

Cost and Earnings Fishery Survey. Marine Resource Economics, 30(2), 219-230.

Marine Outreach and Education USVI Style (MOES). 2014. Improving Fishing Community 

Awareness and Compliance: 2014 Commercial Fisher Workshop Summary. Final Report. 

McCarthy, K.J. 2011. “Reported commercial landings of parrotfish, snappers, groupers and 

unclassified finfish in the United States Virgin Islands, 1974-2008.” National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-2011-010. Accessed on February 26, 

2015 at 

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S26_DW_08%20usvi%20commercial%20landings.p

df?id=DOCUMENT.

National Geographic. 2015. Virgin Islands National Park. Accessed on March 16, 2015 at 

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/virgin-islands-national-park/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Program 

(CRCP). 2014. Marine Outreach and Education U.S. Virgin Islands Style Initiative: Strategizing 

for Improved Outreach, Education and Communication Pertaining to USVI Marine and Fisheries 

Management and Conservation, U.S. Virgin Islands. Final Report. Prepared by AECOM, Jenn 

Travis, and Bob Trumble. Christiansted, St. Croix.

Ortiz, L. 2014. “United States Virgin Islands (USVI) Fishery Dynamics Under Seven Flags: 

Transformations of Knowledge and Culture.” Fuete y Verguilla (St. Croix Special Edition): 

Fishing as a Lifestyle in St. Croix 8(2): 1-43.

Plaskett, S. Esq. 2013. “Dealing with the closing of the Hovensa Refinery.” St. Thomas Source. 

Accessed on March 17, 2015 at http://stthomassource.com/content/commentary/openforum/2013/07/24/dealing-closing-hovensa-refinery.

Pew Charitable Trusts. 2015. Sea Around Us Project. Exclusive Economic Zones. Accessed on 

February 25, 2015 at http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/. 

Stoffle, B., J. Contillo, C.A. Grace, and D. Snodgrass. 2011. The Socio-economic importance of 

fishing in St. Thomas, USVI: An examination of fishing community designation. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-623, 47 p.

United States Census 2010 (USC). 2011. U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2010 Census Population 

Counts for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Accessed on February 25, 2015 at 

http://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn180.html.

Valdés-Pizzini, M., J. J. Agar, K. Kitner, C. García-Quijano, M. Tust, and F. Forrestal. 2010. 

Cruzan Fisheries: A rapid assessment of the historical, social, cultural and economic processes 

that shaped coastal communities’ dependence and engagement in fishing in the island of St. 

Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. NOAA Series on U.S. Caribbean Fishing Communities. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-597, 144 p.
24

VInow. 2015a. St. Croix, Virgin Islands: Facts & History. Accessed on March 17, 2015 at 

http://www.vinow.com/stcroix/history/.

VInow. 2015b. St. Thomas, Virgin Islands: Facts & History. Accessed on March 17, 2015 at 

http://www.vinow.com/stthomas/History/.

VInow. 2015c. Virgin Islands Geography. Accessed on March 16, 2015 at 

http://www.vinow.com/general_usvi/geography/.

VInow. 2017a. St. John: History. Accessed on November 27, 2017 at 

http://www.vinow.com/stjohn/history/.

VInow. 2017b. St. John, Virgin Islands Travel Guide. Accessed on November 27, 2017 at 

http://www.vinow.com/stjohn/.

Virgin Islands Daily News. 2013. Hovensa Q and A. Accessed on March 17, 2015 at 

http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/hovensa-q-and-a-1.1538255.
25

Appendix 1: Survey Form

Date: __________

Name:______________________ Permit #:______________________

Telephone: __________________ Vessel Name:__________________

E-mail: ____________________ Vessel ID: _____________________

Please complete this brief survey. Enter “0” in categories where you had no such expenses.

1. How would you describe your participation in commercial fisheries?

____Full-time____Part-time

2. What percentage of your household income is from commercial fishing? _________%

3. If not 100%, what non-commercial fishing activities do you engage in for income? 

_______________________________________________________________

4. What is your age? _______ 

5. How many years of commercial fishing experience do you have? ________

6. Are you a first generation commercial fisherman? ____Yes ____No

Vessels:

7. Do you own AND operate a fishing vessel? ____Yes ____No

If No, how would you describe yourself? 

____Captain on someone else’s boat ____Vessel owner, not operator ____Crew 

____Other:________________________

8. How many fishing vessels do you own? _______

Boat Number Length (ft.) Current Market 

(sale) Value of 

Vessel and Engines 

($)

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs 

in last 12 Months ($)

1

2

3
26

Diving Gear: Do you own...

Gear and 

associated 

fishing 

equipment

Today’s market 

(sale) value of 

fishing gear and 

associated 

equipment ($)

Repair and 

maintenance 

costs incurred 

in last 12 

months

SCUBA (tanks, 

BC, spear, etc.)

Free diving (fins, 

masks, spear, 

etc.)

Traps: Do you own...

Type of trap Number of 

traps owned 

at the end of 

the year

Number lost 

or retired 

last year

Number 

purchased or 

made last 

year

Cost per 

trap

(w/ buoys, 

rope, etc.)

Average life 

span of trap 

not lost or 

retired

Fish traps

Lobster traps

Trip Expenses:

On a regular fishing trip how much do you spend on:

9. Fuel and oil cost: $ __________ Gallons used per trip: ________

10. Truck fuel: $__________

11. Ice: $___________

12. Bait: $__________

13. Food and beverage: $_______________

14. Air supply: $________________

15. Captain and crew: $______________ Number of crew: _____________

16. Other expenses: $_______________ What were they:_____________________
27

Last year, how much did you spend on:

Annual ($)

Mooring/dockage fees

Fishing, boat, and trailer

licenses

Office expenses (rent, cellular, 

utilities)

Professional services (lawyer 

or accountant)

Loan Payments