The Economic Contribution of Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species Angling Permit Holders in New 

England and the Mid-Atlantic, 2011 

Clifford P. Hutt, Sabrina J. Lovell, and George Silva 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-147 

November 2014 

 
 
The Economic Contribution of Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species Angling Permit Holders in New 

England and the Mid-Atlantic, 2011 

Clifford P. Hutt, Sabrina J. Lovell, and George Silva 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-147 

November 2014 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
ii 

Recommended citation:

Hutt, Clifford, Sabrina Lovell, and George Silva. 2014. The Economic Contributions of Atlantic 

Highly Migratory Species Anglers in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, 2011. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-147, 34 p. 

Copies of this report may be obtained from: 

Sabrina J. Lovell, Ph.D. 

Office of Science and Technology 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 

1315 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Phone: 301-427-8153

Or online at: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/index 
iii 

Table of Contents 

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... IV

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

SAMPLE FRAME AND PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................................ 2

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 3

EXPENDITURE CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 4

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 7

RESPONSE RATE AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ........................................................................................................ 7

EXPENDITURES AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS .................................................................................................................. 8

COMPARISONS TO PREVIOUS STUDIES ....................................................................................................................... 9

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY INSTRUMENT .............................................................................................................. 22

 
iv 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Atlantic HMS Angling permits and effort in private vessel trips by state group and species 

targeted from Maine to North Carolina, June – October 2011. Estimates of vessel trips were 

derived from the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS) for Maine through Virginia while the North 

Carolina estimate came from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) survey. ... 13

Table 2. Final response status of HMS Angling permit holders sampled for the 2011 HMS Angling 

Expenditure Survey and overall response rate. ............................................................................ 13

Table 3. Proportion of reported Atlantic HMS angling trips by state and species targeted from Maine to 

North Carolina, May-December 2011. ......................................................................................... 14

Table 4. Proportion of reported Atlantic HMS angling trips by month and species targeted from Maine to 

North Carolina, May-December 2011. ......................................................................................... 14

Table 5. Characteristics of Atlantic HMS angling trips and HMS angler fishing behavior by species 

targeted from Maine to North Carolina, 2011. Standard errors of means are reported in 

parenthesis. ................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 6. HMS Angling permit holder demographics compared to those of non-HMS private boat anglers 

from Maine to North Carolina, 2011. ........................................................................................... 16

Table 7. Estimated average daily and total trip expenditures by Atlantic HMS Angling permit holders by 

target species from Maine to North Carolina, 2011. Total trip expenditures were estimated by 

extrapolating average daily expenditures by the number boat trip days per species group as 

estimated by the Large Pelagic Survey. ....................................................................................... 17

Table 8. Estimated average and total annual Atlantic HMS Angling permit holder durable expenditures 

from Maine to North Carolina, 2011 (n = 2,026). Total annual durable expenditures were 

estimated by extrapolating average durable expenditures by the number of HMS Angling 

permit holders in the study region (N = 14,206). ......................................................................... 18

Table 9. Estimated average and total annual Atlantic HMS Angling permit holder durable expenditures 

from Maine to North Carolina, 2011 (n = 1,738), adjusted for the percentage of anglers’ 

saltwater fishing trips that targeted HMS. Total annual durable expenditures were estimated 

by extrapolating average durable expenditures by the number of HMS Angling permit holders 

in the study region adjusted for the percentage of respondents that reported taking no HMS 

trips in the previous 12 months (N = 13,836). .............................................................................. 19
v 

Table 10. Total expenditures and economic impacts generated by Atlantic HMS Angling permit 

holders from Maine to North Carolina in 2011. ......................................................................... 20

Table 11. Comparison of total expenditures and economic impacts generated by Atlantic HMS 

Angling permit holders and overall marine angling participants from Maine to North 

Carolina in 2011. ........................................................................................................................ 20 

 
vi 

 
1 

Abstract 

Highly migratory species (tunas, billfish, swordfish, and sharks) draw a dedicated following of 

specialized marine anglers that spend significant amounts of money in pursuit of these “big 

game” fish. In 2011, private vessels located in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic coastal states 

(Maine to North Carolina) were estimated to have made 39,440 trips in pursuit of tuna, sharks, 

and billfish. In 2011, NOAA Fisheries conducted a mail survey of Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Angling permit holders to collect data on expenditures associated with their most 

recent HMS fishing trip, and durable goods used for marine recreational angling in the previous 

12 months. Atlantic HMS Angling Permit holders were estimated to have spent $23.2 million on 

HMS trip expenditures (e.g., fuel, ice, bait, food), and $151 million on durable goods (e.g., boats, 

vehicles, rods and reels). These expenditures are estimated to have contributed $266 million in 

total economic output to the economy of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, $153 million in 

value added outputs, $96 million in labor income, and 1,824 jobs from Maine to North Carolina. 

It should be noted that this survey only targeted HMS Angling permit holders; thus, estimates of 

economic impact do not include those associated with HMS for-hire trips, and impacts generated 

by the trip expenditures of those fishing with HMS Angling permit holders as only the vessel 

owner is required to purchase a permit. 

Introduction 

In 2011, as part of the National Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Survey, (NES) the 

Office of Science and Technology at NOAA Fisheries surveyed recreational anglers about their 

expenditures associated with fishing for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) from Maine 

to North Carolina. Atlantic HMS are defined as federally regulated sharks, blue and white 

marlin, sailfish, roundscale spearfish, swordfish, and federally regulated Atlantic tunas including 

bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack, and albacore (NMFS, 2011). This study sought to update 

and expand on trip expenditure data collected by NOAA Fisheries in the Northeast Region in 

1998 (Steinback and Gentner, 2001). 

The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regions represent the primary fishing areas for the Atlantic 

recreational tuna fishery, especially for Atlantic bluefin tuna. Data collection on these 

recreational fisheries is a major priority for NOAA Fisheries which has conducted the annual 

Large Pelagic Survey (LPS) since 1992 from Maine to Virginia in order to obtain more precise 

estimates of recreational harvest of HMS in the region. As top predators that remain farther off 

shore than most fisheries, HMS support comparatively small recreational fisheries whose 

participants are generally under-represented in larger national surveys of marine anglers due to 

their smaller population size, relatively fewer trips, and infrequent landings. However, anglers 

that pursue HMS tend to be far more specialized than the average marine angler, and often spend 

significantly more on individual fishing trips than other anglers (Bohnsack et al., 2002; Ditton 
2 

and Stoll, 2003). As such, HMS recreational fisheries can provide significant contributions to 

local economies whenever these species are seasonally abundant. 

The objective of surveying HMS Angling Permit holders was to gather data on the expenditures 

associated with their most recent fishing trip targeting Atlantic HMS, and their annual 

expenditures on durable goods. A regional economic input-output model was created to estimate 

the economic contributions of HMS angler expenditures to the economy of the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic region. 

The input-output model used in this report generates four different metrics, referred to as 

impacts, for assessing the contributions to a region’s economy from expenditures on marine 

recreational fishing. The different measures of impacts are: 

 Output is the gross value of sales by businesses within the economic region affected by 

an activity. In the rest of the document, the terms “sales impacts” and “output impacts” 

are used interchangeably. 

 Labor income includes personal income (wages and salaries) and proprietors’ income 

(income from self-employment). 

 Value Added is the contribution made to the gross domestic product in a region from 

marine recreational fishing. 

 Employment is specified on the basis of full-time and part-time jobs. There is significant 

part-time and seasonal employment in commercial and recreational fishing and many 

other industries. 

The first three types of impacts are measured in terms of dollars, whereas employment impacts 

are measured in terms of number of jobs. Additionally, the four categories of impacts are not 

independent and it is important to note that adding them together would result in some double 

counting of impacts. Throughout this report, the results of the input-output analysis are referred 

to as either “economic contributions” or “economic impacts” with no implied distinction in the 

terms. 

Methods 

Sample Frame and Procedures 

The sample frame for the 2011 NES sub-sample of Atlantic HMS anglers consisted of 

individuals that purchased Atlantic HMS Angling permits during calendar year 2011, and resided 

within a coastal state located between Maine and North Carolina (N = 14,206). Atlantic HMS 

Angling permits are tied to a vessel when issued, and authorize anyone fishing from that vessel 

to fish for, retain, or possess any federally regulated HMS (NMFS, 2011). Because the available 

sampling frame was for a vessel permit, the frame can only be considered representative of the 

permit holders themselves (who are likely the vessel owners in most cases), and not the 

individuals fishing with them. Also, because the HMS Angling permit is not a valid permit for 

charter and head boats, the expenditure and economic impact estimates generated by this study 
3 

do not include those generated by Atlantic HMS recreational fishing that occurs on for-hire 

vessels. For both these reasons, the results presented in this report should only be interpreted as 

representing the expenditures and economic contributions of Atlantic HMS Angling permit 

holders, and not all Atlantic HMS anglers. 

Surveys were emailed or mailed to 3,796 Atlantic HMS Angling Permit holders. Permit holders 

were stratified by state of residence and the final sample was allocated proportionally by state 

(Table 1). Permit holders were sampled in two month waves from May through December in 

order to collect trip expenditure data from trips conducted throughout the year. Sampling did not 

begin until May because most Atlantic HMS trips are seasonal and not much activity occurs 

before April and May in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The sampling protocol 

followed a modified Dillman method (Dillman, 2009). If an email address was available for a 

respondent, then the respondent was first sent an email invitation to access a web based version 

of the survey using a unique user identification code and password. Respondents were asked to 

complete the web survey within 1 week of receiving the email. Three days later, they received a 

reminder email. Individuals with complete postal addresses, and who did not complete the 

survey online within one week, were then routed into the postal mail group. 

Anglers in the postal group were first sent a cover letter describing the purpose of the survey, a 

questionnaire booklet, and a business reply envelope. One week later, all anglers were sent a 

post card that thanked the angler for participating in the survey and included a reminder to return 

the survey. Three weeks after the first mailing, anglers whose surveys had not yet been received 

were sent a modified cover letter and another copy of the questionnaire. The second cover letter 

offered the option of completing the survey online and provided the web address to access the 

survey as well as a unique user name and password. The provision of the web address in the 

second cover letter was based on studies that showed reduced overall response rates when an 

online option was given in the first contact versus providing that option in a subsequent contact 

(ICF Macro, Inc., 2012). 

Survey Instrument 

The survey asked selected HMS permit holders to provide data on their most recent recreational 

fishing trip on which they targeted HMS, and any expenditures they had made on durable goods 

in the previous 12 months that were used for marine recreational fishing for HMS species and 

non-HMS finfish species (shellfish were excluded). In regards to their most recent HMS fishing 

trip, respondents were asked to provide both descriptive and expenditure data on the trip. 

Respondents were asked what state their most recent HMS trip occurred in, what specific species 

were targeted (top two), the length of the trip in days if it was an overnight trip, how many nights 

were spent away from their primary residence, how many individuals accompanied them on the 

trip, how many days were spent fishing, what fishing methods were used, and whether fishing 

was the primary purpose of the trip or not. Respondents were asked to estimate their total 

expenditures for the trip for fuel (auto and boat), auto rental, lodging, public transportation, food 

(groceries and restaurants), bait, ice, fish processing, and gifts or souvenirs. Respondents were 
4 

also asked to estimate the percentage of their costs spent in the state of the fishing trip for each 

expenditure category. Based on survey responses the recall period for the majority of HMS trips 

was one month or less. 

Questions related to the purchases of durable goods (boats, second homes, etc.) asked anglers for 

their marine recreational fishing-related expenditures in the prior 12 months and focused on 

expenditures in the state of the most recent HMS trip. The survey also asked about expenditures 

on semi-durable goods such as fishing tackle and gear (fishing line, hooks, lures, etc.), rods and 

reels, fishing licenses, special clothing, publications (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.), 

camping equipment, binoculars, dues and contributions to fishing clubs, and processing or 

taxidermy costs. Questions on durable goods were related to boats, vehicles, and second homes. 

Anglers were asked if they owned a boat that they used for HMS fishing in the prior 12 months. 

Additional questions were asked on the length and horsepower of the boat, and the percentage of 

time in the prior 12 months that they had used it for marine recreational fishing. Boat-related 

expenditures included purchases of motorboats and accessories, non-motorized boats, boating 

electronics, mooring and storage, boat insurance, boat and trailer license and registration, and 

boat and trailer maintenance and repairs. Similar questions were asked about vehicles and 

second homes used for marine recreational fishing in the past 12 months (purchase, repair and 

maintenance, insurance, and license/registration for vehicles). As with boats, respondents were 

asked to estimate the percentage of time that the vehicle and second home were used for marine 

recreational fishing. The final section of the mail survey collected a set of socioeconomic and 

demographic variables, including gender, age, ethnicity, race, annual household income, 

education level, number of hours worked per week, and the years of marine fishing experience. 

Expenditure Calculations 

Mean trip expenditures were calculated for an angler-trip, defined as one day of fishing for one 

angler. On the survey, anglers were asked to estimate total expenditures for the entire trip away 

from their permanent residence if the trip involved an overnight stay. Data on the number of 

nights anglers spent away from their permanent residence and the number of days spent fishing 

was collected and used to calculate expenditures per angler day. Anglers were asked to report 

what they personally spent on either themselves or others. They were asked not to include 

expenses that others paid on their behalf. If they did not have expenditures in a given category, 

they were asked to record zero rather than leaving the item blank. Missing values for trip 

expenditure categories were replaced with zero if an angler reported a non-zero dollar amount for 

at least one other trip expenditure category. The trip expenditure questions included an “other” 

category that allowed for an open-ended response for the expenditure type and the amount. 

These responses were recoded into one of the other expenditure categories if applicable and 

separable into discrete amounts. The survey also asked anglers to estimate the percentage of trip 

expenditures that were spent in the state of the most recent fishing trip. These percentages were 

multiplied by each trip expenditure category to calculate the final expenditure per respondent 

spent in the state of the trip. If a percentage was left blank, it was replaced with either 100% in 

the case of residents, or for non-residents, a statewide average percentage (based on non-resident 

records only). 
5 

For calculating mean and total trip expenditures per expenditure item, trips were divided based 

on the category of HMS that was the primary target of the trip (i.e., tuna, billfish, or sharks). 

Trips were classified as tuna trips if the respondent indicated their primary target had been 

bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, or skipjack tuna; any combination of the five; or simply tuna 

in general. Billfish trips were HMS trips whose primary targets were blue or white marlin, or 

sailfish. Finally, given the more northern extent of the surveyed region, most shark trips targeted 

pelagic sharks such as shortfin mako, common thresher, blue sharks, or porbeagle sharks. 

However, some shark trips in the southern range of the survey area also targeted blacktip sharks. 

No estimate of trip expenditures and economic impact was estimated for swordfish angling due 

to insufficient sample size (n = 2 trip reports). Sample weights were used to adjust mean trip 

expenditures for survey stratification which was done by state to ensure proportional 

representation of each state in the sample. 

Total trip expenditures per HMS target species group were estimated by extrapolating mean trip 

expenditure estimates by LPS estimates of the number of daily vessel trips taken for each species 

group from June through October of 2011 (Table 1). Daily vessel trips were estimated for each 

species group (i.e., tunas, billfish, sharks) by estimating the number of HMS trips taken between 

Maine and Virginia for which a member of each species group was either the primary or 

secondary target species. A vessel trip was defined as one day of fishing for HMS by a single 

vessel regardless of the number of anglers that are on board. So whether there are three or five 

anglers aboard a given vessel, it still only counts as one day of fishing. This is different from the 

Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) survey which estimates effort daily effort on a 

per angler basis, such that if three anglers go fishing for a day on the same boat it counts as three 

trips as opposed to only one. Because the LPS does not extend to North Carolina, the number of 

HMS trips taken in North Carolina was estimated by dividing the number of HMS trips 

estimated by the MRIP survey by the average party size in order to convert the estimate to a 

daily vessel trip estimate. All trip estimates were for the June through October, 2011, period 

which are the only months in which the LPS is conducted. 

Mean durable expenditures were estimated for the entire survey sample, giving one estimate of 

durable goods expenditures for HMS angling from Maine to North Carolina. Anglers were 

asked to estimate the percent of time that they used the items for marine fishing and the 

percentage spent in the survey state. The percentages were then multiplied by the expenditure 

amount in order to get the amount attributed to marine fishing spent in the survey state. Only 

durable goods used primarily for fishing (50% or over) were included. For any items that 

anglers reported using less than 50% of the time for marine fishing, expenditures were recoded to 

zero. 

For calculating economic impacts, only those expenditures that generate new economic activity 

matter. Angler purchases of used goods from private parties do not generate any new economic 

activity and are considered transfer payments from one household to another. Respondents were 

asked if purchases of boats, boat accessories, vehicles, and second homes were made new or 

used, from dealers or private parties, or were financed. If one of these items was purchased new 

within the survey state, then the purchase price was included in the estimation procedures. If, 

however, any of these items were purchased used from a private party and not financed, the 

expenditure was not included. If the purchase was financed, regardless of whether used or new, 
6 

financed charges were assumed to be 2% of the loan principal. For used boats purchased 

through a dealer, used boat accessories, and used vehicles, the purchase price was multiplied by 

19% to account for dealer revenues. This percentage was based on the reported retail margins 

associated with the industrial sector that sells boats and vehicles in IMPLAN Version 3 (MIG, 

2008). To calculate the loan principal and the 2011 interest payment to the banking sector for 

boats, vehicles, and homes, microdata from the 2010 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) for 

each of these expenditure categories were used to calculate the average loan term, the average 

principal balance, and the average interest rate (CES 2010). Amortization equations were used 

to develop the additional categories for each respondent purchasing a financed boat, boat 

accessory, vehicle, or second home. Additionally, for second homes, the average U.S. property 

tax was obtained from the Tax Foundation (Tax Foundation, 2012). Real estate commissions 

from home purchases were assumed to be 6%. Finally, respondents were also asked how many 

days they had spent saltwater fishing in the previous 12 months and how many of those days 

were spent fishing for HMS. These numbers were used to estimate what percentage of each 

angler’s fishing effort was spent targeting HMS. This ratio was then used to calculate separate 

estimates of durable good expenditures that could be minimally credited to HMS fishing after 

excluding permit holders that reported no HMS trips in the previous 12 months (5.4%). This 

allowed us to generate separate estimates of the economic impact of durable good expenditures 

HMS Angling Permit holders for marine recreational fishing overall and HMS fishing 

specifically. Total annual marine angling durable good expenditures per category were 

estimated by extrapolating the estimated mean expenditures by the number of Atlantic HMS 

Angling permit holders from Maine to North Carolina (N = 14,206) while mean durable 

expenditures adjusted for the HMS to saltwater fishing ratio were extrapolated by the number of 

HMS Angling Permit holders adjusted for the percentage that reported no HMS trips in the 

previous 12 months (N = 13,439). 

Economic Contribution Analysis 

The economic input-output model of Atlantic HMS angler contributions to the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic regional economy was created using IMPLAN (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 

2010), a commercially available software. Input-output models estimate the economic 

contributions, or impacts, of monetary expenditures by consumers and businesses by tracking a 

regional economy’s ability to absorb and circulate their expenses. Impacts accessed by the 

IMPLAN model include direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Direct impacts are the initial 

expenditures made by anglers with businesses within the regional economy being examined. 

Indirect impacts represent expenditures made by businesses within the study region that support 

and resupply the businesses where anglers spend their money. Finally, induced impacts 

represent the household spending of individuals within the study region whose jobs are 

supported by angler expenditures. The IMPLAN model has been regularly used in the fisheries 

literature to estimate the economic impacts and contribution of angler expenditures in studies 

from the national level (Gentner and Steinback, 2006) to studies of individual fisheries 

(Bohnsack et al., 2002). 

Separate models for HMS angler trip expenditures by target species group (tunas, billfish, 

sharks) and for durable goods expenditures (total marine angling and adjusted for percent HMS 
7 

angling) were estimated. To accomplish this, total expenditures for each category were assigned 

to the appropriate IMPLAN industrial sectors within the models for the aggregated region of 

coastal states from Maine to North Carolina. Expenditure categories that included more than one 

IMPLAN sector were not aggregated to avoid the biases associated with aggregating. Instead, 

the expenditure in the category was distributed to individual IMPLAN sectors based on the 

proportion of final household demand in the study region. Because the typical grocery or 

convenience store purchase includes a wide range of products, expenditures at grocery and 

convenience stores were allocated across sectors based on IMPLAN’s Personal Consumption 

Expenditure (PCE) activity database for grocery store purchases. PCE activity databases are 

created by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and represent national average expenditure patterns. 

Similarly, expenditures on boat and vehicle registrations and licenses, fishing licenses, property 

taxes, and parking /site access fees were allocated across sectors using IMPLAN’s State/Local 

Government Non-Education Institution Spending Pattern database. When run, each model 

would then generate estimates of total output, value added output, labor income, and 

employment. Further details on how angler expenditure models estimate economic contributions 

to regional economies can be found in Lovell et al. (2013). 

Results and Discussion 

Response Rate and Descriptive Statistics 

Ultimately, of the 3,796 Atlantic HMS Angling Permit holders sampled, 2,068 returned 

completed surveys (710 via web; 1,358 via mail) and 168 were ineligible (i.e., non-deliverable, 

deceased, refused) for a 57% response rate (Table 2). HMS anglers were asked to provide 

expenditure data on their most recent marine fishing trip spent targeting HMS. Respondents 

were most likely to report HMS trips in New Jersey (25.3%), Massachusetts (24.7%), and New 

York (11.4%) (Table 3). This breakdown is about what would be expected given the number of 

permitted HMS anglers per state (Table 1). The most commonly reported trip state varied by 

HMS species pursued. Tuna trips were most likely to originate from Massachusetts (28.9%) or 

New Jersey (26.8%); billfish trips from North Carolina (39.6%) and Maryland (24.2%); and 

shark trips from New York (39.7%) and New Jersey (20.9). Reported trips were also most likely 

to have occurred in the summer or early fall with 88.7% occurring between July and October 

(Table 4). HMS anglers were not surveyed during the first two waves of the year (JanuaryFebruary, March-April) so all reported trip percentages only reflect fishing actively from May to 

December 2011, and should not be assumed to be representative of the distribution of HMS trips 

throughout the entire year. Approximately a third (34%) of HMS angling trips involved 

spending at least one night away from home, and just under a quarter (24%) involved two or 

more days of fishing (Table 5). These percentages varied across species targeted with nearly half 

(49%) of billfish trips involving at least one night away from home, and only 16 percent of shark 

trips lasting two or more days (Table 5). Average party size for HMS angling trips was 3.7 

anglers, with billfish trips having the largest average party size at 4.8 anglers (Table 5). 
8 

HMS Angling permit holders were also asked about their general fishing behavior and 

demographics. HMS Angling permit holders reported that they had 34 years of marine 

recreational fishing experience on average (Table 5). In regards to the state in which they had 

made their most recent HMS fishing trip, HMS Angling permit holders reported fishing in 

saltwater 32 days in the previous 12 months of which 11 days were spent fishing for HMS, or 34 

percent of their days spent fishing in saltwater (Table 5); however, the percentage of trips 

targeting HMS rose to 45 percent when excluding permit holders that reported not fishing for 

HMS in the previous 12 months. Anglers that targeted billfish on their most recent HMS trip 

spent the highest (52%) proportion of their saltwater fishing trips pursuing HMS (Table 5). 

Conversely, anglers that targeted sharks only spent 22 percent of their saltwater fishing trips 

targeting HMS on average (Table 5). HMS Angling permit holders were 53 years old on 

average, and were overwhelmingly white (98.7%) and male (99.3%) (Table 6). In comparison, 

general saltwater private boat angler in the region were the roughly the same age (54), and only 

slightly more diverse demographically (96% white, 95% male). HMS Angling permit holders 

had a median household income of over $100,000, and the majority (52.1%) possessed at least 

one college degree (Table 6). General marine private boat anglers had a median household 

income between $60,000 and $80 thousand, and only 35% had at least a college degree (Table 

6). It is important to note that the demographic data presented for HMS anglers in this report 

only pertains to HMS Angling permit holders, and not the individuals that join them on their 

fishing trips. It bears repeating that each HMS Angling permit is tied to a vessel, and thus allows 

anyone on the vessel to fish for HMS. 

Expenditures and Economic Impacts 

In 2011, HMS Angling Permit holders in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions (Maine to North 

Carolina) were estimated to have spent $23 million on private boat trips targeting HMS, and 

$151 million on durable goods used for saltwater fishing with at least $76 million of those 

dollars attributed to HMS fishing trips (based on the percentage of their saltwater fishing trips 

targeting HMS) (Table 10). The vast majority (86%) of these expenditures were for durable 

goods ($192 million) with the largest average annual expenditures coming for new boats 

($3,178), boat storage ($1,258), and boat maintenance ($1,085) (Table 8). The Atlantic HMS 

input-output models that were developed estimate that these expenditures generated $266 million 

in total economic outputs, which included $153 million in value added outputs (total outputs 

minus business costs, or labor income and profits), $96 million in labor income, and generating 

1,824 full and part-time jobs from Maine to North Carolina. 

HMS Angling permit holders spent an average of $10,410 on durable goods for saltwater angling 

in the study region in 2011 (Table 8). Of these expenditures, $5,435 could be minimally 

attributed to HMS fishing when adjusted for the percentage of their saltwater fishing trips spent 

targeting HMS in the previous 12 months (Table 9). Durable good expenditures included permit 

holder purchases related to boats, vehicles, second homes, equipment, fees, and services 

associated with marine recreational fishing (Table 8). Durable good expenditures associated 

with saltwater angling by HMS Angling Permit holders in 2011 generated $235 million in total 

economic outputs, and generated 1,608 jobs of which 727 could be attributed to HMS angling 

after adjusting durable good expenditures for the percentage of permit holder trips that targeted 

HMS. In comparison, anglers pursuing all other forms of marine recreational fishing in the 
9 

region spent $4.9 billion on durable goods for marine angling, generating $5 billion in economic 

output, but only spent $1,312 per angler (13% of what HMS anglers spent) in 2011 (Table 11; 

Lovell et al., 2013). That HMS Angling Permit holders would spend so much more in durable 

goods within a year is not totally unexpected. A large portion of general marine anglers fish 

from shore while virtually all HMS fishing, with the exception of some coastal shark fishing, is 

done from boats. Private boats typically used for HMS fishing also tend to be larger on average, 

and more expensive than the average saltwater fishing boat, as HMS fisheries often require long 

trips offshore where most HMS occur. 

Compared to their expenditures on durable goods, HMS Angling permit holders spent $23.2 

million on fishing trips targeting HMS with an average of $587 spent per trip over 39,440 trips 

(Table 10). Trip expenditures by HMS Angling permit holders included purchases of fuel, food, 

lodging, bait, ice, rentals, access and tournament fees, and gifts (Table 7). These expenditures 

generated $31.3 million in total economic output, $17.7 million in value added output, $10.4 

million in labor income, and 216 full and part-time jobs. In comparison, anglers pursuing other 

marine fisheries in the same region spent $1.52 billion on fishing trips generating $1.96 billion in 

total economic output and 17,064 jobs (Table 11; Lovell et al., 2013). However, anglers 

pursuing other marine fisheries only spent $80 per day on average over 19 million trips. In 

comparison, HMS Angling permit holders spent $14.8 million over 27,648 days targeting tuna 

($534/day), $4.6 million over 5,123 days targeting billfish ($900/day), and $3.8 million over 

6,669 days targeting sharks ($567/day) (Table 10). Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of total 

trip costs by species targeted. Boat fuel was the largest expenditure item for HMS trips by far, 

and made up between 55% ($309/day for shark trips) and 73% ($659/day for billfish trips) of 

average trip expenditures (Table 7). 

It should be noted that comparisons of economic output generated by HMS expenditures versus 

other marine angling expenditures presented here come with an important caveat. This study 

utilized a combined regional model of coastal states from Maine to North Carolina to estimate 

the economic outputs associated with of HMS angling expenditures. Such a combined regional 

model will account for outputs generated in all states within the model no matter in which state 

an individual expenditure was made. Conversely, the estimates of economic output generated by 

other marine recreational fishing presented here come from a summation of the results of 

individually run state models. As such, the presented estimates of total economic output and 

employment for other marine angling expenditures do not include outputs generated by 

expenditures made in other states within the region. 

Comparisons to Previous Studies 

Estimated expenditures associated with HMS trips have increased considerably in the previous 

decade (NMFS, 2008). Previous angler expenditure studies conducted by NOAA Fisheries in 

the Northeast (1998), and the Southeast (2000) estimated HMS daily trip expenditures to be $686 

per person on billfish trips ($896 when adjusted for inflation), $106 per tuna trips ($138 adjusted 

for inflation), and $85 on pelagic shark trips ($111 adjusted for inflation) (NMFS, 2008) with an 

overall average of $122 per day per person for all HMS trips ($159 adjusted for inflation). While 

some of these estimates are substantially less than the current study’s estimates, much of the 

increase can likely be attributed to the rise in fuel prices over the ensuing decade as they make up 
10 

the majority of HMS trip expenditures. Additionally, the earlier NOAA Fisheries studies 

collected their data via a follow-up telephone survey of anglers intercepted on-site by the Marine 

Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey (MRFSS). As such, these studies would have also 

included the trip expenditures of individuals accompanying HMS Angling permit holders (the 

sole targets of the current study). Because the HMS Angling permit is required be tied to a 

licensed vessel, the current survey targeting permit holders would have in effect exclusively 

targeted vessel owners who are likely to have higher trip expenditures on average compared to 

those accompanying them especially if boat fuel costs were not shared. 

Two papers published in the previous decade have also looked at recreational fisheries for HMS 

in the current study region. Bohnsack et al. (2002) examined the economic impact of a seasonal 

(winter months) recreational fishery for trophy bluefin tuna out of Hatteras, NC, that developed 

in the mid-1990’s, and continues to this day. The study looked at both charter and private boat 

tuna trips in the winter of 1997, and found similar average daily expenditures for the two groups. 

North Carolina residents spent $537 per person per day in the Hatteras area (Dare County, NC) 

on private boat trips, and $566 per person per day on charter trips ($753 and $793, respectively 

in 2011 dollars). Non-residents spent $395 per person per day on private boat trips in the 

Hatteras area, and $598 per person per day on charter trips ($554 and $838, respectively in 2011 

dollars). When adjusted for inflation these expenditures are generally greater than the daily 

expenditures for tuna trips ($540 per person per day) found in this study. Furthermore, the 

Bohnsack et al. (2002) study estimates only include money spent in Dare County, NC, while the 

current study collected data on expenditures within the state of the trip. As such, Bohnsack et al. 

(2002) would have only captured the full expenditures of resident anglers that lived within Dare 

County suggesting that the total trip expenditures may have been significantly higher, especially 

for non-resident anglers. However, it is not surprising that the trip expenditures found in the 

earlier study would be higher than that of an average trip as the Hatteras fishery provided a novel 

opportunity for anglers to catch exceptionally large, trophy bluefin tuna. Such trophy fisheries 

routinely attract more specialized anglers from farther away that are willing to spend more 

money on their trips. The second paper by Ditton and Stoll (2003) summarized expenditure 

estimates from previous studies on billfish trips in the US Atlantic, the Caribbean, and Mexico 

conducted by the Billfish Foundation. The estimate for the US Atlantic was from 1990, and was 

$2,105 per billfish trip ($3,623 in 2011 dollars). Unlike the current study, this estimate was for 

whole trips, and not standardized to a per day level making it difficult to make comparisons as 

average trip length was not provided in the publication. 

Conclusion 

The purpose of the input-output analysis conducted in this study was to estimate the total 

economic activity associated with HMS angling expenditures in coastal states from Maine to 

North Carolina. Therefore, expenditures by both residents and non-residents were included in 

the input-output analysis. In contrast to a true “economic impact” analysis that examines how 

changes in policies or other external factors affect the economic activity associated with changes 

in angler expenditures, the assessment shown here is generally described as a “contribution” 

analysis and simply shows the total economic contribution of marine angling expenditures to a 

regional economy under the conditions that existed during 2011. Often, in economic impact 
11 

analysis as opposed to economic contribution analysis, spending by residents must be adjusted in 

the model because it is assumed that they would reallocate most of their expenditures to other 

sectors of the regional economy, thereby causing no net change in impacts. 

Another caveat that deserves attention relates to the underlying purpose and use of input-output 

analysis. In particular, it is a positivistic model designed to identify patterns of transactions and 

the resource requirements and sector output requirements resulting from angler expenditures. 

The input-output approach should not be considered a substitute for normative approaches such 

as benefit-cost analysis. Benefit-cost analysis seeks to determine whether resources are being put 

to their best use by examining the difference between total economic value and total costs. In the 

context of recreational fishing, total net economic value is generally defined as willingness to 

pay in excess of actual expenditures. Alternatively, input-output assessments reveal how actual 

expenditures affect economic activity within each sector of an economy. 

While responsible for only a minor percentage of overall recreational angling expenditures, 

Atlantic HMS anglers spend a significant amount more than the average marine angler in the 

pursuit of their sport. While this fact may mean Atlantic HMS anglers contribute more to their 

region’s economy than other anglers on a per trip or per angler basis, it also poses as a 

potentially significant constraint, and often barrier, to participation in HMS angling. NOAA 

Fisheries will continue to monitor recreational fishing participation in Atlantic HMS fisheries in 

the Northeast Atlantic through the annual LPS survey, and future angling expenditure surveys. 

Beginning in 2014, NOAA Fisheries Angling Expenditure survey will expand its coverage of 

Atlantic HMS fisheries to collect expenditure data from Atlantic HMS anglers in Southeast 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states in addition to the Northeast. The survey will collect data on 

their durable goods expenditures in 2014, and on HMS trip expenditures in 2016. 

 
12 

References 

Bohnsack, B. L., R. B. Ditton, J. R. Stoll, R. J. Chen, R. Novak, and L. S. Smutko. 2002. The 

economic impact of the recreational bluefin tuna fishery in Hatteras, North Carolina. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:165-176. 

Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode 

Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley, New York. 

Ditton, R.B., and J. R. Stoll. 2003. Social and economic perspectives on recreational billfish 

fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research 54:545-554. 

Gentner, B., M. Price, and S. Steinback. 2001. Marine angler expenditures in the southeast 

region, 1999. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-48. 

ICF Macro, Inc. 2012. 2011 National marine recreational fishing expenditure report. ICF 

International, Burlington, VT. 

Lovell, S. J., S. Steinback, and J. Hilger. 2013. The economic contribution of marine angler 

expenditures in the United States, 2011. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-134. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2010.IMPLAN professional: social accounting and impact 

analysis software. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. 

NMFS, 2008. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species, 2008. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS, 2011. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species, 2011. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. 

Steinback, S. and B. Gentner. 2001. Marine angler expenditures in the northeast region, 1998. 

US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-47. 

 
13 

Table 1. Atlantic HMS Angling permits and effort in private vessel trips by state group and species 

targeted from Maine to North Carolina, June – October 2011. Estimates of vessel trips 

were derived from the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS) for Maine through Virginia while the 

North Carolina estimate came from the Marine Recreational Information Program 

(MRIP) survey. 

LPS State Group HMS 

Angling 

Permits 

No. Private Boat 

Trips 

 LPS Target Species No. Private 

Boat Trips 

Maine/New Hampshire 908 6,931 Tuna (bluefin, BAYS) 27,648 

Massachusetts 3,268 20,227 Billfish (marlin, 

sailfish) 

 5,123 

Connecticut/Rhode Island 1,144 2,175 Sharks 6,669 

New York 1,811 5,480 Other LPS 16,424 

New Jersey 2,862 10,349 Total 55,864 

Maryland/Delaware 1,674 6,309 

Virginia 1,020 2,638 

North Carolina 1,519 1,755 

Total 14,206 55,864 

Table 2. Final response status of HMS Angling permit holders sampled for the 2011 HMS Angling 

Expenditure Survey and overall response rate. 

Sample Size Respondents Non-deliverable Ineligible Refusals Deceased 

Response 

Rate (%) 

3,796 2,068 86 40 40 2 57 

 
14 

Table 3. Proportion of reported Atlantic HMS angling trips by state and species targeted from 

Maine to North Carolina, May-December 2011. 

Target Species 

Tuna Billfish Sharks Overall 

State (n = 1,001) (n = 88) (n = 105) (n = 1,194) 

Maine 3.9 0.0 5.8 3.7 

New Hampshire 2.1 0.0 0.7 1.8 

Massachusetts 28.9 0.0 4.2 24.7 

Rhode Island 3.0 0.0 5.2 2.9 

Connecticut 3.1 0.0 10.2 3.5 

New York 9.7 0.0 39.7 11.4 

New Jersey 26.8 16.0 20.9 25.3 

Delaware 4.9 1.0 4.5 4.6 

Maryland 6.1 24.2 5.0 7.1 

Virginia 5.1 19.3 2.2 6.0 

North Carolina 6.4 39.6 1.4 8.9 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table 4. Proportion of reported Atlantic HMS angling trips by month and species targeted from 

Maine to North Carolina, 2011. Because surveys were first mailed in June, and anglers 

were asked to report on their most recent HMS trip, the proportion of trips reported 

prior to May 2011 are not thought to be representative of actual HMS angling effort. 

Target Species 

Tuna Billfish Sharks Overall 

Month (n = 1,001) (n = 88) (n = 105) (n = 1,194) 

January-May 1.9 0.9 0.0 1.6 

June 3.1 5.6 19.3 4.6 

July 14.3 7.1 22.1 14.5 

August 29.6 39.1 34.4 30.7 

September 21.0 31.4 14.9 21.1 

October 24.5 12.0 9.3 22.4 

November 3.7 3.9 0.0 3.4 

December 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 

 
15 

Table 5. Characteristics of Atlantic HMS angling trips and HMS angler fishing behavior by species 

targeted from Maine to North Carolina, 2011. Standard errors of means are reported in 

parenthesis. 

 Target Species 

 Tuna Billfish Sharks Overall 

Variable (n = 1,001) (n = 88) (n = 105) (n = 1,194) 

HMS Trip Characteristics 

 Party size 3.6 (0.06) 4.8 (0.20) 3.7 (0.13) 3.7 (0.05) 

 

 Percent overnight trips 34.1 48.6 21.5 34.0 

 

 Days fished per trip 1.5 (0.07) 1.4 (0.09) 1.3 (0.08) 1.4 (0.06) 

 Percent trips fishing 

 two days or more 25.1 25.6 15.7 24.3 

 

HMS Angler Behavior 

 Years fishing 34.2 (0.54) 32.1 (1.31) 33.0 (1.65) 34.0 (0.49) 

 

 Days saltwater fishing 

 in previous 12 months 32.6 (0.98) 31.3 (2.66) 30.6 (3.49) 32.3 (0.90) 

 

 Days HMS fishing in 

 previous 12 months 11.1 (0.46) 16.4 (1.53) 6.7 (0.78) 11.1 (0.41) 

 

 Percent trips for HMS 34.1 52.4 21.9 34.4 

 

 Days fishing in previous 

 2 months from... 

 Private boat 10.0 (0.42) 11.7 (1.51) 8.2 (0.93) 9.9 (0.38) 

 Charter 0.5 (0.09) 1.3 (0.43) 0.6 (0.23) 0.6 (0.08) 

 Shore 1.7 (0.27) 1.8 (0.67) 1.2 (0.64) 1.7 (0.24) 

 Pier 1.1 (0.19) 0.5 (0.27) 1.1 (0.53) 1.1 (0.17) 

 

 
16 

Table 6. HMS Angling permit holder demographics compared to those of non-HMS private boat 

anglers from Maine to North Carolina, 2011. Data on non-HMS marine anglers came 

from the 2011 Marine Recreational Fishing Expenditure Surveys conducted in the 

corresponding states (Lovell et al., 2013). 

Demographic variable HMS Anglers Marine Anglers 

 

Mean Age 53 (0.3) 54 (0.52) 

 

Gender (%) 

 Male 99.3 95.2 

 Female 0.7 4.8 

 

Race (%) 

 White 98.6 96.2 

 Other 1.4 3.8 

 

Income (%) 

 Less than $20,000 0.9 5.9 

 $20,000 - $39,999 4.1 10.0 

 $40,000 - $59,999 8.2 15.0 

 $60,000 - $79,999 8.9 15.7 

 $80,000 - $99,999 11.6 16.6 

 $100,000 - $149,999 24.7 23.7 

 $150,000 - $199,999 15.1 9.0 

 $200,000 or more 26.5 4.1 

 

Education 

 High School or less 26.4 42.5 

 Associate or tech degree 21.5 23.1 

 Bachelor’s degree 29.9 20.5 

 Graduate degree 22.2 13.9 

 

 
17 

Table 7. Estimated average daily and total trip expenditures by Atlantic HMS Angling permit 

holders by target species from Maine to North Carolina, 2011. Total trip expenditures 

were estimated by extrapolating average daily expenditures by the number boat trip days 

per species group as estimated by the Large Pelagic Survey. 

Target Species Expenditure Item Mean SE Total Expenditure

 

Tuna Trips Auto Fuel 31.69 3.92 876,071.64 

(n = 1,001) Auto Rental 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Groceries 52.11 5.61 1,440,704.90 

Restaurants 22.64 1.71 626,033.80 

Lodging 9.68 1.39 267,554.06 

Boat Fuel 336.23 13.82 9,296,012.67 

Fishing Processing 3.71 0.88 102,443.03 

Parking 2.40 0.32 66,296.37 

Bait 49.82 2.42 1,377,507.69 

Ice 19.58 1.06 541,411.38 

Tournament Fees 4.44 1.10 122,758.50 

Gifts and Souvenirs 2.07 0.55 57,302.14 

 

Billfish Trips Auto Fuel 40.80 4.96 209,014.95 

(n = 88) Auto Rental 0.05 0.05 235.14 

Groceries 57.02 5.23 292,101.82 

Restaurants 51.28 14.69 262,723.27 

Lodging 9.31 4.00 47,703.39 

Boat Fuel 658.50 64.06 3,373,483.11 

Fish Processing 11.63 5.31 59,580.08 

Parking 0.80 0.64 4,110.80 

Bait 48.15 4.25 246,649.17 

Ice 14.50 1.69 74,302.08 

Tournament Fees 5.27 2.40 26,984.84 

Gifts and Souvenirs 2.95 1.49 15,088.26 

 

Shark Trips Auto Fuel 26.53 4.83 176,912.64 

(n = 105) Auto Rental 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Groceries 44.53 5.43 296,955.10 

Restaurants 26.27 5.88 175,210.06 

Lodging 8.27 3.51 55,158.17 

Boat Fuel 308.69 36.18 2,058,635.32 

Fish Processing 1.35 0.86 8,989.54 

Parking 2.04 0.70 13,619.35 

Bait 100.42 12.03 669,684.21 

Ice 20.56 3.49 137,146.56 

Tournament Fees 25.83 9.18 172,279.64 

Gifts and Souvenirs 2.46 1.31 16,401.65 

 
18 

Table 8. Estimated average and total annual Atlantic HMS Angling permit holder durable 

expenditures from Maine to North Carolina, 2011 (n = 2,026). Total annual durable 

expenditures were estimated by extrapolating average durable expenditures by the 

number of HMS Angling permit holders in the study region (N = 14,206).

Category Expenditure Item Mean SE Total Expenditure 

Boats New Boat 3,177.73 497.22 45,142,890.71 

Used Boat 569.86 163.70 8,095,481.97 

Boat Purchase Fees 171.78 35.82 2,440,323.03 

Boat Registration 58.05 4.20 824,701.44 

Boat Maintenance 1,085.46 78.80 15,420,038.65 

Boat Insurance 446.62 21.76 6,344,707.73 

Boat Storage 1,257.96 54.72 17,870,605.72 

 

Vehicles New Vehicle 227.77 77.67 3,235,766.83 

Used Vehicle 18.82 8.90 267,419.51 

Vehicle Purchase Fees 9.79 2.83 139,092.21 

Vehicle Registration 3.05 0.41 43,391.19 

Vehicle Maintenance 38.75 5.94 550,441.04 

Vehicle Insurance 38.05 4.70 540,578.74 

 

Second Home New Home 826.29 320.54 11,737,828.73 

Real Estate Commissions 134.50 39.08 1,910,732.51 

Second Home Fees 73.02 20.07 1,037,381.18 

Second Home Insurance 65.63 9.83 932,386.18 

Second Home Maintenance 61.69 9.91 876,328.21 

Second Home Property Taxes 30.12 31.14 427,861.99 

 

Equipment Rods & Reels 662.83 29.27 9,416,209.37 

Tackle 425.98 16.69 6,051,540.56 

Camping Equipment 19.29 1.70 274,073.67 

Clothing 89.74 4.80 1,274,897.34 

Binoculars 21.33 2.62 302,969.23 

New Canoe Purchase 11.50 2.28 163,324.45 

Electronics/Accessories 775.13 69.21 11,011,494.29 

Used Boat Electronics 0.05 0.04 780.13 

 

Fees/Services License Fees 42.84 2.84 608,596.97 

Club Dues 32.52 3.69 461,937.86 

Magazine Subscriptions 33.21 2.00 471,794.89 

Processing/Taxidermy 0.31 0.14 4,346.64 

 
19 

Table 9. Estimated average and total annual Atlantic HMS Angling permit holder durable 

expenditures from Maine to North Carolina, 2011 (n = 1,738), adjusted for the percentage 

of anglers’ saltwater fishing trips that targeted HMS. Total annual durable expenditures 

were estimated by extrapolating average durable expenditures by the number of HMS 

Angling permit holders in the study region adjusted for the percentage of respondents that 

reported taking no HMS trips in the previous 12 months (N = 13,836). 

Category Expenditure Item Mean SE Total Expenditure

 

Boats New Boat 1,474.40 265.34 19,814,413.35 

Used Boat 373.85 147.27 5,024,223.03 

Boat Purchase Fees 86.38 24.34 1,160,831.89 

Boat Registration 31.49 4.19 423,216.26 

Boat Maintenance 585.70 64.28 7,871,229.23 

Boat Insurance 252.01 19.41 3,386,752.76 

Boat Storage 640.35 40.23 8,605,697.81 

 

Vehicles New Vehicle 87.85 38.29 1,180,583.05 

Used Vehicle 4.46 1.98 59,909.24 

Vehicle Purchase Fees 4.34 1.82 58,389.34 

Vehicle Registration 1.22 0.21 16,405.96 

Vehicle Maintenance 12.95 1.97 174,088.54 

Vehicle Insurance 15.60 2.54 209,645.50 

 

Second Home New Home 580.66 270.06 7,803,431.10 

Real Estate Commissions 73.27 27.42 984,676.84 

Second Home Fees 35.35 13.54 475,097.29 

Second Home Insurance 32.91 6.88 442,293.88 

Second Home Maintenance 27.30 5.73 366,891.86 

Second Home Property Taxes 14.66 4.82 197,051.02 

 

Equipment Rods & Reels 349.66 22.80 4,699,057.08 

Tackle 215.53 11.16 2,896,465.76 

Camping Equipment 10.14 1.16 136,273.21 

Clothing 45.01 3.15 604,871.90 

Binoculars 11.49 1.86 154,451.21 

New Canoe Purchase 3.49 0.82 46,866.81 

Electronics/Accessories 411.09 48.28 5,524,588.70 

Used Boat Electronics 0.03 0.03 358.18 

 

Fees/Services License Fees 19.82 1.74 266,335.32 

Club Dues 17.63 2.81 236,955.98 

Magazine Subscriptions 16.23 1.41 218,050.84 

Processing/Taxidermy 0.19 0.10 2,583.47 
20 

Table 10. Total expenditures and economic impacts generated by Atlantic HMS Angling permit 

holders from Maine to North Carolina in 2011. Trip expenditures are reported by 

primary target species. Durable expenditures are reported by total expenditures by 

HMS Angling permit holders for durable items used for marine angling, and adjusted 

for the percentage of their marine angling trips that targeted HMS. 

Expense Type Target 

Species 

Total 

Expenses 

($1,000’s) 

Economic Impact 

Employment 

(jobs) 

Income 

($1,000’s) 

Value Added 

($1,000’s) 

Output 

($1,000’s) 

Trip 

Tuna 14,775 136 6,590 11,225 19,864 

Billfish 4,612 39 2,000 3,500 6,036 

Sharks 3,781 41 1,804 3,016 5,443 

Overall 23,168 216 10,394 17,741 31,343 

 

Durable Marine 150,831 1,608 85,933 135,374 234,948 

HMS 76,323 727 38,697 62,462 115,815 

 

Total (Trip + Marine Durables) 173,999 1,824 96,327 153,115 266,291 

Table 11. Comparison of total expenditures and economic impacts generated by Atlantic HMS 

Angling permit holders and overall marine angling participants from Maine to North 

Carolina in 2011. 

Item HMS Angling Permit Holders Marine Angling Participants 

Expenditures 

 Trip 23,168,000 1,524,555,000 

 Durables 150,831,000 4,933,381,000 

 Total 173,999,000 6,457,936,000 

 

Total Output 

 Trip 31,343,000 1,961,094,000 

 Durables 234,948,000 5,057,507,000 

 Total 266,291,000 7,018,601,000 

 

Employment 

 Trip 216 17,064 

 Durables 1,608 43,319 

 Total 1,824 60,383 

 
21 

 Figure 1. Histograms of total HMS trip expenditures by species group. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

100200300400500600700800900

1000110012001300140015001600170018001900200021002200230024002500

More

Total Trip Expenditures (US Dollars) 

Shark Trips 

Tuna Trips 

Billfish Trips 
22 

Appendix 1: Survey Instrument 
Sponsored by 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

Your Response is Important! 

Questions? Email 2011NES@noaa.gov 

 2011 Marine Recreational 

Fishing Expenditure Survey 

How much do you spend on marine recreational fishing? 

23
24

Section A: Your Most Recent Day of HMS Marine Recreational Fishing 

We would like to know about your most recent day of marine recreational fishing for highly migratory species. 

 “Marine” means open ocean or any portion of a bay, sound, or river that is saltwater or brackish water.

 A day of HMS fishing is any portion of a day spent fishing for highly migratory species (HMS). HMS

species include tuna, swordfish, sharks, marlin, sailfish, or spearfish. 

 Except when asked, please do not include any information for other household members or other fishing

party members. 

 Please print clearly and mark boxes with an X where appropriate to indicate your response.

1. When was your most recent day of marine fishing for highly migratory species?

(please enter the two digit month and four digit year, e.g., “03, 2011” for March, 2011)

2. During your most recent day of marine fishing for highly migratory species, did you primarily fish from

a: (please indicate your primary trip type by making an “X” in one box only)

3. On this day, what city or town was closest to the place where you launched a boat or boarded a party or

charter boat in order to fish for highly migratory species?

 City or town:_____________________________ State: ________________ 

4. Did you target any particular type of highly migratory species of fish on this day?

If yes, please list the top two species you targeted (regardless of whether or not you caught them). 

Do not include fish you caught but did not target. 

Month Year 

A. ________________________________ 

B. ________________________________ 

Yes No Please go to question 5 on the next page 

Private or rental boat 

Beach or bank 

Party or charter boat 

Pier, jetty, bridge, or dock 

Cover Photos: NOAA/Dept of Commerce; Gregg Bray 
25

5. Did you take time off from work without pay in order to go on your most recent day of HMS fishing?

6. Including yourself, how many people traveled together to your most recent day of HMS fishing?

6a. Including yourself, how many people were in your fishing party on your most recent day of 

HMS fishing? 

7. Was your most recent day of HMS fishing part of a longer trip in which you spent at least one night away

from your permanent or seasonal residence?

 7a. How many nights were you away from your residence on this trip? 

 7b. How many days of this trip did you go fishing? 

 7c. If you went on an overnight fishing trip on a boat, how many nights did you sleep on the boat? 

 7d. What was the primary purpose of this entire trip away from home? 

(please indicate your choice by making an “X” in one box only) 

Yes No

Yes No Please go to question 8 on the next page 

Fishing 

Vacation or other personal reasons 

Business 

Number of nights 

Number of days fished (count partial days as full days ) 

Number of nights on the boat Did not take an overnight boat trip 

Number of people, including yourself 

Number of people, including yourself 
26

8. On your most recent day of HMS fishing, how much did you PERSONALLY spend for the following items? If

your most recent day was part of a longer trip away from home, please provide your expenses for the entire trip.

Include expenses that you paid for others, but do not include any expenses paid by others for you.

For each item, indicate the percentage of your expense that was spent in the state where you were fishing.

If you spent nothing, please write “0” for that item.

 (A) 

Type of Expense 

 (B) 

Your Personal Expense 

 (Round to the nearest dollar)

 (C) 

% Spent in the State of 

Your Most Recent 

 Day of HMS Fishing 

(0-100%) 

Food and drink from grocery or convenience 

stores $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Food and drink from restaurants and bars $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Parking and site access fees $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Auto, truck, or RV fuel $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Auto, truck, or RV rental $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Bait $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Ice $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Boat rental $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Party, charter, or guide fees $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Fish filleting fee and tips paid to charter crew $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Lodging (hotels, motels, campgrounds, etc.) $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Public transportation $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Airfare $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Gifts or souvenirs $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Processing, freezing, or shipping fee paid to 

fish processing company $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Fishing tournament, jackpot, or derby entry 

fees $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Other __________________ $ _____________.00 ___________% 

Boat fuel and oil $ _____________.00 ___________% 

If you had none of the above expenses, check here: 
27

In this section, we would like to know about your annual expenses related to marine recreational fishing for all 

types of finfish, including both migratory species and non-migratory species. We are interested in your 

expenses during the past 12 months on fishing tackle, fishing-related equipment, and large durable items 

such as boats, vehicles, and vacation homes. 

(A) 

Type of Expense 

(B) 

Your Personal 

Expense 

 (C) 

% Spent in the State 

of Your Most Recent 

 Day of HMS Fishing 

(0-100%) 

(D) 

% of Use for 

Marine Fishing 

(0-100%) 

Rods, poles, reels and 

components for rod-making $__________.00 __________% __________% 

Tackle and gear (lures, hooks, 

leaders, sinkers, flies and fly tying 

supplies, fishing line, tackle 

boxes, nets, knives, gaffs, etc.) $ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Yes No Please go to question 2 on the next page 

Section B: Tackle, Equipment and Durable Fishing-Related Expenses 

1. During the past 12 months, did you spend any money on fishing tackle or fishing gear?

 

1a. Please complete the table below with the amount of money you PERSONALLY spent in the past 

12 months on the following items of fishing tackle. 

 If you spent nothing, please write “0” for that item.

 In column C, indicate the percentage of your expense (from column B) that was spent in the state of

your most recent day of HMS fishing (as recorded in Section A, Question 3). (For example, if all

expenses of a given type occurred in that state, write “100”. If none occurred in that state, write “0”.)

 In column D, indicate the percentage of each item’s usage that was for marine recreational fishing

regardless of the state where you used the item. (For example, if the item was used 10 days for freshwater

fishing and used 10 days for marine fishing (for a total of 20 days of use), write “50%” as the percentage of use

for marine fishing.)
28

2. 

(A) 

Type of Expense 

(B) 

Your Personal Expense 

 (C) 

% Spent in the State of 

Your Most Recent 

 Day of HMS Fishing 

(0-100%) 

(D) 

% of Use for 

Marine Fishing 

(0-100%) 

Marine fishing licenses, 

fishing stamps or fees $ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Special marine fishing 

clothing (foul weather gear, 

boots, waders, masks, 

wetsuits, etc.) 

$ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Books, magazine, newspaper 

and electronic subscriptions 

devoted to recreational 

fishing 

$ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Camping equipment (sleeping 

bags, packs, tents, coolers, 

etc.) $ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Binoculars, field glasses, etc. $ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Dues or contributions to 

recreational fishing clubs or 

organizations $ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Processing or taxidermy fees $ __________.00 __________% __________% 

Please complete the table below with the amount of money you PERSONALLY spent in the past 

12 months on the following fishing-related items. 

 If you spent nothing, please write “0” for that item.

 In column C, indicate the percentage of your expense (from column B) that was spent in the state of

your most recent day of HMS fishing. (For example, if all expenses of a given type occurred in that state,

write “100”. If none occurred in that state, write “0”.)

 In column D, indicate the percentage of each item’s usage that was for marine recreational fishing

regardless of the state where you used the item. (For example, if the item was used 10 days for freshwater

fishing and used 10 days for marine fishing (for a total of 20 days of use), write “50%” as the percentage of use

for marine fishing.)

If you had none of the above expenses, check here: 
29

3. Have you owned a boat that you personally used for marine recreational fishing in the past 12 months?

3a. How long is the boat you used most often for marine recreational fishing in the past 12 months?_____Feet 

3b. Is the boat you used most often motorized? 

3c. Please complete the table below with the amount of money you PERSONALLY spent in the past 12 

months on boats and boating accessories that you used for marine recreational fishing. Please include 

expenses for all boats that you used. 

Yes No Please go to question 4 on the next page 

Yes No 

Type of Expenditure Personal 

Expenditure 

State Where 

Expenditure 

Occurred 

Purchase 

Financed? 

(check one) 

Purchased 

New or 

Used? 

(check one) 

Purchased from a 

Broker/Dealer or 

Private Party? 

(check one) 

Purchase of a motor boat(s) 

and accessories $ ________.00 _________ 

Purchase of a 

non-motorized boat(s) 

(canoe, kayak) 

$ ________.00 _________ 

Boat electronics and accessories purchased separately 

from boat(s) (ex: GPS, fish 

finders, radios, ropes, etc.) 

$ ________.00 _________ 

Boat and trailer 

maintenance and repairs $ ________.00 _________ _________ % of repairs done by you 

Boat mooring, storage, and 

haul out/launch fees $ ________.00 _________ 

Boat insurance $ ________.00 _________ 

Boat and trailer license and 

registration $ ________.00 _________ 

Private Party 

Yes Broker/Dealer 

No Used 

New 

Used 

Yes New 

No Private Party 

Broker/Dealer 

3d. Thinking about the total usage of your boat(s) used for marine recreational fishing, what percentage of the 

time in the past 12 months did you use this boat(s) for marine recreational fishing? 

3e. Did you sell a boat that you owned in the past 12 months? 

No 

Yes _________ Horsepower 

 __________% 

Yes 

No Used

New 

Private Party 

Broker/Dealer 
30

4. Do you own a vehicle (car, truck, motor home or RV, off-road vehicle, etc.) that you personally used for

marine recreational fishing in the past 12 months (for example, do you drive your car to a fishing site or do

you use your truck to pull a boat)?

4a. Please complete the table below with the amount of money you PERSONALLY spent in the past 12 

months on vehicles that you used for marine recreational fishing. Please include expenses for all vehicles 

that you used. 

Yes No Please go to question 5 on the next page 

Type of Expenditure Personal 

Expenditure 

State Where 

Expenditure 

Occurred 

Purchase 

Financed?

(check one) 

Purchase 

New or 

Used? 

(check one) 

Purchased from 

a Broker/Dealer 

or Private 

Party? 

(check one) 

Purchase of vehicles used 

for marine recreational 

fishing 

$ ________.00 _________ 

Repair and maintenance for 

vehicles used for marine 

recreational fishing 

$ ________.00 _________ 

Insurance for vehicles used 

for marine recreational 

fishing 

$ ________.00 _________ 

License and registration for 

vehicles used for marine 

recreational fishing 

$ ________.00 _________ 

 _________ % of repairs done by you 

Yes 

No Used 

New 

Private Party 

Broker/Dealer 

4b. Thinking about the total usage of your vehicle(s) used for marine recreational fishing, what percentage of 

the time in the past 12 months did you use this vehicle(s) for marine recreational fishing? 

 __________% 
31

5. Do you own a second home (i.e., cabin, single family home, timeshare, etc.) that you personally used for

marine recreational fishing in the past 12 months?

5a. Please complete the table below with the amount of money you PERSONALLY spent in the past 12 

months on a second home that you used for marine recreational fishing. 

Yes No Please go to Section C on the next page 

Type of Expenditure Personal 

Expenditure 

State Where 

Expenditure 

Occurred 

Purchase 

Financed? 

(check one) 

Purchase 

New or 

Used? 

(check one) 

Purchase made 

with a Real 

Estate Agent? 

(check one) 

Purchase of second home 

used for marine recreational 

fishing 

$ ________.00 _________ 

Repair and maintenance for 

homes used for marine 

recreational fishing 

$ ________.00 _________ 

Insurance for homes used 

for marine recreational 

fishing 

$ ________.00 _________ 

 _________ % of repairs done by you 

Yes 

No Used 

New 

5b. Thinking about your total usage of this second home, what percentage of time in the past 12 months did 

you use this home for marine recreational fishing? 

 __________% 

Yes 

No 
32

Different types of anglers may have different expenditure patterns. The following questions will help us 

to ensure that we have a representative sample of anglers, and to see how expenditure patterns vary 

across types of anglers. Your answers are strictly confidential. 

In questions 1-3 below, please refer to the state of your most recent day of HMS fishing. 

1. In the past 2 months, how many days did you go marine fishing for any type of finfish in this state

from a:

(enter the number of days in each trip type; count partial days as full days; enter zero if you took no trips

of a given type)

2. During the past 12 months, how many days have you spent marine fishing for finfish in this state?

3. In the past 12 months, how many total days did you go fishing for highly migratory species in this state?

(enter zero if you had no HMS trips)

4. Are you male or female?

5. In what year were you born?

6. How many years have you been marine recreational fishing?

Section C: About You and Your Household 

Male Female

(Number of years) 

Number of days (count partial days as full days ) 

Number of days (count partial days as full days ) 

(Year) 

Party or charter boat Private or rental boat 

Beach or bank Pier, jetty, bridge, or dock 
33

White 

Black, African American, or Negro 

American Indian or Alaskan Native 

Asian Indian 

Chinese 

Filipino 

Japanese 

Korean 

Vietnamese 

Native Hawaiian 

Guamanian or Chamorro 

Samoan 

Other Asian or Pacific Islander:___________ 

Other:_______________________________

Less than $20,000 

$20,000-$39,999 

$40,000-$59,999 

$60,000-$79,999 

$80,000-$99,999 

$100,000-$149,999 

$150,000-$199,999 

$200,000 or more 

12th Grade or less 

High school graduate or GED 

Associate or technical school degree or college coursework 

Bachelor’s degree (ex: BA or BS) 

Advanced, professional, or doctoral degree or coursework 

7. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

8. What is your race? (please mark all that apply)

9. In the past 12 months, how many hours per week did you typically work for pay?

10. Which of the following categories best describes your household’s total annual income before taxes in

2010? (Please mark only one category)

11. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please mark only one category)

No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin 

Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano 

Yes, Puerto Rican 

Yes, Cuban 

Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin ________________________________ 
34

Thank You For Completing This Survey! 

We appreciate your participation in this survey. If you would like further information on prior surveys or 

 economic information related to marine recreational angling, please visit our website at 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/RecFishEcon.html. 

Please write any additional comments you have in the space below: 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other suggestions for reducing this burden to Sabrina Lovell, NOAA Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

This is a voluntary survey, and responses are kept confidential as required by section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, 

Confidentiality of Fisheries Statistics, and will not be released for public use except in aggregate statistical form without identification as to its source. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subjected to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. 

OMB Control No. 0648-0052. Expiration Date: 11/30/2013.