U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2001

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-165

A Baseline Socioeconomic Study

of Massachusetts'

Marine Recreational Fisheries
153. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 1999. By Gordon T. Waring, Debra

L. Palka, Phillip J. Clapham, Steven Swartz, Marjorie C. Rossman, Timothy V.N. Cole, Larry J. Hansen, Kathryn D.

Bisack, Keith D. Mullin, Randall S. Wells, and Neilo B. Barros. October 1999. vii + 196 p., 17 figs., 59 tables, 1 app.

NTIS Access. No. PB2000-102497.

154. Report of the Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop, April 13-14, 1999, Seattle, Washington. By Richard

L. Merrick, compiler. November 1999. v + 22 p., 3 figs., 6 tables, 5 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2000-105393.

155. Food of Northwest Atlantic Fishes and Two Common Species of Squid. By Ray E. Bowman, Charles E.

Stillwell, William L. Michaels, and Marvin D. Grosslein. January 2000. xiv + 138 p., 1 fig., 7 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access.

No. PB2000-106735.

156. Proceedings of the Summer Flounder Aging Workshop, 1-2 February 1999, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. By

George R. Bolz, James Patrick Monaghan, Jr., Kathy L. Lang, Randall W. Gregory, and Jay M. Burnett. May 2000. v

+ 15 p., 5 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2000-107403.

157. Contaminant Levels in Muscle of Four Species of Recreational Fish from the New York Bight Apex. By Ashok

D. Deshpande, Andrew F.J. Draxler, Vincent S. Zdanowicz, Mary E. Schrock, Anthony J. Paulson, Thomas W. Finneran,

Beth L. Sharack, Kathy Corbo, Linda Arlen, Elizabeth A. Leimburg, Bruce W. Dockum, Robert A. Pikanowski, Brian

May, and Lisa B. Rosman. June 2000. xxii + 99 p., 6 figs., 80 tables, 3 app., glossary. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-107346.

158. A Framework for Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems.

By Jon G. Sutinen, editor, with contributors (listed alphabetically) Patricia Clay, Christopher L. Dyer, Steven F.

Edwards, John Gates, Tom A. Grigalunas, Timothy Hennessey, Lawrence Juda, Andrew W. Kitts, Philip N. Logan, John

J. Poggie, Jr., Barbara Pollard Rountree, Scott R. Steinback, Eric M. Thunberg, Harold F. Upton, and John B. Walden.

August 2000. v + 32 p., 4 figs., 1 table, glossary. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-106847.

159. An Overview and History of the Food Web Dynamics Program of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts. By Jason S. Link and Frank P. Almeida. October 2000. iv + 60 p., 20 figs., 18 tables,

1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-103996.

160. Measuring Technical Efficiency and Capacity in Fisheries by Data Envelopment Analysis Using the General

Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS): A Workbook. By John B. Walden and James E. Kirkley. October 2000. iii

+ 15 p., 9 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-106502.

161. Demersal Fish and American Lobster Diets in the Lower Hudson - Raritan Estuary. By Frank W. Steimle,

Robert A. Pikanowski, Donald G. McMillan, Christine A. Zetlin, and Stuart J. Wilk. November 2000. vii + 106 p., 24

figs., 51 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2002-105456.

162. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2000. Edited by Gordon T. Waring,

Janeen M. Quintal, and Steven L. Swartz, with contributions from (listed alphabetically) Neilo B. Barros, Phillip J.

Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Carol P. Fairfield, Larry J. Hansen, Keith D. Mullin, Daniel K. Odell, Debra L. Palka,

Marjorie C. Rossman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Randall S. Wells, and Cynthia Yeung. November 2000. ix + 303

p., 43 figs., 55 tables, 3 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-104091.

163. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Red Deepsea Crab, Chaceon (Geryon) quinquedens, Life History

and Habitat Characteristics. By Frank W. Steimle, Christine A. Zetlin, and Sukwoo Chang. January 2001. v + 27

p., 8 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-103542.

164. An Overview of the Social and Economic Survey Administered during Round II of the Northeast

Multispecies Fishery Disaster Assistance Program. By Julia Olson and Patricia M. Clay. December 2001. v + 69

p., 3 figs., 18 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2002-105406.

Recent Issues in This Series:
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-165

This report series represents a secondary level of scientifiic publishing. All issues

employ thorough internal scientific review; some issues employ external scientific

review. By design, reviews are transparent collegial reviews, not anonymous peer

reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2001

Ronald J. Salz1,3, David K. Loomis1,4, Michael R. Ross1,5,

and Scott R. Steinback2,6

A Baseline Socioeconomic Study

of Massachusetts'

Marine Recreational Fisheries

Postal Addresses: 1Univ. of Massachusetts - Amherst, Dept. of Natural Resources Conservation, Holdsworth

Bldg., Amherst, MA 01003; 2National Marine Fisheries Serv., Woods Hole Lab.,166

Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

E-mail Addresses: 3rsalz@forwild.umass.edu; 4loomis@forwild.umass.edu; 5mrross@forwild.umass.edu; 6

Scott.Steinback@noaa.gov
Editorial Notes

Species Names: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is

generally to follow the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and common names for fishes (i.e., Robins et al.

1991a), mollusks (i.e., Turgeon et al. 1998b), and decapod crustaceans (i.e., Williams et al. 1989c), and to follow the

Society for Marine Mammalogy's guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals (i.e., Rice 1998d).

Exceptions to this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting

in changes in the names of species (e.g., Cooper and Chapleau 1998e

, McEachran and Dunn 1998f).

Statistical Terms: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of statistical terms in all technical communications

is generally to follow the International Standards Organization’s handbook of statistical methods (i.e., ISO 1981g

).

Internet Availability: This issue of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series is being copublished, i.e., as

both a paper and Web document. The Web document, which will be in HTML (and thus searchable) and PDF formats,

can be accessed at: http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/publications/.

a

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes

from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183 p.

b

Turgeon, D.D. (chair); Quinn, J.F., Jr.; Bogan, A.E.; Coan, E.V.; Hochberg, F.G.; Lyons, W.G.; Mikkelsen, P.M.; Neves, R.J.; Roper, C.F.E.;

Rosenberg, G.; Roth, B.; Scheltema, A.; Thompson, F.G.; Vecchione, M.; Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic

invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. 2nd ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 26; 526 p.

c

Williams, A.B. (chair); Abele, L.G.; Felder, D.L.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Manning, R.B.; McLaughlin, P.A.; Pérez Farfante, I. 1989. Common and

scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 17; 77 p.

d

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine mammals of the world: systematics and distribution. Soc. Mar. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 4; 231 p.

e

Cooper, J.A.; Chapleau, F. 1998. Monophyly and interrelationships of the family Pleuronectidae (Pleuronectiformes), with a revised classification.

Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 96:686-726.

f

McEachran, J.D.; Dunn, K.A. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of skates, a morphologically conservative clade of elasmobranchs (Chondrichthyes:

Rajidae). Copeia 1998(2):271-290.

g

ISO [International Organization for Standardization]. 1981. ISO standards handbook 3: statistical methods. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO;

449 p.
Page iii

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ vii

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

Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................1

Development of Mail Survey Sample Frame ..................................................................................................................1

Development of Socioeconomic Survey Instrument......................................................................................................3

Implementation of Mail Survey ......................................................................................................................................4

Identification of Angler Subgroups for Analysis ..........................................................................................................4

Treatment of Potential Sampling Bias ............................................................................................................................4

Data Processing and Analysis .......................................................................................................................................5

Economic Expenditure Analysis ....................................................................................................................................5

Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................6

Massachusetts Recreational Saltwater Angler Segmentation .......................................................................................6

Basic Demographics and Angler Avidity ......................................................................................................................8

Identification and Evaluation of Massachusetts Angler Motivations, Expectations, and Outcomes ...........................8

Evaluation of Demand for Massachusetts Saltwater Fishing Opportunities as It Relates to Fishery Resource

Condition/Availability, According to Mode............................................................................................................... 10

Evaluation of Angler Switching among Fishing Modes ............................................................................................. 11

Evaluation of Trends in Angler Demand for Species-Specific Massachusetts Recreational Saltwater Fishing

 Activity .................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Determination and Evaluation of Economic Expenditures and Economic Impacts According to Economic Sector

 and Fishing Mode .................................................................................................................................................... 15

Evaluation of Massachusetts Recreational Saltwater Anglers’ Attitudes Toward Specific Fishery Management

 Actions .................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Importance of Various Items in the Selection of a Particular Partyboat on Which to Fish ......................................... 17

Endnotes............................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................. 17

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Tables

Table 1. Comparison of mail survey respondents with MRFSS-intercepted anglers for nonresponse bias check ........ 19

Table 2. Level of response to angler questionnaire for each mode ............................................................................... 19

Table 3. Responses to specialization index questions by mode .................................................................................... 20

Table 4. Frequency distribution of specialization level for partyboat, private boat, and shore saltwater anglers ......... 20

Table 5. Basic demographics of anglers according to survey mode .............................................................................. 21

Table 6. Percentage of partyboat anglers who said they took at least one of the following partyboat trip types in

the previous 12 mo, according to specialization level ...................................................................................... 21

Table 7. Average years of experience partyboat fishing, average number of days partyboat fishing during previous

12-mo period, and basic demographics of partyboat anglers, according to specialization level ...................... 22

Table 8. Average years of experience saltwater private boat fishing, average number of days saltwater private boat

fishing during previous 12-mo period, and basic demographics of private boat anglers, according to

specialization level ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 9. Average years of experience saltwater shore fishing, average number of days saltwater shore fishing

during previous 12-mo period, and basic demographics of shore anglers, according to specialization level .. 23

Table 10. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going partyboat fishing in Massachusetts ..................... 24

Table 11. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as first-, second-, or third-most important for going partyboat

fishing in Massachusetts................................................................................................................................. 25

Table 12. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going partyboat fishing in Massachusetts, according

to specialization level ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 13. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as one of their top three reasons for going saltwater partyboat

fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level ............................................................................ 26

Table 14. Extent to which partyboat anglers agreed or disagreed with various catch/retention statements ................... 27

Table 15. Relative agreement by partyboat anglers with various catch/retention statements, according to

specialization level ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Page iv

Table 16. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going private boat fishing in Massachusetts .................. 29

Table 17. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as first-, second-, or third-most important for going saltwater private

boat fishing in Massachusetts ........................................................................................................................ 30

Table 18. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts,

according to specialization level ...................................................................................................................... 31

Table 19. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as one of their top three reasons for going saltwater private boat

fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level ............................................................................ 31

Table 20. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers agreed or disagreed with various catch/retention

statements........................................................................................................................................................ 32

Table 21. Relative agreement by saltwater private boat anglers with various catch/retention statements, according to

specialization level ........................................................................................................................................... 33

Table 22. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts ............ 34

Table 23. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as first-, second-, or third-most important for going saltwater shore

fishing in Massachusetts................................................................................................................................. 35

Table 24. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts,

according to specialization level ...................................................................................................................... 36

Table 25. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as one of their top three reasons for going saltwater shore fishing in

Massachusetts, according to specialization level ............................................................................................ 36

Table 26. Extent to which saltwater shore anglers agreed or disagreed with various catch/retention statements .......... 37

Table 27. Relative agreement by saltwater shore anglers with various catch/retention statements, according to

specialization level ........................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 28. Extent to which partyboat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the reasons for not

fishing from partyboats in Massachusetts more often .................................................................................... 39

Table 29. Extent to which partyboat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the general level of

satisfaction with partyboat fishing in Massachusetts ..................................................................................... 40

Table 30. Relative agreement by partyboat anglers with various statements on the reasons for not fishing from

partyboats in Massachusetts more often, according to specialization level ................................................... 41

Table 31. Relative agreement by partyboat anglers with various statements on the general level of satisfaction with

partyboat fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level ........................................................... 42

Table 32. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the reasons

for not participating in saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts more often....................................... 43

Table 33. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the general

level of satisfaction with saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts ..................................................... 44

Table 34. Relative agreement by saltwater private boat anglers with various statements on the reasons for not

participating in saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts more often, according to specialization

level.................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Table 35. Relative agreement by saltwater private boat anglers with various statements on the general level of

satisfaction with saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level ............. 46

Table 36. Extent to which saltwater shore anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the reasons for not

participating in saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts more often ............................................................ 47

Table 37. Extent to which saltwater shore anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the general level of

satisfaction with saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts ............................................................................ 48

Table 38. Relative agreement by saltwater shore anglers with various statements on the reasons for not participating

in saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts more often, according to specialization level ............................. 49

Table 39. Relative agreement by saltwater shore anglers with various statements on the general level of satisfaction

with saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level ........................................... 50

Table 40. Avidity by partyboat survey anglers according to water type, fishing mode, and specialization level ........... 51

Table 41. Percentage of saltwater anglers who said they had purchased a freshwater fishing license in their state of

residence in 1998, according to saltwater fishing mode and specialization level ............................................. 51

Table 42. Percentage of partyboat anglers who said they had taken at least one whale-watching cruise in the past 12

mo, according to specialization level ............................................................................................................... 51

Table 43. Partyboat survey respondent reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type,

fishing mode, and time period .......................................................................................................................... 52

Table 44. Reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing mode, and time period,

for partyboat anglers reporting a decrease in Massachusetts partyboat trips from 1994 to 1998 .................... 52

Table 45. Avidity by private boat survey anglers according to water type, fishing mode, and specialization level ....... 53
Page v

Table 46. Private boat survey respondent reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type,

fishing mode, and time period .......................................................................................................................... 54

Table 47. Reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing mode, and time period,

for private boat anglers reporting a decrease in Massachusetts partyboat trips from 1994 to 1998 ................ 54

Table 48. Avidity by shore survey anglers according to water type, fishing mode, and specialization level ................. 55

Table 49. Shore survey respondent reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type,

fishing mode, and time period .......................................................................................................................... 56

Table 50. Reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing mode, and time period,

for shore anglers reporting a decrease in Massachusetts partyboat trips from 1994 to 1998 .......................... 56

Table 51. Percentage of partyboat anglers ranking a species as first-, second-, or third-most preferred to catch on

partyboat trips in Massachusetts .................................................................................................................... 57

Table 52. Percentage of partyboat anglers ranking the indicated species as one of the top three species they prefer to

catch when partyboat fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level ........................................ 57

Table 53. Percentage of Massachusetts partyboat anglers that reported actually targeting the indicated species on

partyboat fishing trips from 1996 to 1999 ......................................................................................................... 57

Table 54a. Extent to which partyboat anglers – both overall and by specialization level – agreed or disagreed with the

given reason on why they don’t fish from partyboats in Massachusetts more frequently ............................. 58

Table 54b. Relative importance placed by partyboat anglers – both overall and by specialization level – on the given

reason for deciding whether to go partyboat fishing in Massachusetts as compared to some other type of

fishing they may do in Massachusetts ............................................................................................................ 58

Table 54c. Relative importance placed by partyboat anglers – both overall and by specialization level – on the given

reason for selecting a particular Massachusetts partyboat on which to fish .................................................. 58

Table 55. Percentage of saltwater private boat anglers ranking a species as first-, second-, or third-most preferred to

catch on saltwater private boat trips in Massachusetts .................................................................................. 59

Table 56. Percentage of saltwater private boat anglers ranking the indicated species as one of the top three species

they prefer to catch when saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization

level.................................................................................................................................................................. 59

Table 57. Percentage of Massachusetts saltwater private boat anglers that reported actually targeting the indicated

species on saltwater private boat fishing trips from 1996 to 1999 .................................................................... 59

Table 58. Percentage of saltwater shore anglers ranking a species as first-, second-, or third-most preferred to catch

on saltwater shore fishing trips in Massachusetts .......................................................................................... 60

Table 59. Percentage of saltwater shore anglers ranking the indicated species as one of the top three species they

prefer to catch when saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level ................. 60

Table 60. Percentage of Massachusetts saltwater shore anglers that reported actually targeting the indicated species

on saltwater shore fishing trips from 1996 to 1999 ........................................................................................... 60

Table 61. Total economic impacts generated from recreational fishing expenditures by geographical location and

fishing mode in 1998 ........................................................................................................................................ 61

Table 62. Economic impacts generated from partyboat fishing expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998 ........................ 62

Table 63. Economic impacts generated from saltwater shore fishing expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998 ............... 63

Table 64. Economic impacts generated from saltwater private boat fishing expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998 ..... 64

Table 65. Economic impacts generated from partyboat fishing expenditures in Zone 1 in 1998 ...................................... 65

Table 66. Economic impacts generated from saltwater shore fishing expenditures in Zone 1 in 1998 ............................. 66

Table 67. Economic impacts generated from saltwater private boat fishing expenditures in Zone 1 in 1998 ................... 67

Table 68. Economic impacts generated from partyboat fishing expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998 ...................................... 68

Table 69. Economic impacts generated from saltwater shore fishing expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998 ............................. 69

Table 70. Economic impacts generated from saltwater private boat fishing expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998 ................... 70

Table 71. Percentage of anglers, by fishing mode and residence, that supported or opposed a Massachusetts

saltwater fishing license ................................................................................................................................... 71

Table 72. Percentage of anglers, by fishing mode and specialization level, that supported or opposed a

Massachusetts saltwater fishing license ......................................................................................................... 71

Table 73. Extent to which anglers, by fishing mode and specialization level, agreed or disagreed with the given

reason on why they don’t saltwater fish from partyboats in Massachusetts more frequently ........................ 72

Table 74. Extent to which partyboat anglers supported or opposed with various management tools for

Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries .............................................................................................. 73

Table 75. Relative support by partyboat anglers for various management tools for Massachusetts’ recreational

saltwater fisheries, according to specialization level ....................................................................................... 74
Page vi

Table 76. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers supported or opposed with various management tools for

Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries .............................................................................................. 75

Table 77. Relative support by saltwater private boat anglers for various management tools for Massachusetts’

recreational saltwater fisheries, according to specialization level .................................................................... 76

Table 78. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers supported or opposed with various management tools for

Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries .............................................................................................. 77

Table 79. Relative support by saltwater shore anglers for various management tools for Massachusetts’

recreational saltwater fisheries, according to specialization level .................................................................... 78

Table 80. Relative importance placed on various items to partyboat anglers in their selection of a particular

Massachusetts partyboat on which to fish ..................................................................................................... 79

Table 81. Relative importance placed on various items to partyboat anglers in their selection of a particular

Massachusetts partyboat to fish on, according to specialization level ........................................................... 80

Appendices

Appendix A1. Socioeconomic mail survey questionnaire of Massachusetts partyboat anglers .................................... 81

Appendix A2. Socioeconomic mail survey questionnaire of Massachusetts private boat anglers ................................ 97

Appendix A3. Socioeconomic mail survey questionnaire of Massachusetts shore anglers .........................................113

Appendix B. Map of Massachusetts saltwater fishing zones used for economic analysis .........................................129

Acronyms

IMPLAN = impact analysis for planning

IOA = input-output analysis

MRFSS = (NMFS’s) Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey

NMFS = (NOAA’s) National Marine Fisheries Service
Page vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study investigated various socioeconomic attributes of Massachusetts’ marine recreational anglers. Separate

analyses were conducted for each of three saltwater angler modes of fishing: partyboat, private boat, and shore. Socioeconomic attributes of Massachusetts saltwater anglers were also compared across levels of recreation specialization. Recreation specialization describes the variation among participants of a particular activity through segmenting the population

into meaningful and identifiable subgroups. For this study, anglers were segmented in recreation specialization levels by

using an index based on four variables: commitment to saltwater fishing, relationships with other anglers, orientation to

saltwater fishing, and types of experiences during fishing. Overall, private boat anglers were the most specialized group, and

partyboat anglers were the least specialized. In general, partyboat anglers appeared less connected to partyboat fishing than

were either private boat anglers to private boat fishing or shore anglers to shore fishing.

Anglers, initially contacted in the field following a fishing trip, were asked to participate in a followup mail survey.

A total of 511 partyboat, 470 private boat, and 269 shore anglers returned completed survey questionnaires. Overall

response rates were 50.5%, 65.5%, and 61.4% for partyboat, private boat, and shore modes, respectively. Over one-half (51%)

of those surveyed in the partyboat mode were out-of-state (i.e., non-Massachusetts) residents, while a smaller percentage of

those surveyed in the shore (41%) and private boat modes (28%) were out-of-state residents. The overwhelming majority of

anglers surveyed in all three modes were white males.

Massachusetts’ saltwater anglers had a variety of reasons for going saltwater fishing—both catch-related and

noncatch-related. On average, anglers in all three modes rated “fun of catching fish” and “for the experience of the catch” as

very important reasons for fishing. Private boat and shore anglers also rated “relaxation” and “to be outdoors” as being

between very and extremely important reasons to go fishing. Other highly rated noncatch-related reasons by anglers in all

three modes included “to be close to the water” and “to share experiences with friends, family, and others.” Catching fish to

eat was only rated between slightly and moderately important, on average, by anglers in all three modes.

Anglers were asked what their top three reasons were for going saltwater fishing in that particular mode. Private

boat and shore anglers favored noncatch-related aspects of the fishing experience (i.e., “for relaxation” and “to be outdoors”) over catch-related aspects as their number one reason for going fishing. Partyboat anglers also selected noncatchrelated aspects of fishing more often than catch-related aspects as their top reason to go fishing. However, partyboat anglers

placed more emphasis on social aspects of fishing such as “family recreation” and “sharing experiences with others” than did

shore or private boat anglers. For all modes, the relative importance that anglers placed on every reason for going saltwater

fishing increased with increasing specialization level. This was not surprising since highly specialized anglers, who fish more

often, are expected to have stronger motivations to go fishing.

Anglers were asked to respond to a series of statements related to catch aspects of saltwater fishing. Results

suggest that actually catching fish is not the only determinant of a satisfying fishing experience. In fact, a large percentage

of anglers in each mode agreed or strongly agreed that a fishing trip could be a success even if no fish were caught (i.e.,

partyboat 50%, private boat 76%, and shore 80%). Partyboat anglers, in general, placed more emphasis on catching fish as

a condition for a successful trip than did anglers in the other two modes. The majority of anglers in all three modes either

agreed or strongly agreed that the saltwater fishing opportunities in Massachusetts met their needs for a satisfying experience (i.e., partyboat 69%, private boat 82%, and shore 72%).

Constraints, or reasons why anglers did not participate in fishing more often, were also investigated. For all three

modes, the biggest apparent constraints were “too many other demands on my time” and “other leisure activities take up my

time.” In general, the importance of these time-related constraints decreased with increasing specialization level for anglers

in all three modes. For anglers in all three modes, lack of fish or low catch rates were not frequently cited as being important

reasons for fishing less often. The proportion of anglers who agreed with the statement that “I believe an increase in my

fishing activity would be bad for the resource” was also low for all three modes (i.e., 10% partyboat, 4.5% private boat, and

5.1% shore). This belief suggests that either anglers think the resource is fairly healthy, or they simply do no think that one

angler can have a negative impact. Cost of fishing was seen as a more important constraint among partyboat anglers and

private boat anglers as compared to shore anglers.

For this study, anglers were categorized by mode group, based on the particular mode in which they were fishing

when they were intercepted in the field. One objective of this research was to determine the extent to which anglers switch

among different modes of saltwater fishing, and also switch between saltwater and freshwater fishing. Our results suggest

that Massachusetts anglers tend to fish in multiple modes, water types (i.e., freshwater and saltwater), and states during the

course of a single year. Shore anglers (59%) were more likely to have purchased a freshwater fishing license in their state of

residence compared to private boat anglers (52%) and partyboat anglers (35%). The proportion of anglers purchasing a

freshwater license increased with specialization level for shore and partyboat anglers.

Another objective of this study was to investigate the decline in Massachusetts partyboat fishing in recent years.

Results suggest that some private boat and shore anglers had shifted their fishing activity — less partyboat fishing and more
Page viii

private boat and shore fishing — in recent years. For example, of those private boat anglers who reported a decrease in their

partyboat fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998, 85% reported an increase in their saltwater private boat fishing avidity, and 59%

also reported an increase in their saltwater shore avidity. The decline in partyboat fishing clientele may also be related to

increased popularity with wildlife watching as an alternative form of marine recreation. Our results found that 28% of

surveyed partyboat anglers indicated that they had taken a whale-watching cruise during the previous year.

The mode-switching trend that we found among some anglers (i.e., less partyboat trips and more private boat and

shore trips) may be related to a shift in species availability. Our results show that striped bass are by far the most popular

species targeted by saltwater shore and private boat anglers in Massachusetts. During the early to mid-1990s, striped bass

abundance increased dramatically as did recreational catches of this species. At the same time, the abundance of Atlantic

cod, historically one of the most preferred partyboat species, declined sharply. Our results suggest that some anglers

opportunistically switch fishing modes depending on the population status of preferred target species.

Input-output analysis was used to estimate the economic importance of shore fishing, private boat fishing, and

partyboat fishing to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to two coastal subregions within the state. In total, anglers’

expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998 generated almost $350 million in sales and over $142 million in income, and funded

approximately 5,600 jobs in the commonwealth. Partyboat fees paid to for-hire owners were the single most important

expense category for generating sales, income, and jobs from partyboat angler expenditures in Massachusetts and in the two

coastal subregions within the commonwealth. Expenditures for meals at restaurants and for lodging at hotels generated the

highest impacts for anglers fishing from shore and private boats. Bait and tackle purchases by shore and private boat

fishermen also contributed significant impacts, as did launch fees and boat fuel purchases by private fishermen.

This study also examined angler attitudes towards recreational fishing regulations and fishery management tools.

Our results show that anglers in all three modes were not very supportive of a proposed saltwater fishing license in

Massachusetts. The percentage of anglers opposing a license altogether was greater for private boat (72.7%) and shore

(75.1%) anglers than for partyboat anglers (56.6%). The difference was primarily made up by a much larger percentage of “no

opinions” (22.1%) among partyboat anglers as compared to private boat (3.2%) and shore (4.3%) anglers. Anglers from all

modes were generally supportive of minimum size limits, daily bag limits, and seasonal restrictions as recreational fishery

management tools. Less than 10% of anglers in all three modes felt that the reason they didn’t fish more often was related to

fishing regulations being too restrictive.
Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Saltwater fishing is an extremely popular form of outdoor recreation in Massachusetts that provides valuable

economic, social, educational, and health-related benefits.

Saltwater anglers have varied motivations and expectations

for participating in recreational fishing, and they collectively make considerable economic expenditures while engaged in this form of recreation. Saltwater anglers also

target a variety of different fish species, utilize different

fishing techniques, and pursue different angling modes (i.e.,

partyboat, charter boat, private boat, and shore).

The partyboat industry, in particular, occupies a unique

position in marine recreational fisheries. It is not only a

commercial enterprise that directly creates jobs and revenues, but it also attracts people to seaside localities, thus

supporting many tourist-driven economies. In addition,

partyboats serve an important role of providing affordable

access to publicly shared marine resources, of which anglers without private boats may otherwise be deprived.

However, there is a lack of specific data on angler motives

and expectations for participating in partyboat fishing in

Massachusetts. In addition, data are lacking on whether or

not Massachusetts partyboat anglers’ expectations are

being met and motivations are being satisfied, and on

whether expectations, motivations, or participation patterns

have changed with changes in resource availability.

This study was conducted to answer some of these

questions and to develop a better socioeconomic understanding of Massachusetts partyboat anglers. While

partyboat anglers were the focus of this study, saltwater

private boat and shore anglers were also surveyed for comparative purposes, and for exploring possible mode switching among anglers. Specific objectives addressed in this

study are: 1) identification and evaluation of Massachusetts saltwater angler motivations, expectations, and outcomes concerning their fishing experience, including both

catch and noncatch aspects; 2) segmentation of Massachusetts saltwater partyboat, private boat, and shore anglers into meaningful subgroups for analysis purposes; 3)

evaluation of demand (i.e., frequency of participation) for

Massachusetts saltwater fishing opportunities as it relates

to fishery resource condition/availability by fishing mode;

4) evaluation of angler switching among Massachusetts

partyboat, private boat, and shore modes of fishing; 5) evaluation of trends in angler demand for species-specific Massachusetts recreational saltwater fishing activity; 6) determination and evaluation of economic expenditures and economic impacts according to economic sector and fishing

mode; and 7) evaluation of Massachusetts saltwater anglers’ attitudes towards specific fishery management actions.

METHODS

This section is organized into seven subsections: 1)

“Development of Mail Survey Sample Frame,” 2) “Development of Socioeconomic Survey Instrument,” 3) “Implementation of Mail Survey,” 4) “Identification of Angler Subgroups

for Analysis,” 5) “Treatment of Potential Sampling Bias,” 6)

“Data Processing and Analysis,” and 7) “Economic Expenditure Analysis.”

DEVELOPMENT OF MAIL SURVEY SAMPLE

FRAME

Prior to implementation of the socioeconomic mail survey of Massachusetts’ saltwater anglers, it was first necessary to establish sample frames for each mode of interest:

partyboat, private boat, and shore. This establishment of

sample frames was accomplished through the onsite collection of angler names and addresses at Massachusetts saltwater fishing locations. The Marine Recreational Fisheries

Statistics Survey (MRFSS) is a national survey coordinated

by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and

conducted annually in all coastal continental U.S. states

except Texas. An important component of the MRFSS is

the Intercept Survey which consists of onsite personal interviews with anglers at randomly selected marine fishing

locations. For cost savings, logistical considerations, and

survey design simplicity, we decided to piggyback the task

of collecting angler names onto the MRFSS Intercept Survey. This piggybacking was done for private boat and shore

modes only. Development of the partyboat sample is further discussed later.

Private Boat and Shore Modes

Collection of names and addresses occurred from May

1 to September 5, 1998. This sampling period was chosen

because it corresponds with MRFSS sampling Waves 3 and

4 (i.e., May1 - August 31), and because it includes the peak

saltwater fishing months in Massachusetts. Ideally, anglers in the sample frame would represent all Massachusetts saltwater anglers who participated in a particular angling mode during 1998. However, since recreational saltwater fishing occurs in Massachusetts during all months of

the year, this study was limited in temporal scope. While

anglers we encountered from May through early September may actually fish during other months as well, we cannot assume that our sample represented the full 12-mo Massachusetts saltwater angler population. Instead, our sample

represents the angler population during this limited period.
Page 2

However, MRFSS data show that 82% of 1998 Massachusetts saltwater anglers fished at least once during July or

August, and more than three-fourths of Massachusetts

saltwater trips (76.5%) and total catch (77.5%) for 1998

occurred between May 1 and August 31 (NMFS 2000).

These MRFSS data strongly suggest that most of the 1998

Massachusetts recreational saltwater fishing population

was eligible for sampling during our sample period. Furthermore, these data also show that our sample period included the most important months for Massachusetts recreational saltwater fishing in terms of participation, catch,

and expenditures.

The MRFSS Intercept Survey is designed to sample

fishing trips proportional to fishing activity across all locations within a given state, wave (i.e., 2-mo sampling period),

and mode. Individual sites are weighted (by mode) according to the fishing pressure at that site, and sites are then

selected randomly. High-use sites have a greater probability of being drawn than do low-use sites. However, the

MRFSS site selection procedure does not follow a straightforward proportional probability sampling approach. Instead, sites are grouped according to pressure ranks (e.g.,

1-4 anglers, 5-8 anglers, etc.), and a formula is used to determine the probability of each pressure rank group being

drawn1

. Therefore, the probability that a given site will be

drawn is a function not only of its pressure rank, but also of

the number of other sites with the same pressure rank. The

fewer sites that there are within a pressure rank group, the

higher the probability of selection of any individual site

within that group. Additionally, low-pressure rank groups

are intentionally downweighted in the MRFSS sample draw.

This downweighting is done primarily to reduce the cost

per intercept, since low-pressure sites are less productive

(i.e., less anglers to interview). Despite these caveats, the

statistical validity and representativeness of the MRFSS

site selection sample design were considered adequate for

the purposes of this study. For more details regarding

MRFSS sampling methods, see the MRFSS user’s manual

(Gray et al. 1994).

At the conclusion of every MRFSS interview of private

boat and shore anglers in Massachusetts during Waves 3

and 4 of 1998, MRFSS interviewers were instructed to ask

anglers if they would be willing to participate in a followup

mail survey conducted by the University of Massachusetts. If they agreed, the angler’s name and address were

recorded on an index card. MRFSS interviewers were also

instructed not to collect more than one index card per family. Although most of our survey questions treat the individual angler (i.e., not the household) as the unit of analysis, this one-card-per-family limit had to be done to avoid

duplication and confusion on the economic expenditure

questions. In such cases, interviewers were told to select

an adult family member randomly to avoid biasing the sample

intentionally (e.g., always selecting the more experienced

angler).

Target sample sizes for returned, usable mail surveys

by mode were based on statistical considerations, comparisons with previous similar survey research (Rossi et al.

1983), and the relative importance of each mode to the study.

Assuming a 60% response rate, to achieve our targeted

sample size of 885 partyboat, 390 private boat, and 330 shore

angler-returned surveys would require initial mailing lists

of 1,475 partyboat anglers, 650 private boat anglers, and

550 shore anglers.

An attempt was also made to stratify our sample by

wave. Since our survey targets anglers and not individual

fishing trips, ideally we would want to sample the two waves

proportional to the number of anglers per wave by mode.

However, since the MRFSS does not estimate angler effort

by mode, we had to approximate effort in terms of trips. The

assumption we make here is that the distribution of trips

(by mode) roughly approximated the distribution of anglers

across the two waves of interest. A 5-yr average of MRFSS

trip estimates was used to determine the proportion of our

sample drawn from each wave. In both the partyboat and

private boat modes, 30% of the trips occur in Wave 3 (i.e.,

May-June), and 70% in Wave 4 (i.e., July-August). In the

shore mode, 46% of the trips occur in Wave 3, and 54% in

Wave 4.

MRFSS interviewers collected usable names and addresses of 733 private boat (13% over target) and 464 shore

anglers (16% under target) who indicated a willingness to

participate in our followup mail survey. The percentage of

sample collected by wave closely approximated our target

for both the private boat mode (35% in Wave 3, 65% in Wave

4) and the shore mode (45% in Wave 3, 55% in Wave 4).

Partyboat Mode

The MRFSS target sample sizes for shore and private

boat interviewers for Waves 3 and 4 were sufficiently large

to assure an adequate sample for our purposes using the

method of collecting angler names described previously.

However, for the partyboat mode, the MRFSS sample size

in Massachusetts was too small to guarantee a sufficient

number of returned surveys after accounting for onsite refusals and a 60% mail survey response rate. In addition, the

MRFSS combines charter boats with partyboats into a single

intercept sampling mode. Therefore, the MRFSS randomized site selection sampling of this combined “for-hire” mode

is representative of the combined (i.e., partyboat and charter boat) fishing activity, not just partyboat activity. For

these reasons, a different sampling approach was used to

collect partyboat angler names than was used to collect

private boat and shore angler names.

However, the partyboat angler sample frame was still

obtained within the framework of the MRFSS in order to

take advantage of the existing MRFSS fishing site list and

well-established representative sampling scheme. To ob-
Page 3

tain the sample frame in this manner, we had the MRFSS

contractor — Quantech, Inc. — run simulated MRFSS site

assignment draws for the Massachusetts party/charter boat

mode for Waves 3 and 4. However, we first had to account

for the MRFSS site selection procedure combining the “for

hire” modes (i.e., partyboats and charter boats), while our

study was only interested in partyboats. Therefore, we

eliminated from the site register all MRFSS partyboat/charter boat sites that only had charter boat activity, and reduced the fishing pressure rank of sites with both modes to

only reflect partyboat activity. Experienced MRFSS interviewers were helpful in determining the new (i.e., partyboat

only) pressure ranks for these sites. Adjusted pressure

ranks were assigned to each site by month and day type

(i.e., weekday and weekend/holiday). A total of 17 active

Massachusetts partyboat fishing sites were included in our

site selection program.

Since we did not know how many names and addresses

we could obtain per assignment, the initial simulated draw

was fairly large to avoid a major shortfall. As long as assignments are conducted in the order that they are drawn,

the design’s randomness will not be hindered if some assignments (i.e., reserves) are not actually completed. The

site assignment list indicated which sites to visit, how often

to visit each site, and in what order sites were to be visited

over each 2-mo wave. For logistical and budgetary reasons, it was not always possible to follow the exact site

visitation order, and some flexibility was allowed. The actual sites to visit and the frequency of visits per wave (as

determined by the draw) took precedence over the specific

dates assigned to each site. For example, if two nearby

sites were to be visited 1 wk apart, but the driving distance

to these sites was great, cost considerations would dictate

both sites being sampled on the same day. Since sites were

generally visited within 1 wk of assignment date, a fairly

even distribution of site visits was achieved across the

wave. Only one site (i.e., Nantucket Island) was not visited

due to budgetary considerations. The MRFSS assignment

draw is designed not only to spread sampling effort across

the wave, but also to achieve a 60%-40% split between

weekend/holiday and weekday visits. Every effort was made

to approximate this split in the distribution and management of our sampling effort whenever logistically possible.

Although our sample design was intended to sample

proportionally to the number of partyboat anglers present,

in reality, other factors affected interviewer productivity.

One important factor was the receptivity of partyboat captains (or site administrators) to our interviewers or our study.

For example, at some sites, our interviewers were physically

chased off the premises and asked not to return, while at

other sites, captains actively assisted in collecting angler

names. Angler cooperation rates also seemed to vary by

fishing site and location. Other factors that may have affected individual site productivity included trip type, physical layout of the site (e.g., distance from boat to parking lot,

and number and location of partyboats), and interviewer’s

personal skills. However, despite these potential sampling

biases, we believe that our sample of Massachusetts

partyboat angler names was still representative of the true

population, and therefore sufficient for the purposes of this

study.

Field staff for the collection of partyboat angler names

and addresses were trained University of Massachusetts

students. To decrease travel costs and to increase productivity, partyboat captains and mates were also employed at

some sites to collect names and addresses of their patrons

on specified days. A total of 1,064 usable names and addresses of partyboat anglers were collected for the followup

mail survey. This 27% shortfall from our targeted sample

size was primarily due to lower productivity than expected

at some sites, and the unexpected departure of several field

interviewers during the sampling period. The percentage

of sample collected by wave (27% in Wave 3, 73% in Wave

4) closely approximated our target (30% in Wave 3, 70% in

Wave 4).

DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY

INSTRUMENT

Mail survey instrument questions were designed to

address the specific objectives of this study (see “Introduction” section). Questionnaires for the three modes of

interest (i.e., partyboat, private boat, and shore) were nearly

identical with only minor differences in wording and modespecific questions (Appendices A1, A2, and A3). Recreational-fishing-related socioeconomic questions which had

already been tested and proven effective in previous studies (e.g., conducted at Texas A&M University and the University of Massachusetts), were used whenever possible.

In some instances, new questions had to be developed;

these questions were thoroughly reviewed inhouse for

meaning, clarity, comprehensibility, and language.

Questionnaires were 16 pages long (on 7 x 8.5-inch

pages), including a front cover and a back page for angler

comments. Areas covered by the questionnaire included

basic demographics, avidity (current and trends), species

preferences, specialization level, trip expenditures, motivations, expectations, constraints, and attitudes towards fishery management. NMFS fishery economists were consulted

in development of the economic expenditure section. For

analysis purposes, the economic section of the survey split

Massachusetts’ coastal counties into the following two

zones: Zone 1 (Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, Plymouth,

Bristol, Suffolk, and Norfolk Counties) and Zone 2 (Essex

and Middlesex Counties). Economic expenditure information was collected by zone, and a map (Appendix B) was

provided to help anglers delineate zones. Massachusetts

Division of Marine Fisheries staff were also consulted in

overall questionnaire design, particularly on questions related to fishery management and the possible implementation of a saltwater fishing license.
Page 4

IMPLEMENTATION OF MAIL SURVEY

In an attempt to maximize return rates, we followed the

techniques for mail survey implementation described by

Salant and Dillman (1994). All members of the sample were

mailed a personalized (i.e., hand-signed, stamped, and addressed) advance-notice letter, reminding them that they

had agreed to participate in the survey, and that they would

be receiving their questionnaire within the following week.

One-week later, a set of survey materials was mailed to all

members of the sample. These materials included the questionnaire, a cover letter describing the intent of the survey,

and a self-addressed stamped envelope for returning completed surveys. Two weeks after mailing the advance-notice letter, a thank you/reminder postcard was mailed to all

members of the sample. This followup served to thank those

who had already completed and returned their questionnaire, and to request a response from those who had not.

Five weeks after mailing the advance-notice letter, a

second set of survey materials was sent to those who had

not yet responded. This second survey package was identical to the first, except that the cover letter was revised to

further encourage anglers to return completed surveys.

IDENTIFICATION OF ANGLER SUBGROUPS FOR

ANALYSIS

Outdoor recreation participants generally display wide

variation in their experiences, avidity, expertise, commitment,

economic expenditures, and social interactions related to a

particular activity. Connected to this variation are important sociological and psychological differences affecting

motivations, expectations, desired outcomes, satisfaction

levels, perceptions, and social norms. Outdoor recreation

managers must recognize and accommodate these differences in order to provide satisfactory experiences to a widely

diverse clientele.

Recreation Specialization

Recreation specialization is a concept and an area of

study that attempt to describe the variation among participants of a particular activity (e.g., recreational fishing)

through segmenting the population into meaningful and

identifiable subgroups. Recreation specialization studies

have segmented recreation participants into meaningful

subgroups using a variety of variables including equipment, skill level, activity setting preferences, avidity, centrality to lifestyle, and expenditures. However, Ditton et al.

(1992) pointed to the tautological reasoning behind defining specialization in terms of behaviors and preferences,

and then using specialization to predict those same behaviors and preferences. They reconceptualized specialization

into a testable theory by linking it with elements of “social

worlds.” A social world is defined as an “internally recognizable constellation of actors, organizations, events and

practices which have coalesced into a perceived sphere of

interest and involvement for participants” (Unruh 1979).

Our theoretical foundation for segmenting anglers into specialization groups was taken from the Ditton et al. (1992)

reconceptualization of recreation specialization.

Recreation specialization is important for fishery management because it recognizes that there is no such thing

as an “average” angler. Anglers generally display wide

variation in their experiences, avidity, expertise, commitment,

economic expenditures, and social interactions related to

fishing. Connected to this variation are important sociological and psychological differences affecting motivations,

expectations, desired outcomes, satisfaction levels, social

norms, and attitudes towards fishery management decisions.

For example, specialization theory predicts that more-specialized anglers will have greater support for fishery management rules and regulatory procedures, place more importance on non activity-specific elements of the fishing

experience (e.g., enjoying nature, relaxing, being with friends

or family, etc.), place less importance on activity-specific

elements of the fishing experience (i.e., catching fish), and

have a greater financial and emotional investment in fishing

as compared to less-specialized anglers.

Recreation Specialization Index Development

A specialization index developed by Salz and Loomis

(2000), that segments anglers based on four main social

world characteristics (i.e., orientation, experiences, relationships, and commitment), was utilized for this study. Mail

survey questions were designed to measure each of these

characteristics (see Appendices A1, A2, and A3, Questions

9-12). Question response options, consisting of statements

describing a participant’s connection to an activity relative

to that particular characteristic, were ordered from least specialized (response = 1) to most specialized (response = 4)

along a four-point scale. Anglers were segmented into four

groups (ranging from least to most specialized) based on

cumulative response scores to index items as follows:

• If cumulative score = 4-6, then index level = 1

(least specialized).

• If cumulative score = 7-10, then index level = 2

(moderately specialized).

• If cumulative score = 11-13, then index level = 3

(very specialized).

• If cumulative score = 14-16, then index level = 4

(most specialized).

TREATMENT OF POTENTIAL SAMPLING BIAS

Although our survey design was intended, to the extent possible, to sample a representative population of

Massachusetts saltwater anglers (by mode), potential sam-
Page 5

pling bias still had to be addressed for each stage of sampling. The first stage involved the onsite collection of angler names and addresses at saltwater fishing locations

throughout Massachusetts. A primary concern when sampling a population of recreational participants while they

are actively participating in the activity of interest is that of

avidity bias. Avidity bias refers to the fact that more avid

participants are more likely to be encountered onsite, and,

therefore, have a higher probability of being sampled. For

example, an angler who fished from partyboats 10 days during our sampling period was 10 times more likely to be intercepted than an angler who only fished from a partyboat 1

day during that period. Avidity bias can be problematic if

more avid participants differ from less avid participants in a

way that is significant to the study. To correct for this

potential bias, we created a weighting variable that would

downweight more avid anglers, and upweight less avid anglers. This variable was the inverse of angler avidity (i.e.,

weighting factor = 1/avidity). Avidity was measured as the

number of days fished recreationally in saltwater in Massachusetts in a particular mode during the past 12 mo. All

analyses (except those in the “Economic Expenditure Analysis” section) were weighted by this variable (e.g., weighted

means and weighted frequency distributions). Ideally, the

weighting variable would have been the inverse of angler

avidity only during our 4-mo sampling period. However,

since these data were not available, 12-mo avidity was used

instead. Weighting factors using 12-mo avidity should

closely resemble the true weights (during our sampling period), since most Massachusetts saltwater fishing activity

occurs from May through August.

The second type of potential sampling bias that we

addressed was related to nonresponse. Nonresponse bias

occurs when a significant percentage of the sample does

not respond and nonrespondents differ from respondents

in a way that is significant to the results. Nonresponse bias

can be a problem at any stage of sampling. For our study,

nonrespondents included both anglers who refused to give

their names for the followup mail survey (i.e., initial refusals) and anglers who agreed to participate but did not follow through by returning the survey. While no data are

available on initial refusals, our mail survey nonresponse

rates ranged from 34.5% (private boat) to 49.5% (partyboat).

To test for nonresponse bias, we compared our mail

survey respondents with those anglers intercepted onsite

by the MRFSS for the waves corresponding with our sample

period (i.e., Waves 3 and 4, 1998). The percentage of anglers refusing to cooperate on MRFSS intercepts for these

two waves was small in all modes2

. Therefore, by comparing mail survey respondents with MRFSS-intercepted anglers, we are essentially conducting a nonresponse check

for both types of nonrespondents (i.e., initial refusals and

survey not returned) simultaneously. For the private boat

and shore modes, the MRFSS sample design was identical

to ours, since MRFSS interviewers actually collected our

sample. In addition, our partyboat sample design closely

approximated the MRFSS design since we used the same

site register, same site selection procedure, and same

monthly targets. Both the 12-mo avidity in mode and the

residence status (i.e., Massachusetts versus out-of-state)

were used to compare mail survey respondents with MRFSSintercepted anglers. Results of this comparison are summarized in Table 1. In general, differences between mail survey

respondent and MRFSS-intercepted angler avidity and residence composition were relatively small. These results suggest that mail survey nonrespondents did not differ significantly from MRFSS-intercepted anglers for the variables

investigated. While the possibility remains that

nonrespondents differed from anglers on other variables of

interest, our initial investigation suggests that nonresponse

bias is not of great concern here.

DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

Returned usable surveys were entered into three

datasets (one per mode) for error checking and data analyses purposes. Range checks, outlier analyses, and multivariable logic checks were performed, and corrections were

made as necessary. In most cases, errors were converted to

missing values, as it was not possible to determine positively the correct or intended value. Determinations of economic expenditure variable outliers were made in consultation with NMFS fishery economists experienced in working

with such economic data. Most statistical analyses consisted primarily of weighted means and weighted frequency

distributions (see earlier discussion of weighting procedures).

ECONOMIC EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS

In 1998, over 630 thousand saltwater anglers fished 3.4

million days in Massachusetts (NMFS 2000). Fishing from

shore, a private boat, or a for-hire fishing boat offers an

important leisure outlet for many individuals in the commonwealth, and also generates economic activity in the form

of sales, income, and employment. During the course of a

fishing trip, anglers purchase a variety of goods and services, spending money on bait, tackle, groceries, boat fees,

lodging, restaurants, travel costs, and other trip-related expenditures. These purchases directly affect the sales, income, and employment of businesses that supply goods

and services to saltwater anglers in Massachusetts. Businesses providing these goods and services must also purchase goods and services and hire employees, which in

turn, generate more sales, income, and employment in the

commonwealth.

Three levels of economic impacts result from purchases

by saltwater fishermen: 1) direct, 2) indirect, and 3) induced.

Direct impacts are the sales, income, and employment generated from initial purchases by anglers (e.g., bait and tackle

stores or sporting goods stores selling bait to anglers).

Indirect impacts are sales, income, and employment of sup-
Page 6

port industries that supply the directly affected industries

(e.g., bait and tackle stores must purchase bait from dealers

or fishermen, tackle from wholesalers, and electricity from

power supply companies, and must pay labor). Induced

impacts represent the sales, income, and employment resulting from expenditures by employees of the direct and

indirect sectors (e.g., bait and tackle store employees purchase groceries and incur utility bills). Total impacts equal

the sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts.

Input-output analysis (IOA) is the most common approach available for describing the structure and interactions of businesses in a regional economy. An IOA is capable of tracking the quantity and purchase location of

expenditures by anglers, support businesses, and employees of the directly and indirectly affected industries. Also,

IOA assessments can be used to reveal how anglers’ expenditures affect the overall economic activity in a particular region, such as sales, income, and employment. For the

analysis presented here, a regional IOA modeling system

called IMPLAN (impact analysis for planning) was used to

determine the economic importance of shore fishing, private boat fishing, and partyboat fishing to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to two coastal subregions

within the state (see Appendix B for map of Massachusetts

Saltwater Fishing Zones).

Average daily trip-related expenditures per fisherman

were computed from the 1998 survey of Massachusetts saltwater shore fishing, private boat fishing, and partyboat fishing. Mean expenditures were estimated for each mode of

fishing in three geographical regions: 1) Zone 1 — Norfolk,

Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket Counties, 2) Zone 2 — Essex and Middlesex Counties, and 3) the

entire state of Massachusetts. The average daily trip-related expenditures per participant were multiplied by the

MRFSS estimates of total fishing days by mode in each

geographical region in 1998 to derive total expense estimates.

Economic impacts were estimated by applying the total

expense estimates to the appropriate IMPLAN sector multipliers (i.e., expressing relationships between sectoral economic activity) in each geographical region. Regional impacts were estimated for sales, income, and employment.

Sales reflect total dollar sales generated from expenditures

by anglers in the particular region. Income represents wages,

salaries, benefits, and proprietary income generated from

angler expenditures. Employment includes both full-time

and part-time workers, and is expressed as total jobs.

The economic expenditure analysis differed from all

other analyses in several important ways. First, expenditures were not analyzed by mode and specialization level

(as with the other objectives) but instead by mode and geographic zone. Saltwater-fishing-trip-related expenditures

were estimated by angler residence category (i.e., Zone 1,

Zone 2, noncoastal Massachusetts, or out-of-state) and

location of fishing trip (i.e., Zone 1 or Zone 2). The economic analysis also differed in its focus on the angler trip

(and not the angler) as the unit of analysis. For the other

objectives of this study, it was important to obtain a representative sample of Massachusetts saltwater anglers, and

therefore, weighting was necessary to correct for avidity

bias. However, for the economic analysis, weighting was

not necessary since it was only important to obtain a representative sample of saltwater fishing trips (not anglers).

The 1998 Massachusetts saltwater fishing trip estimates

needed to run IMPLAN were estimated based on MRFSS

data3

. However, only MRFSS coastal county resident trips

were available at the level of detail necessary (i.e., by mode,

angler county of residence, and county of trip). MRFSS

noncoastal county Massachusetts resident and noncoastal

county out-of-state resident trips were only available in

aggregate form and not at the county level. Therefore, ratio

estimators from the MRFSS intercept data were used to

assign the noncoastal county resident trips to either Zone

1 or Zone 2. These ratio estimators were simply the proportion of noncoastal county resident MRFSS intercepts by

residence (i.e., Massachusetts versus out-of-state), wave,

and mode for 1998.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 511 partyboat, 470 private boat, and 269 shore

mode questionnaires were returned in usable form (Table

2). Overall response rates were 50.5% for partyboat anglers, 65.5% for private boat anglers, and 61.4% for shore

anglers.

Data analysis was divided into subsections according

to seven project objectives. In addition to these seven

subsections, two subsections are included for basic demographics and angler avidity, and for angler partyboat selection criteria. Each subsection (except those dealing with

economic expenditure analysis and partyboat selection criteria) is further divided into four parts: three parts respectively discussing results for the three fishing modes (i.e.,

partyboat, private boat, and shore), and one part comparing results among fishing modes. Each subsection highlights the most significant findings related to that objective, and references a series of tables with summarized data.

As discussed in the “Methods” section, to correct for potential avidity bias, all means and frequency distributions

are weighted by the inverse of avidity (i.e., 12-mo, Massachusetts, saltwater trips, in specific mode).

MASSACHUSETTS RECREATIONAL SALTWATER

ANGLER SEGMENTATION

Frequency distributions of responses to the four questions used to segment anglers into specialization groups

were calculated for each angling mode (Table 3). For each

specialization question, a response of “1” corresponded

with specialization level 1 or “least specialized,” a response
Page 7

of “2” corresponded with specialization level 2 or “moderately specialized,” a response of “3” corresponded with

specialization level 3 or “very specialized,” and a response

of “4” corresponded with specialization level 4 or “most

specialized.” Thus, an angler could be “least specialized”

for one characteristic of specialization (e.g., relationships)

and “highly specialized” for another characteristic (e.g.,

commitment). The four characteristics were combined to

produce an overall level of specialization for each angler

using the specialization index described earlier in the “Recreation Specialization Index Development” section.

Partyboat Anglers

More than two-thirds of partyboat anglers indicated

they felt like “observers or irregular participants” when

partyboat fishing, and less than 3% felt like “insiders to the

sport” (Table 3). One-half of partyboat anglers reported

having no established relationships with other partyboat

anglers, and only 15% reported having established either

“familiar” or “close” relationships.

Frequency distributions of partyboat angler specialization level by mode are shown in Table 4. Only 20% of

partyboat anglers were categorized as either “very specialized” or “most specialized.”

Private Boat Anglers

About one out of four (27.1%) private boat anglers felt

like an “insider” to private boat fishing, and another 44.8%

felt like “habitual of regular participants.” Most private

boat anglers reported they had established some relationships with other private boat anglers, and for many (45%),

these relationships were described as “familiar” or “close.”

Overall, 64% of private boat anglers were categorized

as either “very specialized” or “most specialized” using our

method for segmentation. The “least specialized” private

boat angler group was extremely small (0.5%). This group

was excluded from subsequent subgroup analyses according to specialization level due to its small sample size.

There are several possible explanations as to why the

“least specialized” group made up such a small proportion

of our sample. First, we should not rule out the possibility

that this specialization group may, in fact, be much smaller

in size than the other specialization groups for saltwater

private boat anglers. This would be the case if the learning

curve from “least specialized” to “moderately specialized”

requires a relatively short time period. Second, nonresponse

bias could also be a possible explanation if the probability

of an angler returning our survey was positively correlated

to the angler’s specialization level. However, our

nonresponse error checks do not support this explanation.

Third, the choice of words we used for the “least specialized” response options could explain the low percentage of

anglers selecting those options. Private boat anglers may

have felt too embarrassed or ashamed to identify themselves

with words such as “outsider,” “uncomfortable,” “unsure,”

or “uncertain,” all of which may have strong negative connotations.

Our results suggest that “least specialized” private boat

anglers are either more difficult to sample than more-specialized anglers, or that “least specialized” anglers are truly

a small minority of the saltwater private boat angling population.

Shore Anglers

Nearly one-half (47.2%) of shore anglers felt like “an

observer or irregular participant” when saltwater shore fishing, while only 16.1% felt like “insiders to the sport” of

saltwater shore fishing (Table 3). The majority of surveyed

shore anglers indicated that they had not established “familiar” or “close” relationships with other shore anglers.

Similar to private boat anglers, a very small proportion

(4.5%) of shore anglers was grouped into the “least specialized” level (Table 4). This very small proportion resulted in

sample sizes for the “least specialized” group of shore

anglers being too small to include in subsequent subgroup

analyses according to specialization level. Explanations as

to why the “least specialized” group made up such a small

proportion of shore anglers are similar to those discussed

for private boat anglers.

Mode Comparison

 In general, partyboat anglers appeared less connected

to partyboat fishing than were either private boat anglers to

private boat fishing or shore anglers to shore fishing. More

than two-thirds of partyboat anglers indicated they felt like

“observers or irregular participants” when partyboat fishing, and less than 3% felt like “insiders” to the sport. By

contrast 27.1% of private boat anglers felt like “insiders” to

private boat fishing and another 44.8% felt like “habitual or

regular participants.” One-half of partyboat anglers reported

having no established relationships with other partyboat

anglers and only 15% reported having established either

“familiar” or “close” relationships. Most private boat and

shore anglers said they established some relationships with

other anglers in their respective modes, and for many (45%

private boat, 42% shore) these relationships were described

as “familiar” or “close.” Partyboat anglers were also, in

general, far less committed to partyboat fishing than were

private boat or shore anglers to their respective modes of

fishing.

In general, there were more highly specialized private

boat anglers than highly specialized shore anglers, who

were, in turn, more numerous than highly specialized

partyboat anglers. Only 20% of partyboat anglers were

categorized as either “very” or “most specialized,” compared to 44% of shore anglers and 64% of private boat

anglers.
Page 8

BASIC DEMOGRAPHICS AND ANGLER AVIDITY

Partyboat Anglers

Nearly 80% of surveyed partyboat anglers were male

(Table 5), and less than 6% indicated something other than

“white” as their ethnic background. About one-half of the

surveyed partyboat anglers were not residents of Massachusetts.

The group of “most specialized” partyboat anglers preferred full-day trips to half-day trips (Table 6). The proportion of partyboat anglers who did either evening/night or

overnight partyboat fishing (in the previous year) increased

with specialization level. Overnight trips, in particular, were

almost exclusively made by “most specialized” partyboat

anglers. As expected, years partyboat fishing, 12-mo avidity, age, and percent male all increased with partyboat respondent specialization level (Table 7). Whereas “least

specialized,” “moderately specialized,” and “very specialized” partyboat anglers are evenly split between Massachusetts and out-of-state residents, a large majority of the

“most specialized” partyboat anglers were from out-of-state.

Although the sample size for this group was small, these

results suggest that a significant proportion of the most

committed, experienced, and knowledgeable Massachusetts

partyboat anglers reside in other states.

Private Boat Anglers

An overwhelming majority of surveyed private boat

anglers were white males (Table 5). Most surveyed private

boat anglers were also Massachusetts residents. Similar to

the partyboat mode, years fished, avidity, and percent male

all increased with increasing specialization level among private boat anglers (Table 8).

Shore Anglers

Similar to the private boat mode, an overwhelming majority of shore anglers were white males (Table 5). A fairly

large percentage of surveyed shore anglers were not Massachusetts residents (40.7%). Years fished, avidity, and

percent male all increased with increasing specialization level

among shore anglers (Table 9).

Mode Comparison

The partyboat survey had a greater proportion of female anglers (20.3%) than the other two modes (private boat

3.2%, shore 2.6%). A relatively large proportion of anglers

were not residents of Massachusetts. However, this outof-state residency was most evident in the partyboat (49.3%)

and shore (40.7%) modes, and less so in the private boat

mode (28.0%). Another difference between modes was that

for partyboat anglers, specialization level increases with

age, whereas age appeared unrelated to specialization level

among private boat and shore anglers.

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF

MASSACHUSETTS ANGLER MOTIVATIONS,

EXPECTATIONS, AND OUTCOMES

Partyboat Anglers

Anglers were asked to indicate how important 15 different reasons were for going saltwater fishing in Massachusetts in their respective modes. Responses were scored on

a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = not at all important” to “5 = extremely important.” On average, partyboat

anglers rated “fun of catching fish” and “to be outdoors”

as the two most important reasons (Table 10). Other highly

rated reasons included “relaxation,” “experience of the

catch,” and “to share experiences with others.” The reason

of “obtaining fish to eat” was rated as being only slightly to

moderately important.

Partyboat anglers were asked to select their top three

reasons (from the 15 given) for going saltwater partyboat

fishing in Massachusetts. Responses to this question were

different than what one would have predicted based on

relative importance scores from Table 10. “For family recreation” was selected as the most important reason more frequently (18.7%) than any other reason, even though this

response only ranked seventh in relative importance based

on the five-point scale (Table 11). Similarly, “to share experiences with friends, family, others” was selected as the

most important reason second-most frequently (17.9%), even

though this reason tied for third in relative importance based

on the five-point scale. In terms of relative importance,

“share experiences with friends, family, others ” scored the

same (3.81) as “for experience of the catch” and “relaxation.” However, far more anglers selected “share experiences with friends, family, others” (45.6%) as one of their

top three reasons than selected “for experience of the

catch”(24.8%) or “relaxation” (31.3%). These results suggest that for many partyboat anglers, the social aspects of

partyboat fishing (and the family-related aspects in particular) are an extremely important reason for selecting this form

of recreation. “Fun of catching fish” also ranked high as

nearly half the partyboat anglers (46.1%) selected this as

one of their top three reasons for partyboat fishing.

Reasons for partyboat fishing were also investigated

according to specialization level (Table 12). In general, the

importance of a reason for going partyboat fishing increased

with specialization level for all reasons. This trend indicates that the more-specialized partyboat anglers have multiple reasons or motivations for going fishing, as opposed

to less-specialized anglers who have fewer reasons. For

example, “most specialized” partyboat anglers rated 11 (out

of 15) reasons as being between “very” and “extremely”

important, on average. In contrast, “least specialized”
Page 9

partyboat anglers did not rate any reason as being between

“very” and “extremely” important, on average.

When anglers were asked to rank their top three reasons, “fun of catching fish” was ranked high by all specialization levels (Table 13). The importance of “relaxation”

and to “get away from the demands of others” generally

increased with specialization level, whereas the social aspects of partyboat fishing were more important for lessspecialized anglers. However, one-fourth of the “most specialized” partyboat anglers ranked “to catch fish to share

with others” in their top three, indicating a dimension to the

social benefits of partyboat fishing that occurs after the trip

is completed. For beginners, the novelty of partyboat fishing was an important reason, as nearly 35% of “least specialized” anglers ranked “to experience new and different

things” as one of their top three reasons.

To investigate catch-related aspects of saltwater fishing, we asked anglers whether they agreed or disagreed

with a series of statements related to catching fish. Almost

two-thirds (65.9%) of partyboat anglers agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement that “the more fish I catch the

happier I am”; however, over 57% of partyboat anglers

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “I would

rather catch one or two big fish than ten smaller fish” (Table

14). About one-half (51.7%) of all surveyed partyboat anglers either agreed or strongly agreed that “a successful

trip is one in which many fish are caught”; on the other

hand, almost one-half (49.9%) of surveyed partyboat anglers agreed or strongly agreed with, and only 26.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed with, the statement that “a

fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught.”

Catch-related aspects of saltwater partyboat fishing were

also investigated according to specialization level. Morespecialized partyboat anglers were more likely to agree with

the statement “I usually eat the fish I catch” (Table 15).

“Least specialized” partyboat anglers were less concerned

with the type of fish they caught than were the more-specialized groups.

Private Boat Anglers

On average, private boat anglers rated “relaxation” as

the most important reason for going saltwater private boat

fishing, followed by “fun of catching fish,” “to be outdoors,”

and “to be close to the water” (Table 16). Reasons for

going saltwater private boat fishing rated as less important

included catching fish for consumption (i.e., either to eat or

to share with other people) and testing equipment. Over

40% of private boat anglers selected “to share experiences

with friends, family, others” as one of their top three reasons for going fishing (Table 17), trailing only the reasons

of “relaxation” (49.3%) and “to be outdoors” (44.6%).

Table 18 shows mean responses by private boat anglers concerning the importance of various attributes of

their fishing experience according to specialization level,

and Table 19 shows the proportion selecting each reason

as one of their top three according to specialization level.

The importance of nearly every attribute of the private boat

fishing experience increased with specialization level. This

is not surprising since more-specialized anglers fish more

often and should therefore have more reasons for going

fishing, and should rank those reasons higher in importance.

A large proportion (75.6%) of private boat anglers either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “a

fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught”

(Table 20). However, only 25.4% of private boat anglers

either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that

“when I go fishing I’m just as happy if I don’t catch a fish.”

The responses to these two questions seem to indicate that

while private boat anglers are motivated to fish for reasons

other than catching fish, catching fish is an important factor in terms of their overall satisfaction. Only 19.9% of

private boat anglers either strongly disagreed or disagreed

with the statement that “I’m just as happy if I don’t keep the

fish I catch.” This response suggests a fairly strong catchand-release ethic among Massachusetts private boat saltwater anglers.

The importance of catching a particular type of fish

increased with specialization level among private boat anglers (Table 21). The “most specialized” private boat anglers were more concerned with the size of the fish, and less

concerned with the quantity, as compared to either moderately of very specialized groups.

Shore Anglers

On average, shore anglers rated “relaxation” as

the most important reason for going saltwater shore fishing, followed by “fun of catching fish,” “to be outdoors,”

and “to be close to the water” (Table 22). Consumptionrelated reasons (i.e., to eat or share fish with others), to test

equipment, and to catch a “trophy” fish were among the

least highly rated reasons to go saltwater shore fishing.

Nearly one-half of shore anglers (49.2%) selected “relaxation” as one of their top three reasons for going saltwater

shore fishing (Table 23).

Similar to the other two modes, the importance of most

attributes of the shore fishing experience increased with

increasing specialization level (Table 24), indicating that

more-specialized anglers have more reasons to go fishing

than do less-specialized anglers. When asked to rank their

top three reasons for saltwater shore fishing, less-specialized anglers placed more emphasis on the “fun of catching

fish” than did more-specialized anglers (Table 25). By contrast, the “most specialized” shore anglers placed more importance on the “challenge or sport” and “catching a trophy fish” than did less-specialized shore anglers.

Nearly 80% of shore anglers either agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement that “a fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught” (Table 26). Similarly, a large

proportion of shore anglers indicated they were just as happy
Page 10

if they didn’t keep the fish they caught. The importance of

catching a particular type of fish increased with specialization level among shore anglers (Table 27). The “most specialized” group was more concerned with the size of the fish

caught and less concerned with the quantity as compared

to either the “moderately specialized” or “very specialized”

groups.

Mode Comparison

Private boat anglers generally rated all attributes of the

fishing experience as more important reasons for going private boat fishing than partyboat anglers or shore anglers

for fishing in their respective modes. For example, private

boat anglers on average rated 6 out of the 15 attributes as

being between “very” and “extremely” important reasons

to go private boat fishing. By comparison, on average,

shore anglers rated only 3 out of 15 attributes as being between “very” and “extremely” important reasons to go shore

fishing, and partyboat anglers rated no attributes as being

between a “very” and “extremely” important reason to go

partyboat fishing. Partyboat anglers rated “for family recreation” as a more important reason to fish than did either

private boat or shore anglers. For all three modes, anglers

rated “fun of catching fish,” “to be outdoors,” and “relaxation” among the top three reasons to go fishing in their

particular mode. “To obtain fish to eat” was rated by anglers from all modes, on average, as between “slightly” and

“moderately” important.

Anglers were also asked to rank their top three reasons

for fishing. “For family recreation” (18.7%) and “to share

experiences with friends, family and others” (17.9%) were

selected as the most important reason to go partyboat fishing more often than any other reasons. By contrast, the top

two reasons selected as most important by private boat and

shore anglers were “relaxation” and “to be outdoors.” Only

16.5% of private boat anglers and 18.8% of shore anglers

selected “for family recreation” as being one of their top

three reasons to go fishing in their respective modes. Nearly

one out of three (32.2%) partyboat anglers selected “for

family recreation” as being one of their top three reasons to

go partyboat fishing. These results suggest that partyboat

angler motivations to saltwater fish are more connected to

family than are private boat or shore angler motivations to

saltwater fish.

Motivations to fish were also compared across modes

according to specialization level. Major differences were

found comparing the consumptive aspects of fishing across

modes for the “most specialized” anglers. “Most specialized” partyboat anglers rated both “to obtain fish to eat”

and “to catch fish to share with others” as being between

“very” and “extremely” important reasons to fish. By comparison, “most specialized” shore anglers rated these two

consumptive attributes as being between “slightly” and

“moderately” important. “Most specialized” private boat

anglers rated “to obtain fish to eat” as being between

“slightly” and “moderately” important, and “to catch fish

to share with others” as being a “moderately” important

reason to fish. For all three modes, the importance of obtaining fish to eat seemed to increase generally with increasingly angler specialization level.

These results are counter to what is generally predicted

by current recreation specialization theory (Ditton et al.

1992). Previous studies have shown that the relative importance placed on consumptive aspects of fishing (as compared to nonconsumptive aspects) declines as the angler

becomes more specialized. However, much of this research

was done on freshwater anglers who may have very different motivations to fish than do saltwater anglers. Our results suggest that saltwater anglers may be more consumption oriented than freshwater anglers. Furthermore, among

highly specialized saltwater anglers, partyboat anglers tend

to be more consumption oriented than either private boat or

shore anglers.

Catch-related aspects of saltwater fishing were also

compared across fishing modes. About one out of four

partyboat anglers (26.3%) disagreed or strongly disagreed

with the statement that “a fishing trip can be a success

even if no fish are caught.” By comparison only 9.2% of

private boat anglers and 5.1% of shore anglers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Partyboat

anglers, on average, were more likely than either private

boat or shore anglers to agree with the statement that “a

successful trip is one in which many fish are caught.” Thus,

catch-related aspects may be more important to partyboat

anglers, on average, than to either private boat or shore

anglers. Partyboat anglers were also more likely than either

private boat or shore anglers to agree (or strongly agree)

with the statement that “I usually eat the fish I catch.”

“Most specialized” partyboat anglers were, on average, less

concerned about the type of fish they caught as compared

to “most specialized” private boat and shore anglers.

EVALUATION OF DEMAND FOR

MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER FISHING

OPPORTUNITIES AS IT RELATES TO FISHERY

RESOURCE CONDITION/AVAILABILITY,

ACCORDING TO MODE

This objective explores various reasons why anglers

do not go saltwater fishing in Massachusetts more often.

Reasons explored included real physical constraints (e.g.,

time, cost, and distance) and psychological constraints (e.g.,

crowding, expectations, satisfaction attainment). For purposes of this analysis, reasons for not fishing were grouped

into three categories: resource-related reasons, fishingmode-specific reasons, and other reasons.

Partyboat Anglers

For partyboat anglers, resource-related reasons were

generally not important factors limiting their partyboat fish-
Page 11

ing avidity (Table 28). For example, only one out of five

partyboat anglers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “I can’t catch enough fish to suit me.” The three

reasons partyboat anglers ranked highest for not fishing

from partyboats more often were related to other demands

on time, other leisure activities, and partyboats being too

crowded. The majority (~70%) of partyboat anglers were

generally satisfied overall with their partyboat fishing experiences in Massachusetts (Table 29).

According to specialization level, the costs of partyboat

fishing and travel distance to sites were more important

reasons for not fishing for “least specialized” partyboat

anglers as compared to more-specialized anglers (Table 30).

Similarly, other demands on time, other leisure activities,

and difficulty finding others to fish with were viewed as

more constraining by less-specialized anglers. Overall satisfaction with partyboat fishing in Massachusetts generally increased with angler specialization level (Table 31).

Private Boat Anglers

The two reasons private boat anglers ranked highest

for not fishing more often were “too many other demands

on my time” and “other leisure activities take up my time”

(Table 32). Reasons related to fishery resource condition

were generally not seen as affecting private boat fishing

avidity. Overall, private boat anglers were very satisfied

with both their private boat fishing experiences and boat

dockage and launch sites in Massachusetts (Table 33).

Other demands on time, other leisure activities, and difficulty finding others to fish with were viewed as more constraining by less-specialized private boat anglers than by

more-specialized private boat anglers (Table 34). Similarly,

less-specialized private boat anglers were more constrained

by not always having access to a boat as compared to morespecialized anglers. “Most specialized” private boat anglers were slightly more satisfied overall with the fishing

opportunities in Massachusetts as compared to “moderately specialized” or “very specialized” private boat anglers (Table 35). However, “most specialized” private boat

anglers were less satisfied with the boat dockage and launch

sites available in Massachusetts as compared to “moderately specialized” private boat anglers (Table 35).

Shore Anglers

Similar to the other modes, shore anglers indicated that

too many other demands on their time and other leisure

activities were the most constraining reasons for not fishing more often (Table 36). Shore anglers generally did not

consider the inability to catch enough fish (or keepers) to

suit their needs as important fishing constraints. Nearly

80% of shore anglers either disagreed or strongly disagreed

with the statement that “I believe an increase in my fishing

activity would be bad for the resource.” Nearly three out of

four shore anglers (72.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that

the saltwater shore fishing opportunities in Massachusetts

met their needs for a satisfying experience (Table 37). Travel

distance to shore fishing sites was a more constraining

reason for fishing less often for “most specialized” anglers

than for either “very specialized” or “moderately specialized” anglers (Table 38). “Very specialized” and “most

specialized” shore anglers expressed a high degree of overall satisfaction with their saltwater shore fishing experiences

in Massachusetts (Table 39).

Mode Comparison

Constraints, or reasons why anglers did not participate

in fishing more often, were compared across modes. The

majority of anglers in all three modes indicated that not

being able to catch (or keep) enough fish to suit them was

not an important reason why they did not fish more often.

In general, lack of fish or low catch rates were not generally

considered as being important reasons for fishing less often. The proportion of anglers who agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement that “I believe an increase in my

fishing activity would be bad for the resource” was also

low for all three modes (10% partyboat, 4.4% private boat,

5.1% shore). This response suggests that either anglers

believe the resource is fairly healthy, or that they simply do

no think that one angler can have a negative impact. Anglers often do not realize the cumulative impact that recreational fishing can have, and based on comments we received, are more likely to blame commercial fishing for stock

declines. Cost of fishing was seen as a more important

constraint among partyboat anglers and private boat anglers as compared to shore anglers. About one-third of

partyboat anglers and 27% of private boat anglers agreed

or strongly agreed that the cost of saltwater fishing was a

reason they did not fish more. By comparison, only 7.6% of

shore anglers agreed or strongly agreed that the cost of

fishing was a reason for fishing less often.

For all three modes, the biggest apparent constraints

were “too many other demands on my time” and “other

leisure activities take up my time.” In general, the importance of these time-related constraints decreased with increasing specialization level for anglers in all three modes.

Our results were consistent with Ritter et al. (1992) who

found that the constraint dimension “time” was indicated

by nearly 75% of anglers they surveyed. Within the “time”

dimension, they found that “work commitments” and “lack

of time (general)” were the top-ranking constraint categories overall.

EVALUATION OF ANGLER SWITCHING AMONG

FISHING MODES

For this study, anglers were categorized into mode

groups (i.e., partyboat anglers, private boat anglers and
Page 12

shore anglers) based on the particular mode in which they

were fishing when they were intercepted in the field. However, these groupings do not imply that anglers only fished

in one mode, or that the mode assigned was their primary

mode of interest (e.g., most avid, “most specialized”). Mode

designations were assigned for descriptive and clarifying

purposes only. In fact, our results show that Massachusetts anglers tend to fish in multiple modes, water types

(i.e., freshwater and saltwater), and states during the course

of a year. For this objective, we explored the diversity in

fishing trip types taken by Massachusetts anglers, and in

particular, the prevalence of angler switching from partyboat

trips to other trip types in recent years. We also explored

reasons for the decline given by anglers whose partyboat

fishing trips have decreased recently.

Partyboat Anglers

In general, partyboat anglers were very active in other

fishing modes and water types compared to their partyboat

activity (Table 40). For example, while partyboat anglers

averaged only 1.6 days of partyboat fishing in Massachusetts in the previous year, they spent 2.5 days saltwater

shore fishing in Massachusetts, and 17.2 days freshwater

fishing (all modes), in the previous year. “Most specialized” partyboat anglers spent as much time partyboat fishing out-of-state (6.5 days in the previous year) as they did

in Massachusetts (6.6 days in the previous year), and also

averaged 23.5 days of freshwater (all modes) fishing in the

previous year (Table 40).

Overall, 35% of surveyed partyboat anglers indicated

they had purchased a freshwater fishing license in their

state of residence in 1998 (Table 41). The percentage of

partyboat anglers who had purchased a freshwater license

in 1998 increased with specialization level.

The popularity of wildlife watching as an alternative

form of marine recreation has increased in recent years.

Whale-watching boats, in particular, have replaced

partyboats at popular coastal tourist locations, and may

provide competition for the partyboats still located at these

sites. From our survey, 28% of partyboat anglers overall

indicated they had taken a whale-watching cruise during

the previous year (Table 42). One Massachusetts partyboat

captain told us that he converted from fishing to a “nature

cruise” once a week with the assistance of an Audubon

Society naturalist. More research needs to be done on this

growing, nonconsumptive form of marine recreation.

In order to study general trends in fishing avidity, anglers were asked if their avidity (by mode) had decreased,

increased, or stayed the same during the periods from 1988

through 1993, and from 1994 to 1998. More partyboat anglers reported an increase (35.8%) than a decrease (13.2%)

in Massachusetts partyboat trips between 1994 and 1998

(Table 43). However, this increase probably represents the

fact that a large proportion of partyboat anglers took their

first partyboat trip in 1998. More partyboat anglers reported

an increase rather than a decrease in saltwater shore trips

for both time periods (i.e., 1988-1993 and 1994-1998), although many reported no activity in this mode (Table 43). It

is interesting to note that 7.8% of partyboat respondents

indicated taking no partyboat trips between 1997 and 1998,

despite the fact that they were supposedly contacted in

1998 after a partyboat fishing trip. This response suggests

that some anglers misinterpreted this question by not counting the trip they were actually surveyed after.

To investigate mode switching in more detail we focused only on those anglers who reported a decrease in

their partyboat fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998. Among

partyboat anglers who reported a decrease in their partyboat

fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998, most also reported declining charter boat, saltwater private boat, saltwater shore,

and freshwater fishing avidity over the same time period

(Table 44). For these anglers, in general, the decline in their

partyboat activity seems to be a part of a general drop in

their overall fishing activity.

Private Boat Anglers

Private boat anglers tended to focus their fishing activity in the private boat mode, switching between freshwater

and saltwater throughout the course of a year (Table 45).

Private boat anglers were also somewhat active in shore

fishing in both freshwater (5.2 days in the previous year)

and saltwater (5.9 days in the previous year) in Massachusetts. Overall, private boat anglers spent very little time

partyboat fishing in Massachusetts (0.3 days in the previous year). Interestingly, the number of private boat freshwater days fished in Massachusetts decreased with increasing angler specialization level, while the number of private

boat freshwater days fished by anglers from other states

increased with specialization level (Table 45). Overall, 52%

of private boat anglers indicated they had purchased a freshwater fishing license in their state of residence in 1998 (Table

41).

Significantly more private boat anglers reported a decrease (20.4%) than reported an increase (5.9%) in partyboat

activity from 1994 to 1998 (Table 46). For this same time

period, 62.7% of private boat anglers reported an increase

in their saltwater private boat fishing avidity compared to

only 8.4% reporting a decrease. Private boat anglers also

seemed to increase their saltwater shore fishing activity

during these years. These results suggest that some private boat anglers were changing their fishing activity away

from partyboats and towards more saltwater private boat,

and to some extent, shore fishing.

Among private boat anglers who reported a decrease in

their partyboat fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998, many also

reported declining charter boat and freshwater fishing avidity over the same time period (Table 47). However, an overwhelming majority (84.7%) reported an increase in their saltwater private boat fishing avidity, and most (59.2%) also

reported an increase in their saltwater shore avidity. These
Page 13

results provide further evidence for mode switching (among

private boat anglers) away from partyboat, charter boat,

and freshwater fishing and towards more saltwater private

boat and shore fishing from 1994 to 1998.

Shore Anglers

Shore anglers averaged 8.3 days saltwater shore fishing, 0.8 days partyboat fishing, and 2.8 days saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts in the previous year

(Table 48). Shore anglers were, in general, more avid in

freshwater than in saltwater, and spent nearly as many days

freshwater private boat fishing (10.8) as they did freshwater

shore fishing (12.3) in the previous year. “Most specialized” saltwater shore anglers were far more avid in terms of

partyboat fishing than were less-specialized saltwater shore

anglers. However, most of their partyboat trips were on

out-of-state partyboats (1.5 days in the previous year), not

on Massachusetts partyboats (0.6 days in the previous

year). Overall, 59% of shore anglers indicated that they had

purchased a freshwater fishing license in their state of residence in 1998 (Table 41).

More shore anglers reported a decrease (16.1%) than

an increase (7.1%) in partyboat activity from 1994 to 1998

(Table 49), while shore avidity seemed to increase during

this period. Thus, some mode switching from partyboat to

shore is evident among our shore survey anglers as well.

Among shore anglers who reported a decrease in their

partyboat fishing avidity from 1994 to 1998, a plurality also

reported declining charter boat, private boat, and freshwater fishing avidity, and increasing saltwater shore avidity,

over the same time period (Table 50).

Mode Comparison

Surveyed private boat anglers averaged 10.3 saltwater

private boat fishing days in the previous year in Massachusetts. By comparison, surveyed shore anglers averaged 8.6 saltwater shore fishing days in the previous year

in Massachusetts, while surveyed partyboat anglers averaged only 1.6 saltwater partyboat fishing days in the previous year in Massachusetts. Thus, partyboat fishing is more

of a rare-event recreational activity for many anglers compared to the other two modes of fishing. Whereas surveyed private boat and shore anglers did very little

partyboat fishing in Massachusetts (an average of 0.3 and

0.8 days in the previous year, respectively), partyboat anglers were fairly active in the other two modes. For example,

partyboat anglers spent, on average, 2.5 days saltwater

shore fishing in Massachusetts, 11 days freshwater shore

fishing, and 6.2 days freshwater private boat fishing in the

previous year. “Most specialized” partyboat anglers averaged 6.6 days of Massachusetts partyboat fishing in the

previous year, but spent nearly as many days (6.5) partyboat

fishing from other states in the previous year.

Shore anglers (59%) were more likely to have purchased

a freshwater fishing license in their state of residence compared to private boat anglers (52%) and partyboat anglers

(35%). The proportion of anglers purchasing a freshwater

license increased with specialization level for shore and

partyboat anglers. Our results suggest that anglers highly

specialized in a particular type of fishing (e.g., saltwater

partyboat) do not, in general, focus their entire fishing effort on that one type of fishing, but rather are more likely to

participate actively in other types of fishing as well. Therefore, the specialization indicators used to segment anglers

(i.e., commitment, relationships, experience, and orientation)

may carry over from one type of fishing to another. If an

angler is highly specialized in one type of fishing (e.g.,

partyboat), then there may be a higher probability that he/

she will also be highly specialized in another type of fishing

(e.g., freshwater shore). More research is needed to clarify

the relationship between specialization level for different

types of fishing.

To further investigate the recent decline in Massachusetts partyboat fishing, we focused our analysis on anglers

who indicated their Massachusetts partyboat fishing avidity had declined from 1994 to 1998. Of those partyboat

anglers who indicated their Massachusetts partyboat fishing avidity had declined from 1994 to 1998, a greater percentage also reported a decrease (compared to those reporting an increase or no change) in both their saltwater

private boat and shore fishing avidity in Massachusetts

during the same time period. By contrast, of those private

boat anglers who indicated their Massachusetts partyboat

fishing avidity had declined from 1994 to 1998, the majority

indicated an increase in their saltwater private boat and

shore fishing avidity in Massachusetts during the same

time period. Of those shore anglers who indicated their

Massachusetts partyboat fishing avidity had declined from

1994 to 1998, the majority indicated an increase in their saltwater shore fishing avidity, but a decrease in private boat

fishing avidity, in Massachusetts during the same time period.

EVALUATION OF TRENDS IN ANGLER DEMAND

FOR SPECIES-SPECIFIC MASSACHUSETTS

PARTYBOAT FISHING ACTIVITY

Partyboat Anglers

Anglers were asked to rank their top three preferred

species to catch when saltwater fishing (by mode) in Massachusetts. Atlantic cod (27.2%) was the most preferred

species among partyboat anglers, followed by striped bass

(17.7%), bluefish (13.6%), and summer flounder (11.1%)

(Table 51). A relatively large percentage (15.6%) of partyboat

anglers indicated they did not have a preferred species to

catch. Differences in species preferences were also explored

according to specialization level (Table 52). Preference towards catching black sea bass, tautog, and scup seemed
Page 14

generally to increase with increasing level of partyboat angler specialization. By contrast, “most specialized” partyboat

anglers were less interested in striped bass, bluefish, and

summer flounder as compared to less-specialized partyboat

anglers. MRFSS intercept data (weighted by fishing effort

in trips) were used to determine what species Massachusetts partyboat anglers actually said they were targeting.

Table 53 shows the percentage of partyboat trips targeting

each species. From 1996 to 1998 there was a sharp dropoff

in the percentage of angler trips targeting Atlantic cod.

However, in 1999 the percentage of partyboat trips targeting cod increased, although not to the level of 1996. The

percentage of MRFSS-intercepted partyboat anglers targeting scup increased from 2.3% in 1996 to 9.6% in 1999.

The difference between what partyboat anglers reported

as their preferred species on our survey (Table 51) and what

they reported as targeting during MRFSS intercepts (Table

53) may reflect the level of control partyboat anglers have

over species targeted. Typically, the partyboat captain decides what species the boat will target on a given day, and

may switch species mid-trip, depending on a variety of factors (e.g., weather, tide, catch rates, etc.). Anglers do have

some control over species targeted by means of their selecting a particular boat. However, the species they prefer

to catch may not always be an option due to seasonal availability, driving distance to a partyboat targeting that species, or cost considerations.

 Partyboat anglers were asked a series of questions regarding the importance of the species that partyboats target as it relates to their fishing activity. Table 54a shows

that, in general, partyboat anglers did not agree with the

following statement as a reason for fishing from partyboats

less often: “partyboats don’t target the types of fish I

prefer to catch.” When asked how important were the types

of fish that partyboats target as a factor in deciding to go

partyboat fishing versus some other kind of fishing, the

modal response was “moderately important” (Table 54b).

The importance of this factor generally increased with

partyboat angler specialization. Nearly 40% of “most specialized” partyboat anglers indicated that the species that

partyboats targeted was an “extremely important” factor in

deciding on whether to go partyboat fishing as compared

to some other type of fishing. The relative importance of

partyboat target species in determining which particular

Massachusetts partyboat to fish with increased greatly with

increasing partyboat angler specialization level (Table 54c).

Private Boat Anglers

Striped bass is by far the most preferred species to catch

among private boat saltwater anglers in Massachusetts

(Table 55). This holds for all specialization levels (Table 56).

Bluefish were identified as an important second option for

preferred species among most surveyed private boat saltwater anglers. The percentage of private boat trips targeting striped bass in Massachusetts increased from 1996 to

1998, before dropping off slightly in 1999, whereas the percentage targeting bluefish and Atlantic cod decreased after

1996 (Table 57).

Shore Anglers

Similar to private boat anglers, an overwhelming majority (70.3%) of Massachusetts saltwater shore anglers preferred to catch striped bass over any other species (Table

58). Bluefish are important as a secondary species among

Massachusetts saltwater shore anglers. More than onethird (36.2%) of shore anglers had no preferred third species after striped bass and bluefish. According to specialization level, the importance of striped bass and bluefish as

a preferred target species seemed to increase with shore

angler specialization level (Table 59). By contrast, winter

flounder was a more important target species among “moderately specialized” anglers than it was among “most specialized” anglers. From 1996 through 1998, the proportion

of saltwater shore trips in Massachusetts targeting striped

bass generally increased, while the proportion targeting

bluefish decreased (Table 60). This trend reversed somewhat in 1999, although striped bass were still by far the

most-targeted species on Massachusetts saltwater shore

fishing trips in 1999.

Mode Comparison

 Private boat (75.9%) and shore (70.3%) anglers overwhelmingly selected striped bass as their most preferred

species. No other species was selected by more than 8% of

anglers from either mode. By contrast, the most-preferredspecies selections by partyboat anglers were more evenly

distributed, with five species (Atlantic cod 27.2%, striped

bass 17.7%, bluefish 13.6%, summer flounder 11.1%, and

haddock 8.2%) receiving more than 8% of the vote.

Partyboat anglers do, however, have less control than either shore or private boat anglers over actual species targeted, since the partyboat captain generally makes this determination. A much larger percentage of partyboat anglers (15.6%) than of private boat (0.6%) and shore (7.6%)

anglers indicated no primary species preference. This pattern probably reflects the fact that more partyboat anglers

were “least specialized,” and that many of them were intercepted during their first lifetime partyboat fishing trip.

Also, when comparing species preferred across modes,

it is important to consider species availability differences.

Shore anglers do not have access to offshore species that

can be targeted by private boat and partyboat anglers. Similarly, private boat anglers with small boats typically fish

within bays and state territorial waters, and therefore do

not have access to open-ocean, deepsea species often targeted by partyboats.

Differences in species preferences with increased specialization level were more pronounced for partyboat anglers than for the other two modes. In particular, “most

specialized” partyboat anglers were far less interested in
Page 15

targeting striped bass and summer flounder than were “least

specialized,” “moderately specialized,” or “very specialized”

partyboat anglers. Similarly, “most specialized” partyboat

anglers were far more interested in targeting black sea bass,

tautog, and scup than were “least specialized,” “moderately specialized,” or “very specialized” partyboat anglers.

Striped bass and bluefish were both very popular preferred

species choices for shore and private boat anglers across

all specialization levels.

DETERMINATION AND EVALUATION OF

ECONOMIC EXPENDITURES AND ECONOMIC

IMPACTS ACCORDING TO ECONOMIC SECTOR

AND FISHING MODE

Total economic impacts generated from saltwater fishing expenditures by mode and geographical area are summarized in Table 61. The $4.5 million spent by partyboat

anglers in Massachusetts in 1998 generated $6.9 million in

sales, $2.7 million in personal income, and 142 jobs in the

commonwealth. In contrast, the $190.9 million spent by

private boat anglers in Massachusetts generated $197.0

million in sales, $79.1 million in income, and approximately

3,000 jobs. Angler expenditures on shore fishing trips in

Massachusetts ($121.3 million) resulted in an additional

$146.0 million in sales, $60.2 million in personal income, and

2,477 jobs. In total, partyboat, private boat, and shore angler expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998 generated $350

million in sales, $142 million in income, and approximately

5,600 jobs in the commonwealth.

Total partyboat, private boat, and shore angler expenditures in Zone 1 in 1998 ($247 million) generated approximately $267 million in sales, $110 million in income, and

4,100 jobs (within Zone 1). Total partyboat, private boat,

and shore angler expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998 ($59 million) resulted in approximately $60 million in sales, $24 million in personal income, and 1,000 jobs (in Zone 2). Partyboat

expenditures and impacts were similar across the two zones,

while private boat and shore impacts were generally 4-6

times higher in Zone 1. The sum of the expenditures and

impacts shown for Zone 1 and Zone 2 are not tantamount to

the estimates shown for Massachusetts. The Massachusetts estimates capture expenditures and impacts that occur anywhere in the state, including noncoastal counties

that are to the west of the Zone 1 and Zone 2 boundaries.

Thus, the expenditures and impacts shown for Massachusetts are slightly higher than the sum of the expenditures

and impacts that occurred in Zone 1 and Zone 2.

The estimates of each category of trip-related expenditures derived from the survey are presented in Tables 62-70.

Expenditures and impacts generated in Massachusetts by

mode are presented first (Tables 62-64), followed by expenditures and impacts accruing to Zone 1 by mode (Tables 65-

67) and then to Zone 2 by mode (Tables 68-70).

Partyboat fees paid to for-hire owners were the single

most important expense category for generating sales, income, and jobs from partyboat angler expenditures in all

three Massachusetts geographical regions. Meals at restaurants and lodging were also important expense categories for generating sales, income, and jobs from partyboat

angler expenditures in all three regions. Parking was an

important expense category for generating income in Zone 2.

Expenditures for meals at restaurants and for lodging

generated the highest impacts for anglers fishing from private boats in all three geographical regions. Bait and tackle

purchases, launch/docking fees, and boat fuel purchases

by private boat fishermen further contributed significant

impacts to all three geographical regions.

Expenditures for meals at restaurants and for lodging

generated the highest impacts for anglers fishing from shore

in Zone 1 and throughout the commonwealth. Expenditures for meals at restaurants and for bait and tackle purchases generated the highest impacts in Zone 2.

In some cases, many of the dollars spent by saltwater

anglers in Massachusetts actually impact the economies of

other states and countries. For example, of the $399,000

spent in 1998 by partyboat anglers on automobiles (within

Massachusetts), only $118,000 had a direct impact on sales

in the Massachusetts economy (Table 62). A similar situation existed for purchases of bait and tackle, groceries, and

boat fuel in all three Massachusetts geographical regions.

Of the 14 expenditure categories analyzed in this study,

four (i.e., automobiles, bait and tackle, groceries, and boat

fuel) directly impacted sales in the economies of other regions, with the single exception of grocery sales to private

boat owners in Zone 2. For the remaining 10 categories,

100% of the expenditures remained within the three geographical regions (i.e., total expenditures equaled direct impacts on sales).

The results are conservative in the sense that they include only trip-related angler expenses. Auxiliary expenditures on fishing equipment (i.e., rods and reels), clothing,

and incidental purchases by nonfishing companions were

not included, even though they may have occurred as a

direct result of fishing. Taken as a whole, the economic

impacts presented in this analysis provide an indication of

the dependence of Massachusetts’ economy on marine recreational fishing expenditures.

EVALUATION OF MASSACHUSETTS

RECREATIONAL SALTWATER ANGLERS’

ATTITUDES TOWARD SPECIFIC FISHERY

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Anglers were asked a series of questions on their support or agreement with various fishery management actions.

Tables 71-79 summarize the responses.

Partyboat Anglers

The majority of partyboat anglers opposed the idea of

a mandatory saltwater fishing license (Table 71). Opposition to a saltwater license was consistent for both Massa-
Page 16

chusetts residents and out-of-state anglers in all modes.

Opposition to a saltwater license increased with specialization level among partyboat anglers (Table 72).

In general, surveyed partyboat anglers did not agree

with the statement that “fishing regulations are too restrictive” as a reason for not saltwater fishing more often (Table

73). Partyboat anglers indicated tremendous support for

the use of minimum size limits as a tool to manage Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries (Table 74). Nearly

three-fourths of partyboat anglers also either “supported”

or “strongly supported” both daily bag limits and seasonal

restrictions as fishery management tools.

According to specialization level, differences in attitudes

towards particular fishery management tools were found between “most specialized” partyboat anglers and the other three

less-specialized groups (i.e., “least,” “moderately,” and

“very”). “Most specialized” partyboat anglers showed stronger support for minimum size limits and slot limits, but less

support for bag limits and seasonal restrictions, as compared

to less-specialized anglers (Tables 75). “Most specialized”

partyboat anglers also indicated fairly strong opposition to

prohibiting harvest of striped bass in federal waters and to

simultaneously reducing both the minimum size limit and the

daily bag limit of a hypothetical species.

Private Boat Anglers

The majority of private boat anglers opposed the idea

of a mandatory saltwater fishing license (Table 71). The

proportion opposing a license altogether was 70.0% for

Massachusetts residents and 77.5% for out-of-state residents. No major differences in opinions about a saltwater

license were found across private boat angler specialization levels.

Private boat saltwater anglers generally disagreed with

the statement that “fishing regulations are too restrictive”

as a reason for not saltwater fishing more often (Table 73).

Private boat anglers generally supported the use of minimum size limits, bag limits, slot limits, and seasonal restrictions as tools to manage Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries (Table 76). Opinions among private boat

anglers were split on “not allowing harvest of striped bass

in federal waters.” As many private boat anglers either

supported or strongly supported this regulation (36.5%) as

did oppose or strongly oppose it (35.5%).

Private boat anglers’ attitudes towards the use of the

fishery management tools explored here did not vary tremendously according to specialization level (Table 77).

Shore Anglers

The majority of surveyed shore anglers opposed the

idea of a mandatory saltwater fishing license (Table 71).

The percentage opposing a license was 75.1% for Massachusetts resident and out-of-state anglers combined. Shore

anglers from other states showed more support (19.2%) than

Massachusetts residents (7.8%) for a license with a fee,

while the reverse was true for a “no fee” license (2.3% outof-state versus 11.3% Massachusetts). No major differences in opinions about a saltwater license were found

across shore angler specialization levels.

In general, shore anglers disagreed with the statement

that “fishing regulations are too restrictive” as a reason for

not saltwater fishing more often (Table 73). Shore anglers

generally supported the use of minimum size limits, bag

limits, slot limits, and seasonal restrictions as tools to manage Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries (Table

78). Support for bag limits and seasonal restrictions increased with specialization level among shore anglers (Table

79). Interestingly, “very specialized” shore anglers were

more opposed to the following fishery management tools

than either “moderately” or “most specialized” shore anglers: 1) restricting striped bass harvest in federal waters,

2) simultaneously reducing both the minimum size and daily

bag limit of a hypothetical species, and 3) simultaneously

increasing both the minimum size and daily bag limit of a

hypothetical species. More investigation is needed to determine why this intermediate specialization group might be

more opposed to the fishery management tools examined

than either less-specialized or more-specialized anglers.

Mode Comparison

The percentage opposing a license altogether was

greater for private boat (72.7%) and shore (75.1%) anglers

than for partyboat anglers (56.6%). The difference was

primarily made up by a much larger percentage (22.1%) of

“no opinions” among partyboat anglers as compared to

private boat (3.2%) or shore (4.3%) anglers. The larger

percentage of “no opinions” among partyboat anglers reflects the fact that more partyboat anglers are “least specialized” and may have no vested, long-term interest in the

sport. Opposition to a saltwater fishing license increased

with increasing specialization level among partyboat anglers. By comparison, there was no obvious relationship

between saltwater fishing license opposition and specialization level among either private boat or shore anglers.

Comparisons were made among the three modes regarding angler attitudes towards the use of fishery management

tools for Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries.

Anglers from all modes showed support (or strong support) for minimum size limits, daily bag limits, and seasonal

restrictions. Partyboat anglers, in general, were somewhat

supportive of slot limits and prohibiting the sale of fish by

recreational anglers, although they were less supportive

than either private boat or shore anglers regarding these

fishery management tools. For example, 56.6% of private

boat anglers and 65.1% of shore anglers supported or

strongly supported no sale of fish by recreational anglers.

By contrast, only 45.6% of partyboat anglers supported

this fishery management tool.
Page 17

IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE

SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR PARTYBOAT ON

WHICH TO FISH

Partyboat anglers were asked to rate the importance of

several items in their selection of a particular partyboat on

which to fish. “Courteous and helpful crew” was the most

important factor overall as two-thirds of anglers rated this

“very important” or “extremely important” in their selection

(Table 80). Other important factors included “previous personal experience” and “cost of boat fees.” The importance

of a “courteous and helpful crew” and “previous personal

experience” both increased with respondent specialization

level (Table 81). Similarly, the importance of the number,

size, and species typically caught, of the captain’s reputation, and of boat size also increased with increasing specialization level.

ENDNOTES

1. Personal communication: D.A. Van Voorhees, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD.

2. Personal communication: K. Gillis, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD; August 2000.

3. Personal communication: A. Lowther, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics & Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD; May 25, 2000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the following funding

sources that contributed to the completion of this study:

NOAA - University of Massachusetts Cooperative Marine

Education and Research Program, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, and the Department of Natural

Resource Conservation at the University of Massachusetts

Amherst. We thank the following individuals whose assistance with the data collection phase of this project was

greatly appreciated: Kelly Finn, Bill Perry, Rebecca Sozanski,

Brad Curcuru, Jon Duval, Zeke Kaufman, Erin Hughes,

Bethaney Campbell, Rebecca Hull, Ed Labinski, Josefina

Lago, Kara Aubochon, Greg Penesis, Molly Timko, Elizabeth Defeo, Christina Gutierrez, and David Creque. We also

recognize the contributions and expert advice received from

the following NMFS employees: David Van Voorhees, Eric

Thunberg, Kirk Gillis, and Alan Lowther. Finally, this study

would not have been possible without the cooperation of

the Massachusetts partyboat captains and crew who assisted in the development of the sample frame, and the participation of numerous individual saltwater anglers in completing the mail survey instrument.

REFERENCES CITED

Ditton, R.B.; Loomis, D.K.; Choi, S. 1992. Recreation specialization: reconceptualization from a social worlds perspective. J. Leisure Res. 24(1):35-51.

Gray, G.W.; Kline, L.L.; Osborn, M.F.; Salz, R.S.; Van Voorhees,

D.A.; Witzig, J.F. 1994. MRFSS user’s manual — a guide

to the National Marine Fisheries Service recreational fisheries statistics survey database. Atl. States Mar. Fish.

Comm. Spec. Rep. 37.

NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics

& Economics Division]. 2000. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey <http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html>. Accessed July 11, 2000.

Ritter, C.; Ditton, R.B.; Riechers, R.K. 1992. Constraints to

sport fishing: implications to fisheries management. Fisheries (Bethesda) 17(4):16-19.

Rossi, P.H.; Wright, J.; Anderson, A. 1983. Handbook of

survey research. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Salant, P.; Dillman, D.A. 1994. How to conduct your own survey. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Salz, R.J.; Loomis, D.K. 2000. Development and verification of

a specialization index for angler segmentation. In: Kyle,

G., comp., ed. Proceedings of the 1999 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 1999 April 11-14; Bolton

Landing, NY. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-269.

Unruh, D.R. 1979. Characteristics and types of participation in

social worlds. Symbol. Interact. 2:115-130.
Page 18
Page 19

Table 1. Comparison of mail survey respondents with MRFSS-intercepted anglers for nonresponse bias check

Population

Mail Survey MRFSS-Intercepted

Mode Variable Respondents Anglers

Partyboat Days fished in past 12 mo 10.9 11.1

Percentage who were Massachusetts residents 55.5 66.7

Private boat Days fished in past 12 mo 36.5 29.8

Percentage who were Massachusetts residents 81.3 80.6

Shore Days fished in past 12 mo 32.2 29.6

Percentage who were Massachusetts residents 69.1 76.3

Table 2. Level of response (number and percentage) to angler questionnaire for each mode

Mode

Partyboat Private Boat Shore

Type of Response No. % No. % No. %

Initial sample 1,064 -- 733 -- 464 --

Mortality 52 -- 15 -- 26 --

Nondeliverable 49 12 25

Not-usable upon return 3 3 1

Effective sample 1,012 100.0 718 100.0 438 100.0

Nonresponse 501 49.5 248 34.5 169 38.6

Usable returned surveys 511 50.5 470 65.5 269 61.4
Page 20

Table 3. Responses (given as percentage of anglers) to specialization index questions by mode. (See Appendices A1,

A2, and A3 for complete wording of Questions 9-12.)

Mode

Response Partyboat Private Boat Shore

When I participate in the sport of saltwater (partyboat, private boat, shore) fishing, I feel like:

1) an outsider 3.9 0.5 0.8

2) an observer or irregular participant 67.3 27.6 47.2

3) an habitual or regular participant 26.0 44.8 35.9

4) an insider to the sport 2.8 27.1 16.1

During a saltwater (partyboat, private boat, shore) fishing experience, I can best be described as:

1) being somewhat uncertain 10.1 1.1 9.7

2) having some understanding of the sport 39.6 25.0 33.2

3) becoming comfortable with the sport 40.3 52.7 44.3

4) a knowledgeable expert in the sport 10.0 21.2 12.8

My relationships with other saltwater (partyboat, private boat, shore) anglers are:

1) not established 50.0 13.3 18.3

2) very limited 34.9 41.8 39.9

3) one of familiarity 10.3 27.8 26.4

4) close 4.8 17.2 15.4

My commitment to saltwater (partyboat, private boat, shore) fishing is:

1) almost nonexistent 20.6 0.4 5.3

2) moderate 61.7 33.1 41.9

3) fairly strong 13.4 47.1 35.5

4) very strong 4.2 19.4 17.4

Table 4. Frequency distribution (given as percentage of anglers) of specialization level for partyboat, private boat, and

shore saltwater anglers

Mode

Specialization Level Partyboat Private Boat Shore

Least 15.6 0.5 4.5

Moderate 64.5 35.4 51.4

Very 17.1 46.8 30.8

Most 2.7 17.3 13.3
Page 21

Table 5. Basic demographics of anglers according to survey mode

Mode

Demographic Partyboat Private Boat Shore

Gender (%)

Male 79.7 96.8 97.4

Female 20.3 3.2 2.6

Ethnic background (%)

White 94.2 98.6 94.5

Black 2.0 1.0 1.8

Hispanic 1.8 0.2 < 0.1

Asian 1.0 0.2 0.2

Native American Indian 0.4 < 0.1 0.0

Other 0.5 < 0.1 3.5

Average age (yr) 40.8 46.3 46.2

Average formal education (yr; high school graduate = 12) 14.7 14.3 14.7

Modal annual household income range ($000s) 60-85 60-85 45-60

Residence (%)

Massachusetts 50.7 72.0 59.3

Out-of-state 49.3 28.0 40.7

Table 6. Percentage of partyboat anglers who said they took at least one of the following partyboat trip types in the

previous 12 mo, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Partyboat Trip Type Least Moderate Very Most

Half-day trip 64.9 63.6 56.4 21.0

Full-day trip 35.1 38.6 53.7 87.3

Evening/night trip 0.0 3.7 7.7 14.9

Overnight trip 0.0 1.2 2.7 22.7
Page 22Table 7. Average years of experience partyboat fishing, average number of days partyboat fishing during previous 12-mo period, and basic demographics of partyboat

anglers (age, gender, and residence), according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Attribute/Demographic Least Moderate Very Most All

Average number of years since started partyboat fishing 3.9 14.1 21.1 28.6 14.1Average number of days partyboat fishing in Massachusetts during past 12 mo 1.1 1.3 2.4 6.6 1.6Average number of days partyboat fishing in another state during past 12 mo 0.1 0.3 1.9 6.5 0.7Average age (yr) 34.6 41.0 43.4 54.0 40.8Gender (%)

Male 64 82 88 95 80

Female 36 18 12 5 20

Residence (%)

Massachusetts 51 52 49 28 51Out-of-state 49 48 51 72 49

Table 8. Average years of experience saltwater private boat fishing, average number of days saltwater private boat fishing during previous 12-mo period, and basic

demographics of private boat anglers (age, gender, and residence), according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Attribute/Demographic Least Moderate Very Most All

Average number of years since started private boat fishing N/Aa 15.6 21.0 22.4 19.4

Average number of days private boat fishing in Massachusetts during past 12 mo N/A 4.6 10.3 21.6 10.3Average age (yr) N/A 44.6 47.4 45.9 46.3Gender (%)

Male N/A 96 97 99 97Female N/A 4 3 1 3

Residence (%)

Massachusetts N/A 80 66 67 72Out-of-state N/A 20 34 33 28

aN/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 23

Table 9. Average years of experience saltwater shore fishing, average number of days saltwater shore fishing during previous 12-mo period, and basic demographics of

shore anglers (age, gender, andresidence), according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Attribute/Demographic Least Moderate Very Most All

Average number of years since started saltwater shore fishing N/Aa 23.1 21.4 28.7 22.7

Average number of days saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts during past 12 mo N/A 4.7 12.2 15.1 8.3Average age (yr) N/A 46.9 45.9 45.7 46.2Gender (%)

Male N/A 96 99 100 97Female N/A 4 1 0 3

Residence (%)Massachusetts N/A 57 65 44 59Out-of-state N/A 43 35 56 41

aN/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 24Table 10. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going partyboat fishing in Massachusetts

Importance Level (% of anglers) Relative

Reason Not At All Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Importancea

Fun of catching fish 3.9 3.0 20.8 39.0 33.4 3.95To be outdoors 2.9 4.0 19.8 44.5 28.9 3.93Relaxation 4.5 6.4 21.6 39.3 28.3 3.81For experience of catch 5.1 7.7 21.0 33.8 32.4 3.81Share experiences with friends, family, others 5.6 5.4 19.9 40.3 28.8 3.81To be close to water 6.0 10.6 23.9 35.7 23.8 3.61For family recreation 9.3 8.1 24.0 35.1 23.6 3.56To experience new and different things 5.9 10.6 29.6 36.5 17.4 3.49For challenge or sport 15.9 16.2 22.9 26.5 18.6 3.16Get away from demands of others 22.1 18.3 25.8 16.3 17.6 2.89To catch fish to share with other people 25.9 21.5 25.5 17.6 9.6 2.64To obtain fish to eat 27.7 24.3 21.7 16.1 10.2 2.56To develop skills 35.4 20.1 25.0 13.3 6.2 2.35To test equipment 64.4 18.6 11.8 2.7 2.6 1.61To win boat “pool” 68.5 16.6 9.5 3.2 2.2 1.54aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important.
Page 25

Table 11. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as first-, second-, or third-most important for going partyboat fishing

in Massachusetts

Relative Rank

Reason Importancea 1 2 3 Totalb

Fun of catching fish 3.95 11.0 17.6 17.5 46.1

To be outdoors 3.93 8.1 9.8 12.8 30.7

Relaxation 3.81 12.7 11.7 6.9 31.3

For experience of catch 3.81 5.9 9.9 9.0 24.8

Share experiences with friends, family, others 3.81 17.9 15.4 12.3 45.6

To be close to water 3.61 7.5 7.7 8.5 23.7

For family recreation 3.56 18.7 8.9 4.6 32.2

To experience new and different things 3.38 5.1 4.9 7.8 17.8

For challenge or sport 3.16 5.8 5.8 5.8 17.4

Get away from demands of others 2.89 1.9 3.4 3.7 9.0

To catch fish to share with other people 2.64 1.1 0.6 4.3 6.0

To obtain fish to eat 2.56 3.6 3.8 5.8 13.2

To develop skills 2.35 0.0 0.2 1.0 1.2

To test equipment 1.61 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4

To win boat “pool” 1.54 0.4 0.5 0.2 1.1

100.0 100.0 100.0

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very

important, and 5 = extremely important.

b

Percentage of anglers for whom the reason was ranked in the top three.
Page 26

Table 12. Relative importancea placed on various reasons for going partyboat fishing in Massachusetts, according to

specialization level

Specialization Level

Reason Least Moderately Very Most

Fun of catching fish 3.62 3.97 4.26 4.76

Relaxation 3.06 3.89 4.11 4.58

To be outdoors 3.51 3.96 4.10 4.37

For experience of catch 3.45 3.83 4.06 4.69

Share experiences with friends, family, others 3.40 3.86 3.94 4.41

To be close to water 3.06 3.60 3.99 4.57

For family recreation 3.12 3.64 3.50 3.60

For challenge or sport 2.62 3.13 3.74 4.39

To experience new and different things 3.66 3.46 3.33 4.03

Get away from demands of others 2.12 2.96 3.32 4.48

To catch fish to share with other people 2.13 2.58 3.13 4.25

To obtain fish to eat 2.13 2.54 2.92 4.25

To develop skills 1.82 2.30 2.95 3.64

To test equipment 1.24 1.56 1.91 3.44

To win boat “pool” 1.31 1.50 1.82 2.58

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very

important, and 5 = extremely important.

Table 13. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as one of their top three reasons for going saltwater partyboat fishing

in Massachusetts, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Reason Least Moderately Very Most

Fun of catching fish 44.2 46.0 52.5 44.4

Relaxation 19.8 34.4 28.7 53.0

To be outdoors 34.9 30.2 30.1 28.9

For experience of catch 24.4 23.9 29.8 15.1

Share experiences with friends, family, others 43.0 48.1 40.4 31.4

To be close to water 19.8 23.4 27.8 14.3

For family recreation 30.2 35.3 20.4 7.6

For challenge or sport 18.6 14.5 29.5 15.6

To experience new and different things 34.9 16.0 6.9 0.8

Get away from demands of others 4.7 9.6 8.8 31.3

To catch fish to share with other people 4.7 4.3 10.1 24.4

To obtain fish to eat 18.7 12.2 12.1 21.5

To develop skills 0.0 1.0 2.9 4.4

To test equipment 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

To win boat “pool” 2.3 0.7 0.3 6.8
Page 27

Table 14. Extent to which partyboat anglers agreed or disagreed with various catch/retention statements

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

The more fish I catch, the happier I am 5.5 9.2 19.6 49.8 16.1 3.62A fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught 5.8 20.5 23.8 38.1 11.8 3.29I usually eat the fish I catch 11.3 9.7 14.9 36.6 27.4 3.59A successful trip is one in which many fish are caught 4.7 18.1 25.6 39.2 12.5 3.37I would rather catch one or two big fish than ten smaller fish 4.0 16.2 22.4 40.8 16.5 3.50When I go fishing, I’m just as happy if I don’t catch a fish 16.2 42.0 20.8 15.5 5.6 2.52It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch 2.6 21.3 26.3 39.5 10.5 3.34The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip 2.8 18.4 27.4 36.2 15.2 3.43I’m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch 7.4 25.4 18.2 34.5 14.5 3.23aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 28

Table 15. Relative agreementa by partyboat anglers with various catch/retention statements, according to specialization

level

Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most

The more fish I catch, the happier I am 3.60 3.60 3.68 3.85

A fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught 3.03 3.28 3.53 3.42

I usually eat the fish I catch 2.98 3.68 3.75 4.40

A successful trip is one in which many fish are caught 3.35 3.44 3.16 3.75

I would rather catch one or two big fish than 10 smaller fish 3.25 3.46 3.81 3.71

When I go fishing, I’m just as happy if I don’t catch a fish 2.37 2.50 2.65 2.98

It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch 3.80 3.29 3.08 3.33

The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip 3.32 3.48 3.36 3.48

I’m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch 3.32 3.19 3.25 2.90

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 29

Table 16. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts

Importance Level (% of anglers) Relative

Reason Not At All Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Importancea

Relaxation 1.0 1.6 6.9 40.6 49.9 4.37Fun of catching fish 0.7 2.4 13.5 39.9 43.5 4.23To be outdoors 0.3 2.8 11.2 48.4 37.4 4.20To be close to water 2.6 1.8 11.1 43.3 41.2 4.19Share experiences with friends, family, others 1.4 3.7 16.5 45.4 33.1 4.05For experience of catch 1.8 5.3 18.5 40.2 34.1 4.00For challenge or sport 4.9 7.3 24.6 34.9 28.3 3.74Get away from demands of others 13.1 9.4 19.4 32.7 25.6 3.48For family recreation 9.3 8.2 30.1 37.6 14.9 3.41To experience new and different things 8.2 11.6 32.7 31.8 15.7 3.35To develop skills 12.0 15.5 30.7 27.4 14.4 3.17To catch a “trophy” fish 26.0 15.6 25.6 18.2 14.5 2.80To catch fish to share with other people 27.3 24.2 22.1 15.4 11.2 2.59To obtain fish to eat 30.8 18.9 25.9 14.8 9.6 2.54To test equipment 28.8 32.8 28.2 6.4 3.8 2.24aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important.
Page 30

Table 17. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as first-, second-, or third-most important for going saltwater private boat

fishing in Massachusetts

Relative Rank

Reason Importancea 1 2 3 Totalb

Relaxation 4.37 21.1 16.1 12.1 49.3

Fun of catching fish 4.23 10.2 11.1 14.4 35.7

To be outdoors 4.20 22.8 12.3 9.5 44.6

To be close to water 4.19 7.7 9.3 10.4 27.4

Share experiences with friends, family, others 4.05 12.1 14.1 14.0 40.2

For experience of catch 4.00 5.8 6.2 4.8 16.8

For challenge or sport 3.74 5.3 6.0 8.6 19.9

Get away from demands of others 3.48 1.1 5.2 7.2 13.5

For family recreation 3.41 8.4 5.5 2.6 16.5

To experience new and different things 3.35 1.1 1.9 3.5 6.5

To develop skills 3.17 0.2 1.0 1.5 2.7

To catch a “trophy” fish 2.80 1.9 5.0 6.5 13.4

To catch fish to share with other people 2.59 0.9 0.6 1.9 3.4

To obtain fish to eat 2.54 1.4 5.7 2.7 9.8

To test equipment 2.24 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

100.0 100.0 100.0

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very

important, and 5 = extremely important.

b

Percentage of anglers for whom the reason was ranked in the top three.
Page 31

Table 18. Relative importancea placed on various reasons for going saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts,

according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Reason Least Moderately Very Most

Relaxation N/Ab 4.25 4.41 4.53

Fun of catching fish N/A 4.19 4.22 4.36

To be outdoors N/A 4.03 4.25 4.44

To be close to water N/A 3.97 4.20 4.59

For experience of catch N/A 3.83 4.06 4.25

Share experiences with friends, family, others N/A 3.87 4.09 4.34

For challenge or sport N/A 3.57 3.68 4.31

Get away from demands of others N/A 3.16 3.66 3.84

To develop skills N/A 2.94 3.20 3.59

To experience new and different things N/A 3.34 3.29 3.52

For family recreation N/A 3.38 3.35 3.52

To catch “trophy” fish N/A 2.73 2.79 2.96

To catch fish to share with other people N/A 2.29 2.63 3.10

To obtain fish to eat N/A 2.16 2.77 2.75

To test equipment N/A 2.02 2.30 2.58

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very

important, and 5 = extremely important.

b

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.

Table 19. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as one of their top three reasons for going saltwater private boat fishing

in Massachusetts, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Reason Least Moderately Very Most

Relaxation N/Aa 63.2 42.7 38.4

Fun of catching fish N/A 43.7 31.2 34.2

To be outdoors N/A 37.6 50.9 40.2

To be close to water N/A 30.8 21.7 35.1

For experience of catch N/A 12.0 19.6 20.8

Share experiences with friends, family, others N/A 43.3 35.0 45.0

For challenge or sport N/A 25.2 16.2 19.5

Get away from demands of others N/A 9.8 16.5 14.6

To develop skills N/A 1.9 2.8 4.4

To experience new and different things N/A 4.4 8.1 6.4

For family recreation N/A 12.8 19.7 14.3

To catch a “trophy” fish N/A 8.5 18.4 11.2

To catch fish to share with other people N/A 1.2 0.7 7.6

To obtain fish to eat N/A 5.9 13.3 8.3

To test equipment N/A 0.0 1.2 0.3

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 32Table 20. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers agreed or disagreed with various catch/retention statements

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

The more fish I catch, the happier I am 3.8 11.4 27.4 47.1 10.4 3.49A fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught 0.6 8.6 15.3 57.7 17.9 3.84I usually eat the fish I catch 17.0 21.9 13.5 28.8 18.8 3.11A successful trip is one in which many fish are caught 6.6 29.1 29.1 30.2 5.0 2.98I would rather catch one or two big fish than 10 smaller fish 2.4 22.1 26.7 31.7 17.2 3.39When I go fishing, I’m just as happy if I don’t catch a fish 6.0 37.6 31.0 19.8 5.6 2.81It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch 4.4 38.4 21.3 33.1 2.9 2.92The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip 2.4 27.6 22.0 40.2 7.9 3.24I’m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch 5.8 14.1 18.0 40.8 21.4 3.58aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 33

Table 21. Relative agreementa by saltwater private boat anglers with various catch/retention statements, according to

specialization level

 Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most

The more fish I catch, the happier I am N/Ab 3.58 3.56 3.28

A fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught N/A 3.81 3.79 3.92

I usually eat the fish I catch N/A 2.88 3.22 3.22

A successful trip is one in which many fish are caught N/A 2.93 3.08 2.92

I would rather catch one or two big fish than 10 smaller fish N/A 3.44 3.26 3.71

When I go fishing, I’m just as happy if I don’t catch a fish N/A 3.01 2.72 2.63

It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch N/A 3.12 2.83 2.64

The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip N/A 3.25 3.23 3.35

I’m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch N/A 3.57 3.53 3.69

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

b

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 34Table 22. Relative importance placed on various reasons for going saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts

Importance Level (% of anglers) Relative

Reason Not At All Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Importancea

Relaxation 0.7 2.7 17.1 33.5 46.1 4.22Fun of catching fish 3.4 3.4 14.2 38.8 40.3 4.09To be outdoors 1.0 2.4 16.7 46.4 33.6 4.09To be close to water 3.7 1.5 27.5 32.5 34.8 3.93For experience of catch 8.6 4.9 22.3 25.9 38.3 3.80Share experiences with friends, family, others 7.5 5.5 21.4 34.0 31.6 3.77For challenge or sport 8.0 7.0 25.0 27.5 32.4 3.69Get away from demands of others 20.1 14.4 15.1 21.5 28.9 3.25For family recreation 14.6 16.3 21.9 30.4 16.8 3.19To develop skills 12.4 15.0 34.3 23.9 14.4 3.13To experience new and different things 11.9 24.0 24.1 24.7 15.33 3.08To catch a “trophy” fish 30.9 16.3 34.2 7.0 11.6 2.52To catch fish to share with other people 37.1 21.0 18.7 13.9 9.4 2.38To test equipment 32.5 34.1 23.2 6.8 3.4 2.15To obtain fish to eat 43.3 23.8 17.1 6.5 9.3 2.14aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important.
Page 35

Table 23. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as first-, second-, or third-most important for going saltwater shore

fishing in Massachusetts

Relative Rank

Reason Importancea 1 2 3 Totalb

Relaxation 4.22 21.8 16.9 10.5 49.2

Fun of catching fish 4.09 6.3 20.7 18.6 45.6

To be outdoors 4.09 19.3 9.6 16.9 45.8

To be close to water 3.93 4.5 6.7 8.9 20.1

For experience of catch 3.80 6.2 13.4 4.4 24.0

Share experiences with friends, family, others 3.77 15.4 10.6 7.7 33.7

For challenge or sport 3.69 10.3 3.7 3.6 17.6

Get away from demands of others 3.25 3.5 3.1 5.6 12.2

For family recreation 3.19 6.0 8.6 4.2 18.8

To develop skills 3.13 0.2 0.9 1.8 2.9

To experience new and different things 3.08 2.4 0.2 4.3 6.9

To catch a “trophy” fish 2.52 1.0 2.5 5.3 8.8

To catch fish to share with other people 2.38 0.4 1.9 3.3 5.6

To test equipment 2.15 0.4 0.2 2.0 2.6

To obtain fish to eat 2.14 2.4 1.1 2.8 6.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very

important, and 5 = extremely important.

b

Percentage of anglers for whom the reason was ranked in the top three.
Page 36

Table 24. Relative importancea placed on various reasons for going saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts, according

to specialization level

Specialization Level

Reason Least Moderately Very Most

Relaxation N/Ab 4.01 4.45 4.67

Fun of catching fish N/A 4.07 4.31 4.56

To be outdoors N/A 4.00 4.37 4.23

For experience of catch N/A 3.58 4.34 4.41

To be close to water N/A 3.69 4.22 4.43

For challenge or sport N/A 3.37 4.24 4.47

Share experiences with friends, family, others N/A 3.59 3.88 4.24

Get away from demands of others N/A 3.18 3.47 4.16

To develop skills N/A 2.86 3.56 3.93

To experience new and different things N/A 3.01 3.20 3.55

For family recreation N/A 3.14 3.28 2.92

To catch “trophy” fish N/A 2.30 2.83 3.32

To catch fish to share with other people N/A 2.38 2.59 2.34

To test equipment N/A 1.91 2.35 2.99

To obtain fish to eat N/A 2.16 2.01 2.48

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very

important, and 5 = extremely important.

b

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.

Table 25. Percentage of anglers ranking a reason as one of their top three reasons for going saltwater shore fishing in

Massachusetts, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Reason Least Moderately Very Most

Relaxation N/Aa 49.6 49.5 57.7

Fun of catching fish N/A 51.9 42.9 27.3

To be outdoors N/A 41.3 56.7 31.7

For experience of catch N/A 22.9 28.7 16.1

To be close to water N/A 24.2 8.5 38.1

For challenge or sport N/A 15.9 15.6 28.9

Share experiences with friends, family, others N/A 26.3 38.0 29.5

Get away from demands of others N/A 12.4 13.9 12.6

To develop skills N/A 1.1 7.6 0.0

To experience new and different things N/A 10.5 4.9 2.8

For family recreation N/A 19.9 10.3 17.3

To catch a “trophy” fish N/A 6.0 8.6 27.0

To catch fish to share with other people N/A 9.1 2.9 4.1

To test equipment N/A 1.4 5.1 1.5

To obtain fish to eat N/A 7.6 7.0 5.6

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 37

Table 26. Extent to which saltwater shore anglers agreed or disagreed with various catch/retention statements

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

The more fish I catch, the happier I am 2.1 9.7 23.2 53.1 12.1 3.63A fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught 0.1 5.0 15.1 55.9 23.9 3.99I usually eat the fish I catch 22.6 16.3 16.7 27.2 17.3 3.00A successful trip is one in which many fish are caught 5.8 31.5 28.7 30.3 3.7 2.95I would rather catch one or two big fish than 10 smaller fish 4.5 14.3 27.7 30.8 22.7 3.52When I go fishing, I’m just as happy if I don’t catch a fish 2.5 33.3 24.9 30.4 9.0 3.10It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch 5.6 23.5 25.4 39.2 6.4 3.17The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip 4.0 19.7 32.5 30.7 13.0 3.41I’m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch 3.5 5.5 14.0 43.2 33.7 3.98aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 38

Table 27. Relative agreementa by saltwater shore anglers with various catch/retention statements, according to specialization level

 Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most

The more fish I catch, the happier I am N/Ab 3.61 3.72 3.53

A fishing trip can be a success even if no fish are caught N/A 3.92 3.95 4.23

I usually eat the fish I catch N/A 3.22 2.92 2.91

A successful trip is one in which many fish are caught N/A 2.90 3.13 3.17

I would rather catch one or two big fish than 10 smaller fish N/A 3.40 3.59 3.99

When I go fishing, I’m just as happy if I don’t catch a fish N/A 3.00 3.19 3.36

It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch N/A 3.19 3.09 2.75

The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip N/A 3.30 3.32 3.41

I’m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch N/A 3.91 4.11 3.59

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

b

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 39

Table 28. Extent to which partyboat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the reasons for not fishing from partyboats in Massachusetts more often

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

Resource-Related Reasons

I can’t catch enough keepers to take home 11.9 39.6 28.1 15.5 4.9 2.62I can’t catch enough fish to suit me 11.5 40.3 27.7 16.2 4.3 2.61I believe an increase in my fishing activity would be bad for the resource 16.9 41.6 31.4 8.3 1.7 2.36Fishing regulations are too restrictive 15.9 42.9 34.3 5.7 1.2 2.33I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of pollutants/contamination 18.5 50.1 22.0 7.9 1.6 2.24

Partyboat-Related Reasons

Partyboats are too crowded 3.1 22.9 30.6 30.7 12.8 3.27Partyboat costs are too high 2.8 22.7 41.2 27.9 5.5 3.11Too far a drive to get to partyboat sites 8.9 35.5 23.3 23.1 9.2 2.88Partyboats don’t target the types of fish I prefer to catch 12.2 46.7 31.7 6.8 2.5 2.41

Other Reasons

I have too many other demands on my time 5.5 19.5 22.1 39.5 13.4 3.36Other leisure activities take up my time 5.3 17.8 26.7 42.5 7.8 3.30It is difficult to find others to fish with me 11.5 46.7 24.2 16.1 1.5 2.49

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 40Table 29. Extent to which partyboat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the general level of satisfaction with partyboat fishing in Massachusetts

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

The partyboat fishing opportunities in Massachusetts 2.6 6.9 21.1 61.3 8.1 3.66 generally meet my needs for a satisfying experienceI generally get my money’s worth when partyboat fishing 3.8 10.5 28.6 49.5 7.6 3.47 in MassachusettsaMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 41

Table 30. Relative agreementa by partyboat anglers with various statements on the reasons for not fishing from partyboats in Massachusetts more often, according to

specialization level

Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Resource-Related Reasons

I can’t catch enough keepers to take home 2.90 2.60 2.48 2.84 2.62I can’t catch enough fish to suit me 2.83 2.58 2.65 2.45 2.61I believe an increase in my fishing activity would be bad for the resource 2.45 2.36 2.26 2.07 2.36Fishing regulations are too restrictive 2.65 2.28 2.34 2.55 2.33I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of pollutants and contamination 2.41 2.29 2.02 1.79 2.24

Partyboat-Related Reasons

Partyboats are too crowded 3.31 3.32 3.13 3.28 3.27

Partyboat costs are too high 3.43 3.07 3.02 2.91 3.11Too far a drive to get to partyboat sites 3.29 2.86 2.79 2.81 2.88Partyboats don’t target the types of fish I prefer to catch 2.70 2.40 2.23 2.04 2.41

Other Reasons

I have too many other demands on my time 3.56 3.36 3.27 2.82 3.36Other leisure activities take up my time 3.93 3.22 3.04 2.49 3.30It is difficult to find others to fish with me 2.88 2.47 2.42 2.28 2.49

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 42Table 31. Relative agreementa by partyboat anglers with various statements on the general level of satisfaction with partyboat fishing in Massachusetts, according to

specialization level

Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most Overall

The partyboat fishing opportunities in Massachusetts 3.39 3.68 3.68 4.18 3.66 generally meet my needs for a satisfying experienceI generally get my money’s worth when I go partyboat fishing 3.07 3.53 3.52 4.10 3.47 in Massachusetts

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 43

Table 32. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the reasons for not saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts

more often

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

Resource-Related Reasons

I can’t catch enough keepers to take home 22.0 44.3 19.1 11.5 3.2 2.30Fishing regulations are too restrictive 17.2 48.3 26.3 7.4 1.0 2.27I can’t catch enough fish to suit me 17.1 54.5 19.7 6.6 2.1 2.22I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of pollutants and contamination 23.4 49.3 22.8 3.8 0.7 2.09I believe an increase in my fishing activity would be bad for the resource 21.8 54.5 19.3 2.9 1.5 2.08

Private-Boat-Related Reasons

Costs associated with private boat fishing are too high 4.9 37.9 30.2 23.9 3.1 2.82I don’t always have access to a private boat 22.4 31.5 16.3 21.5 8.4 2.62Too far a drive to get to a marina or launch site 13.0 48.2 19.3 13.2 6.4 2.52Too much effort to keep boat in good working order 13.6 43.8 33.0 9.1 0.5 2.39

Other Reasons

I have too many other demands on my time 5.1 18.6 16.6 49.4 10.2 3.41Other leisure activities take up my time 6.5 27.3 29.3 32.1 4.7 3.01It is difficult to find others to fish with me 10.3 51.4 17.3 17.5 3.5 2.53

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 44Table 33. Extent to which saltwater private boat anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the general level of satisfaction with saltwater private boat fishing

in Massachusetts

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

The saltwater private boat fishing opportunities in Massachusetts 0.6 4.8 12.8 61.5 20.3 3.96 generally meet my needs for a satisfying experienceThe private boat dockage and launch sites in Massachusetts 4.4 14.1 21.1 48.9 11.5 3.49 meet my needs for saltwater fishingaMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 45

Table 34. Relative agreementa by saltwater private boat anglers with various statements on the reasons for not participating in saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts more often, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Resource-Related Reasons

I can’t catch enough keepers to take home N/Ab 2.16 2.43 2.32 2.30

Fishing regulations are too restrictive N/A 2.34 2.28 2.11 2.27I can’t catch enough fish to suit me N/A 2.35 2.16 2.19 2.22I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of pollutants and contamination N/A 2.07 2.12 2.05 2.09I believe an increase in my fishing activity would be bad for the resource N/A 1.93 2.26 1.92 2.08

Private-Boat-Related Reasons

Costs associated with private boat fishing are too high N/A 2.87 2.84 2.75 2.82I don’t always have access to a private boat N/A 2.97 2.63 1.90 2.62Too far a drive to get to marina/launch site N/A 2.52 2.57 2.47 2.52Too much effort to keep boat in good working order N/A 2.65 2.32 2.11 2.39

Other Reasons

I have too many other demands on my time N/A 3.55 3.42 3.15 3.41Other leisure activities take up my time N/A 3.35 2.90 2.55 3.01It is difficult to find others to fish with me N/A 2.60 2.57 2.33 2.53

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.bN/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 46Table 35. Relative agreementa by saltwater private boat anglers with various statements on the general level of satisfaction with saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most Overall

The saltwater private boat fishing opportunities in Massachusetts N/Ab 3.89 3.96 4.06 3.96

 generally meet my needs for a satisfying experienceThe private boat dockage and launch sites in Massachusetts N/A 3.62 3.42 3.36 3.49 meet my needs for saltwater fishing

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.bN/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 47

Table 36. Extent to which saltwater shore anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the reasons for not participating in saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts more often

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

Resource-Related Reasons

I can’t catch enough keepers to take home 25.8 34.1 19.9 16.1 4.1 2.39I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of pollutants and contamination 26.6 34.6 26.0 11.3 1.5 2.27I can’t catch enough fish to suit me 23.7 44.7 18.3 11.1 2.2 2.24Fishing regulations are too restrictive 21.4 50.2 24.0 3.5 0.9 2.12I believe an increase in my fishing activity would be bad for the resource 28.1 51.4 15.4 3.3 1.8 1.99

Shore-Fishing-Related Reasons

Shore fishing sites too crowded 7.2 39.7 31.3 18.1 3.7 2.71Too far a drive to get to shore fishing sites 17.6 40.1 18.0 20.9 3.5 2.52When fishing from shore, I can’t catch the types of fish I prefer to catch 13.9 44.2 28.5 10.9 2.5 2.44Costs associated with saltwater shore fishing are too high 18.1 44.3 29.9 7.6 0.0 2.27

Other Reasons

I have too many other demands on my time 4.6 19.1 22.2 38.8 15.4 3.41Other leisure activities take up my time 8.0 26.8 24.8 33.6 7.0 3.05It is difficult to find others to fish with me 16.9 51.0 19.7 11.5 0.9 2.29

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 48Table 37. Extent to which saltwater shore anglers agreed or disagreed with various statements on the general level of satisfaction with saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

The saltwater shore fishing opportunities in Massachusetts 1.0 5.0 21.8 59.0 13.3 3.78 generally meet my needs for a satisfying experienceaMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Page 49

Table 38. Relative agreementa by saltwater shore anglers with various statements on the reasons for not participating in saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts more often,

according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Resource-Related Reasons

I can’t catch enough keepers to take home N/Ab 2.64 2.03 2.61 2.39

I am afraid to eat the fish I catch becauseof pollutants and contamination N/A 2.29 2.38 2.07 2.27I can’t catch enough fish to suit me N/A 2.42 1.90 2.41 2.24Fishing regulations are too restrictive N/A 2.29 1.96 2.15 2.12I believe an increase in my fishing activity would be bad for the resource N/A 1.97 1.88 2.49 1.99

Shore-Fishing-Related Reasons

Shore fishing sites are too crowded N/A 2.66 2.96 2.84 2.71Too far a drive to get to shore fishing sites N/A 2.58 2.48 3.01 2.52When fishing from shore, I can’t catch the types of fish I prefer to catch N/A 2.58 2.28 2.43 2.44Costs associated with saltwater shore fishing are too high N/A 2.29 2.27 2.54 2.27

Other Reasons

I have too many other demands on my time N/A 3.39 3.46 3.55 3.41Other leisure activities take up my time N/A 3.29 2.71 2.61 3.05It is difficult to find others to fish with me N/A 2.47 2.20 2.18 2.29

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.bN/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 50Table 39. Relative agreementa by saltwater shore anglers with various statements on the general level of satisfaction with saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts,

according to specialization level

 Specialization Level

Statement Least Moderately Very Most Overall

The saltwater shore fishing opportunities in Massachusetts N/Ab 3.61 4.04 4.07 3.78

 generally meet my needs for a satisfying experience

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.bN/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 51

Table 40. Avidity (given as days fished during previous 12 mo) by partyboat survey anglers, according to water type,

fishing mode, and specialization level

 Specialization Level

Mode Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat from Massachusetts 1.0 1.3 2.4 6.6 1.6

Partyboat from another state 0.1 0.3 1.9 6.5 0.7

Charterboat from Massachusetts 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1

Private boat leaving from Massachusetts 0.2 0.4 3.8 1.6 1.0

Shore-based fishing in Massachusetts 0.9 1.9 6.3 2.5 2.5

Freshwater Fishing

Private boat leaving from Massachusetts 2.0 1.8 2.8 0.2 1.9

Private boat leaving from another state 1.8 4.1 7.0 6.7 4.3

Shore-based fishing in Massachusetts 2.3 4.7 4.6 2.5 4.3

Shore-based fishing in another state 4.4 5.4 11.9 14.1 6.7

Table 41. Percentage of saltwater anglers who said they had purchased a freshwater fishing license in their state of

residence in 1998, according to saltwater fishing mode and specialization level

 Specialization Level

Mode Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Partyboat 24 36 43 58 35

Private Boat N/Aa 41 61 56 52

Shore N/A 53 61 75 59

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.

Table 42. Percentage of partyboat anglers who said they had taken at least one whale-watching cruise in the past 12 mo,

according to specialization level

 Specialization Level

Mode Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Partyboat 28 30 24 15 28
Page 52

Table 43. Partyboat survey respondent reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing

mode, and time period. (Trends measured as percentage of anglers reporting a generally decreased, increased,

or same number of trips taken.)

Trend

Mode Time Period Decreased Increased Same No Trips

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat 1988-93 7.0 11.3 37.7 44.0

1994-98 13.2 35.8 43.3 7.8

Charterboat 1988-93 6.4 5.9 19.6 68.0

1994-98 9.4 10.0 19.7 60.9

Private boat 1988-93 4.8 6.9 14.6 73.7

1994-98 10.3 11.0 12.8 65.9

Shore 1988-93 5.9 11.9 23.8 58.4

1994-98 11.7 19.3 21.9 47.2

Freshwater Fishing

All freshwater modes 1988-93 6.2 9.9 18.4 65.5

1994-98 12.7 15.2 14.6 57.6

Table 44. Reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing mode, and time period, for

partyboat anglers reporting a decrease in Massachusetts partyboat trips from 1994 to 1998. (Trends measured

as percentage of anglers reporting a generally decreased, increased, or same number of trips taken.)

Trend

Mode Time Period Decreased Increased Same No Trips

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat 1988-93 29.2 37.5 28.6 4.7

Charterboat 1994-98 46.9 2.2 8.7 42.3

Private boat 1994-98 36.4 12.1 10.5 41.0

Shore 1994-98 53.7 13.7 5.7 26.9

Freshwater Fishing

All freshwater modes 1994-98 36.9 16.3 10.1 36.8
Page 53

Table 45. Avidity (given as days fished during previous 12 mo) by private boat survey anglers, according to water type,

fishing mode, and specialization level

 Specialization Level

Mode Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat from Massachusetts N/Aa 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3

Partyboat from another state N/A 0.1 1.6 0.5 0.8

Charterboat from Massachusetts N/A 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

Private boat leaving from Massachusetts N/A 4.6 10.3 21.6 10.3

Shore-based fishing in Massachusetts N/A 4.3 6.0 8.2 5.9

Freshwater Fishing

Private boat leaving from Massachusetts N/A 11.1 4.9 3.8 6.7

Private boat from another state N/A 5.0 5.6 14.2 6.9

Shore-based fishing in Massachusetts N/A 4.8 6.0 3.4 5.2

Shore-based fishing in another state N/A 3.7 2.1 3.8 2.8

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 54

Table 46. Private boat survey respondent reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type,

fishing mode, and time period. (Trends measured as percentage of anglers reporting a generally decreased,

increased, or same number of trips taken.)

Trend

Mode Time Period Decreased Increased Same No Trips

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat 1988-93 9.5 9.5 21.1 59.9

1994-98 20.4 5.9 16.2 57.6

Charterboat 1988-93 7.0 12.1 15.9 65.0

1994-98 13.7 13.6 11.4 61.3

Private boat 1988-93 11.3 32.9 37.0 18.8

1994-98 8.4 62.7 26.8 2.1

Shore 1988-93 14.7 22.9 31.2 31.3

1994-98 16.4 34.2 26.6 22.9

Freshwater Fishing

All freshwater modes 1988-93 8.7 23.9 29.0 38.5

1994-98 23.0 22.1 20.8 34.2

Table 47. Reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing mode, and time period, for

private boat anglers reporting a decrease in Massachusetts partyboat trips from 1994 to 1998. (Trends measured

as percentage of anglers reporting a generally decreased, increased, or same number of trips taken.)

Trend

Mode Time Period Decreased Increased Same No Trips

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat 1988-93 32.8 28.2 27.2 11.8

Charterboat 1994-98 55.4 10.9 9.9 23.8

Private boat 1994-98 6.0 84.7 8.3 1.0

Shore 1994-98 9.6 59.2 26.1 5.1

Freshwater Fishing

All freshwater modes 1994-98 40.3 27.4 12.3 20.0
Page 55

Table 48. Avidity (given as days fished during previous 12 mo) by shore survey anglers, according to water type, fishing

mode, and specialization level

 Specialization Level

Mode Least Moderately Very Most Overall

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat from Massachusetts N/Aa 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.8

Partyboat from another state N/A 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.4

Charterboat from Massachusetts N/A 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2

Private boat leaving from Massachusetts N/A 2.0 4.3 4.8 2.8

Shore-based fishing in Massachusetts N/A 4.7 12.2 15.1 8.3

Freshwater Fishing

Private boat leaving from Massachusetts N/A 5.0 6.3 1.8 4.5

Private boat leaving from another state N/A 4.9 9.3 3.3 6.3

Shore-based fishing in Massachusetts N/A 5.6 9.5 7.1 6.8

Shore-based fishing in another state N/A 4.9 7.2 4.9 5.5

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 56

Table 49. Shore survey respondent reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing

mode, and time period. (Trends measured as percentage of anglers reporting a generally decreased, increased,

or same number of trips taken.)

Trend

Mode Time Period Decreased Increased Same No Trips

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat 1988-93 7.6 3.3 22.9 66.2

1994-98 16.1 7.1 16.6 60.2

Charterboat 1988-93 7.7 5.9 20.3 66.1

1994-98 13.3 7.1 22.6 57.0

Private boat 1988-93 6.6 17.3 23.6 52.6

1994-98 17.2 18.3 21.8 42.7

Shore 1988-93 13.0 21.4 34.8 30.8

1994-98 17.9 52.1 28.9 1.1

Freshwater Fishing

All freshwater modes 1988-93 9.2 17.8 32.7 40.4

1994-98 19.5 17.4 22.0 40.8

Table 50. Reported trends in Massachusetts fishing avidity, according to water type, fishing mode, and time period, for

shore anglers reporting a decrease in Massachusetts partyboat trips from 1994 to 1998. (Trends measured as

percentage of anglers reporting a generally decreased, increased, or same number of trips taken.)

Trend

Mode Time Period Decreased Increased Same No Trips

Saltwater Fishing

Partyboat 1988-93 46.0 8.5 45.6 0.0

Charterboat 1994-98 46.3 1.4 33.1 19.2

Private boat 1994-98 55.9 20.3 11.8 12.1

Shore 1994-98 25.1 60.9 14.0 0.0

Freshwater Fishing

All freshwater modes 1994-98 51.8 19.6 22.4 6.3
Page 57

Table 51. Percentage of partyboat anglers ranking a species as first-, second-, or third-most preferred to catch on partyboat

fishing trips in Massachusetts

Rank

Species 1 2 3 Totala

Atlantic cod 27.2 20.6 14.0 61.8

Striped bass 17.7 25.0 14.3 57.0

Bluefish 13.6 20.9 14.0 48.5

Summer flounder 11.1 12.0 18.2 41.3

Black sea bass 1.5 4.7 6.3 12.5

Haddock 8.2 2.4 1.1 11.7

Tautog 0.4 4.3 2.9 7.6

Scup 3.2 1.1 2.0 6.3

No preference 15.6 7.4 23.1 46.1

Other 2.1 1.6 4.1 7.8

100.0 100.0 100.0

a

Percentage of anglers for whom the species was ranked in the top three.

Table 52. Percentage of partyboat anglers ranking the indicated species as one of the top three species they prefer to catch

when partyboat fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Species Least Moderately Very Most

Atlantic cod 55.4 62.4 65.9 68.0

Striped bass 60.5 59.4 53.4 27.7

Bluefish 26.9 52.4 52.9 28.5

Summer flounder 44.0 41.5 36.9 23.8

Haddock 3.5 12.5 14.2 13.8

Black sea bass 16.8 10.6 13.7 38.3

Tautog 0.0 5.9 17.3 39.9

Scup 3.5 4.3 12.8 32.0

Table 53. Percentage of Massachusetts partyboat anglers that reported actually targeting the indicated species on partyboat

fishing trips from 1996 to 1999 (MRFSS primary target species trips)

Year

Species 1996 1997 1998 1999

Atlantic cod 64.5 29.4 16.0 38.4

Striped bass 0.6 2.0 1.9 0.3

Bluefish 7.6 3.5 3.3 2.3

Summer flounder 0.6 3.5 4.4 1.6

Black sea bass 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.7

Haddock 0.4 0.3 1.3 2.0

Tautog 1.6 0.1 0.6 0.4

Scup 2.3 6.4 6.5 9.6

No preference/anything 21.0 52.1 59.5 39.1

Other 0.7 1.9 6.1 5.6
Page 58Table 54a. Extent to which partyboat anglers -- both overall and by specialization level -- agreed or disagreed with the given reason why they don’t fish from partyboats in

Massachusetts more frequently

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Specialization Strongly Strongly Relative

Reason Level Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

Partyboats don’t target the types of fish Overall 12.2 46.7 31.7 6.8 2.5 2.41 that I prefer to catch Least 6.7 26.7 55.6 8.9 2.2 2.73

Moderate 12.6 45.7 32.7 6.3 2.8 2.41Very 18.6 59.3 17.7 4.4 0.0 2.08Most 39.3 50.0 5.4 3.6 1.8 1.79

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

Table 54b. Relative importance placed by partyboat anglers -- both overall and by specialization level -- on the given reason for deciding whether to go partyboat fishing in

Massachusetts as compared to some other type of fishing they may do in Massachusetts

Specialization Importance Level (% of anglers) Don’t Do Any

Reason Level Not At All Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Other Fishing

The types of fish that partyboats target Overall 18.2 24.4 27.4 19.4 7.4 3.2

Least 27.2 34.0 7.2 19.3 5.7 6.8Moderate 15.3 24.4 32.1 19.1 7.1 2.1Very 16.8 17.7 35.2 24.5 5.1 0.7Most 15.8 19.1 15.3 9.0 39.6 1.2

Table 54c. Relative importance placed by partyboat anglers -- both overall and by specialization level -- on the given reason for selecting a particular Massachusetts partyboat

on which to fish

Specialization Importance Level (% of anglers) Relative

Reason Level Not At All Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Importancea

The species of fish that the partyboat targets Overall 22.0 21.5 30.9 19.0 6.6 2.67

Least 29.8 34.0 23.4 10.6 2.1 2.21Moderate 16.3 21.7 31.8 24.4 5.8 2.82Very 15.8 16.7 31.6 24.6 11.4 2.99Most 16.1 12.5 19.6 26.8 25.0 3.32

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important.
Page 59

Table 55. Percentage of saltwater private boat anglers ranking a species as first-, second-, or third-most preferred to catch

on saltwater private boat fishing trips in Massachusetts

Rank

Species 1 2 3 Totala

Striped bass 75.9 13.2 7.9 97.0

Bluefish 7.1 50.9 21.9 79.9

Summer flounder 5.6 14.2 19.7 39.5

Atlantic cod 6.0 5.7 11.3 23.0

Atlantic mackerel 1.2 4.2 11.6 17.0

Winter flounder 0.8 4.9 2.4 8.1

Tautog 0.2 2.2 4.1 6.5

No preference 0.6 1.1 16.4 18.1

Other 2.6 3.6 4.7 10.9

100.0 100.0 100.0

a

Percentage of anglers for whom the species was ranked in the top three.

Table 56. Percentage of saltwater private boat anglers ranking the indicated species as one of the top three species they

prefer to catch when saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Species Least Moderately Very Most

Striped bass N/Aa 96.5 98.9 92.1

Bluefish N/A 87.8 75.9 76.1

Summer flounder N/A 21.4 52.4 38.7

Atlantic cod N/A 25.0 21.6 22.4

Atlantic mackerel N/A 17.6 15.8 19.6

Winter flounder N/A 5.0 10.4 8.7

Tautog N/A 4.2 7.4 9.0

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.

Table 57. Percentage of Massachusetts saltwater private boat anglers that reported actually targeting the indicated species on saltwater private boat fishing trips from 1996 to 1999 (MRFSS primary target species trips)

Year

Species 1996 1997 1998 1999

Striped bass 52.9 58.4 68.0 61.2

Bluefish 9.0 4.2 5.4 5.3

Summer flounder 3.4 2.9 5.9 3.8

Atlantic cod 18.1 7.7 2.8 3.6

Atlantic mackerel 1.8 4.3 1.5 3.8

Winter flounder 2.3 1.0 1.3 1.2

Tautog 2.2 2.3 0.8 3.6

No preference/anything 4.5 16.6 11.0 13.7

Other 5.8 2.6 3.3 3.8
Page 60

Table 58. Percentage of saltwater shore anglers ranking a species as first-, second-, or third-most preferred to catch on

saltwater shore fishing trips in Massachusetts

Rank

Species 1 2 3 Totala

Striped bass 70.3 12.6 6.4 89.3

Bluefish 5.4 61.7 15.4 82.5

Summer flounder 6.5 11.0 12.8 30.4

Atlantic mackerel 1.8 2.3 7.2 11.3

Winter flounder 2.9 2.1 3.9 8.9

No preference 7.6 4.4 36.2 48.2

Other 5.3 5.6 14.3 25.2

100.0 100.0 100.0

a

Percentage of anglers for whom the species was ranked in the top three.

Table 59. Percentage of saltwater shore anglers ranking the indicated species as one of the top three species they prefer to

catch when saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Species Least Moderately Very Most

Striped bass N/Aa 89.5 90.8 97.5

Bluefish N/A 75.0 87.9 91.3

Summer flounder N/A 33.4 20.8 34.1

Atlantic mackerel N/A 9.1 10.6 11.8

Winter flounder N/A 12.9 7.4 3.0

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.

Table 60. Percentage of Massachusetts saltwater shore anglers that reported actually targeting the indicated species on

saltwater shore fishing trips from 1996 to 1999 (MRFSS primary target species trips)

Year

Species 1996 1997 1998 1999

Striped bass 56.2 54.6 64.4 57.5

Bluefish 16.5 8.7 6.6 9.9

Summer flounder 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.9

Atlantic mackerel 2.1 1.1 1.6 0.6

Winter flounder 2.1 1.8 0.7 0.4

No preference/anything 12.7 25.2 22.3 21.8

Other 9.5 7.4 3.2 8.9
Page 61

Table 61. Total economic impacts generated from recreational fishing expenditures by geographical location and fishing

mode in 1998

Total Impact

Impact Fishing Expenditures Sales Income Employment

Location Mode ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) (jobs)

Massachusetts Partyboat 4,486 6,924 2,746 142

Private boat 190,912 197,006 79,134 2,999

Shore 121,256 146,012 60,192 2,477

Total 316,654 349,942 142,072 5,618

Zone 1 Partyboat 2,039 3,109 1,247 60

Private boat 146,730 150,837 61,183 2,205

Shore 98,379 112,892 47,094 1,840

Total 247,148 266,838 109,524 4,105

Zone 2 Partyboat 2,221 3,091 1,225 67

Private boat 37,095 37,572 14,871 569

Shore 19,257 19,378 8,102 340

Total 58,573 60,041 24,198 976
Page 62

Table 62. Economic impacts generated from partyboat fishing expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 399 118 31 54 202

Bait and tackle 171 88 20 43 151

Restaurant 634 634 221 269 1,124

Groceries 355 85 18 46 148

Lodging 781 781 275 328 1,384

Parking 55 55 16 24 95

Partyboat fees 2,016 2,016 791 878 3,685

Rod rental 74 74 29 32 135

Total 4,485 3,851 1,401 1,674 6,924

Income ($000s)

Automobile 399 53 13 21 87

Bait and tackle 171 45 8 17 69

Restaurant 634 255 76 107 437

Groceries 355 48 7 18 73

Lodging 781 307 111 130 547

Parking 55 24 6 10 40

Partyboat fees 2,016 776 316 348 1,440

Rod rental 74 29 12 13 53

Total 4,485 1,537 546 664 2,746

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 399 1012

Bait and tackle 171 2013

Restaurant 634 17 2 4 23

Groceries 355 3014

Lodging 781 11 3 4 18

Parking 55 1001

Partyboat fees 2,016 68 9 11 88

Rod rental 74 3003

Total 4,485 106 14 22 142
Page 63

Table 63. Economic impacts generated from saltwater shore fishing expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 16,812 4,867 1,310 2,262 8,439

Bait and tackle 21,985 11,278 2,519 5,562 19,359

Restaurant 25,409 25,409 8,845 10,790 45,043

Groceries 20,823 4,998 1,032 2,669 8,699

Lodging 28,681 28,681 10,106 12,049 50,837

Parking 1,236 1,236 359 545 2,140

Site entrance fee 4,588 4,588 1,801 1,997 8,386

Public transportation 1,722 1,722 405 983 3,110

Total 121,256 82,778 26,376 36,857 146,012

Income ($000s)

Automobile 16,812 2,221 526 898 3,645

Bait and tackle 21,985 5,711 982 2,206 8,899

Restaurant 25,409 10,211 3,032 4,280 17,523

Groceries 20,823 2,808 388 1,059 4,255

Lodging 28,681 11,254 4,059 4,779 20,092

Parking 1,236 545 126 216 887

Site entrance fee 4,588 1,767 719 792 3,278

Public transportation 1,722 1,052 171 390 1,612

Total 121,256 35,568 10,003 14,621 60,192

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 16,812 58 13 29 100

Bait and tackle 21,985 216 25 71 312

Restaurant 25,409 667 82 139 888

Groceries 20,823 155 10 34 199

Lodging 28,681 407 117 155 679

Parking 1,236 26 4 7 37

Site entrance fee 4,588 156 20 26 202

Public transportation 1,722 43 4 13 60

Total 121,256 1,728 275 474 2,477
Page 64

Table 64. Economic impacts generated from saltwater private boat fishing expenditures in Massachusetts in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 25,130 7,276 1,959 3,381 12,617

Bait and tackle 32,926 16,891 3,773 8,328 28,993

Boat fuel 37,490 10,855 2,922 5,044 18,821

Restaurant 30,321 30,321 10,556 12,874 53,750

Groceries 24,917 5,980 1,235 3,194 10,408

Lodging 26,651 26,651 9,391 11,194 47,236

Parking 1,102 1,102 320 486 1,908

Launch fee/docking 11,343 11,343 6,547 3,520 21,410

Public transportation 1,031 1,031 242 589 1,862

Total 190,912 111,451 36,946 48,609 197,006

Income ($000s)

Automobile 25,130 3,320 786 1,343 5,449

Bait and tackle 32,926 8,553 1,471 3,304 13,328

Boat fuel 37,490 4,953 1,173 2,003 8,129

Restaurant 30,321 12,185 3,619 5,107 20,910

Groceries 24,917 3,360 465 1,267 5,092

Lodging 26,651 10,458 3,772 4,440 18,670

Parking 1,102 486 113 193 791

Launch fee/docking 11,343 1,967 2,436 1,396 5,799

Public transportation 1,031 630 102 233 966

Total 190,912 45,912 13,936 19,285 79,134

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 25,130 86 20 44 150

Bait and tackle 32,926 323 38 107 468

Boat fuel 37,490 128 30 65 223

Restaurant 30,321 796 97 166 1,059

Groceries 24,917 185 12 41 238

Lodging 26,651 378 109 144 631

Parking 1,102 24 3 6 33

Launch fee/docking 11,343 54 62 45 161

Public transportation 1,031 25 3 8 36

Total 190,912 1,999 374 626 2,999
Page 65

Table 65. Economic impacts generated from partyboat fishing expenditures in Zone 1 in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 174 54 17 24 95

Bait and tackle 60 31 7 15 53

Restaurant 325 325 108 136 569

Groceries 178 43 9 22 74

Lodging 470 470 160 194 824

Parking 41 41 12 18 71

Partyboat fees 765 765 295 318 1,378

Rod rental 26 26 10 11 46

Total 2,039 1,756 616 737 3,109

Income ($000s)

Automobile 174 23 7 10 39

Bait and tackle 60 16 3 6 24

Restaurant 325 135 38 55 227

Groceries 178 24 3 9 37

Lodging 470 190 65 79 334

Parking 41 18 4 7 30

Partyboat fees 765 290 120 129 538

Rod rental 26 10 4 4 18

Total 2,039 705 243 298 1,247

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 174 1001

Bait and tackle 60 1001

Restaurant 325 8 1 2 11

Groceries 178 1001

Lodging 470 6 2 3 11

Parking 41 1001

Partyboat fees 765 26 3 4 33

Rod rental 26 1001

Total 2,039 45 6 9 60
Page 66

Table 66. Economic impacts generated from saltwater shore fishing expenditures in Zone 1 in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 13,389 4,181 1,275 1,810 7,266

Bait and tackle 19,112 7,363 1,640 3,429 12,433

Restaurant 20,979 20,979 6,932 8,748 36,658

Groceries 16,680 4,003 814 2,082 6,899

Lodging 22,699 22,699 7,725 9,387 39,812

Parking 1,004 1,004 289 429 1,721

Site entrance fee 2,888 2,888 1,112 1,201 5,201

Public transportation 1,629 1,629 366 907 2,902

Total 98,379 64,746 20,152 27,993 112,892

Income ($000s)

Automobile 13,389 1,767 508 733 3,008

Bait and tackle 19,112 3,618 648 1,388 5,654

Restaurant 20,979 8,676 2,417 3,541 14,634

Groceries 16,680 2,230 311 843 3,383

Lodging 22,699 9,204 3,128 3,800 16,132

Parking 1,004 443 103 174 719

Site entrance fee 2,888 1,093 452 486 2,031

Public transportation 1,629 1,008 158 367 1,533

Total 98,379 28,038 7,723 11,332 47,094

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 13,389 46 13 23 82

Bait and tackle 19,112 132 16 44 192

Restaurant 20,979 530 63 111 704

Groceries 16,680 120 8 26 154

Lodging 22,699 293 87 119 499

Parking 1,004 21 3 6 30

Site entrance fee 2,888 97 12 15 124

Public transportation 1,629 39 4 12 55

Total 98,379 1,278 206 356 1,840
Page 67

Table 67. Economic impacts generated from saltwater private boat fishing expenditures in Zone 1 in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 18,915 5,908 1,802 2,557 10,268

Bait and tackle 25,836 13,548 2,973 6,437 22,958

Boat fuel 30,517 9,518 2,900 4,121 16,539

Restaurant 22,565 22,565 7,456 9,410 39,431

Groceries 19,014 4,563 928 2,373 7,865

Lodging 19,686 19,686 6,700 8,140 34,525

Parking 620 620 178 265 1,063

Launch fee/docking 8,588 8,588 5,191 2,647 16,425

Public transportation 990 990 222 551 1,762

Total 146,730 85,986 28,351 36,500 150,837

Income ($000s)

Automobile 18,915 2,497 718 1,036 4,250

Bait and tackle 25,836 6,830 1,176 2,606 10,612

Boat fuel 30,517 4,026 1,129 1,669 6,824

Restaurant 22,565 9,332 2,600 3,809 15,741

Groceries 19,014 2,583 354 961 3,898

Lodging 19,686 7,982 2,713 3,295 13,990

Parking 620 274 63 107 444

Launch fee/docking 8,588 1,515 1,908 1,072 4,495

Public transportation 990 612 96 223 931

Total 146,730 35,651 10,755 14,777 61,184

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 18,915 65 18 33 116

Bait and tackle 25,836 251 29 82 362

Boat fuel 30,517 105 29 52 186

Restaurant 22,565 570 68 120 758

Groceries 19,014 137 9 30 176

Lodging 19,686 254 75 104 433

Parking 620 13 2 3 18

Launch fee/docking 8,588 41 49 34 124

Public transportation 990 23 2 7 32

Total 146,730 1,459 281 465 2,205
Page 68

Table 68. Economic impacts generated from partyboat fishing expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 255 73 22 30 125

Bait and tackle 65 8 2 3 13

Restaurant 243 243 75 90 408

Groceries 235 56 11 26 94

Lodging 199 199 66 72 338

Parking 936 936 257 361 2

Partyboat fees 1,195 1,195 419 451 2,064

Rod rental 28 28 10 11 48

Total 2,221 1,804 604 683 3,091

Income ($000s)

Automobile 255 33 8 12 52

Bait and tackle 65 4239

Restaurant 243 98 26 35 160

Groceries 235 32 4 10 46

Lodging 199 76 27 28 131

Parking 936 411 89 141 641

Partyboat fees 1,195 469 162 177 807

Rod rental 28 11 4 4 19

Total 2,221 723 232 270 1,225

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 255 1001

Bait and tackle 65 0000

Restaurant 243 6118

Groceries 235 2002

Lodging 199 3115

Parking 936 0000

Partyboat fees 1,195 39 5 6 50

Rod rental 28 1001

Total 2,221 52 7 8 67
Page 69

Table 69. Economic impacts generated from saltwater shore fishing expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 3,253 935 243 378 1,556

Bait and tackle 5,464 2,577 536 1,141 4,253

Restaurant 3,564 3,564 1,091 1,319 5,974

Groceries 3,272 785 153 369 1,307

Lodging 2,382 2,382 790 862 4,034

Parking 457 457 126 176 759

Site entrance fee 866 866 303 327 1,495

Public transportation 00000

Total 19,257 11,565 3,243 4,571 19,378

Income ($000s)

Automobile 3,253 419 97 148 664

Bait and tackle 5,464 1,336 208 447 1,991

Restaurant 3,564 1,440 381 517 2,337

Groceries 3,272 440 57 145 641

Lodging 2,382 914 319 338 1,571

Parking 457 201 43 69 313

Site entrance fee 866 340 117 128 585

Public transportation 00000

Total 19,257 5,088 1,223 1,791 8,102

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 3,253 10 3 5 18

Bait and tackle 5,464 49 5 14 68

Restaurant 3,564 93 10 17 120

Groceries 3,272 24 2 5 31

Lodging 2,382 36 9 11 56

Parking 457 9 1 2 12

Site entrance fee 866 28 3 4 35

Public transportation 00000

Total 19,257 249 33 58 340
Page 70

Table 70. Economic impacts generated from saltwater private boat fishing expenditures in Zone 2 in 1998

Total

Expenditure Expenditures Impacts

Category ($000s) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Sales ($000s)

Automobile 6,055 1,741 453 703 2,896

Bait and tackle 6,541 3,085 642 1,365 5,092

Boat fuel 9,616 2,765 719 1,116 4,600

Restaurant 6,808 6,808 2,084 2,519 11,410

Groceries 302 302 59 142 503

Lodging 5,324 5,324 1,766 1,927 9,018

Parking 196 196 54 76 325

Launch fee/docking 2,254 2,254 957 518 3,728

Public transportation 00000

Total 37,095 22,473 6,734 8,365 37,572

Income ($000s)

Automobile 6,055 780 181 276 1,237

Bait and tackle 6,541 1,600 249 535 2,383

Boat fuel 9,616 1,239 287 438 1,964

Restaurant 6,808 2,750 728 987 4,464

Groceries 302 169 22 56 247

Lodging 5,324 2,042 714 755 3,512

Parking 196 86 19 30 134

Launch fee/docking 2,254 351 378 203 931

Public transportation 00000

Total 37,095 9,017 2,577 3,278 14,871

Employment (jobs)

Automobile 6,055 19 5 9 33

Bait and tackle 6,541 58 7 18 83

Boat fuel 9,616 30 7 14 51

Restaurant 6,808 178 20 32 230

Groceries 302 9 1 2 12

Lodging 5,324 80 21 25 126

Parking 196 4116

Launch fee/docking 2,254 11 10 7 28

Public transportation 00000

Total 37,095 389 72 108 569
Page 71

Table 71. Percentage of anglers, by fishing mode and residence, that supported or opposed a Massachusetts saltwater

fishing license

Level of Support (% of anglers)

Oppose Support Support No

Mode Residence Altogether without a Fee with a Fee Opinion

Partyboat Massachusetts 54.3 15.0 12.5 18.2

Out-of-state 58.1 7.8 7.1 27.0

Combined 56.6 11.4 9.9 22.1

Private boat Massachusetts 70.0 12.8 13.9 3.4

Out-of-state 77.5 8.3 11.1 3.1

Combined 72.7 11.3 12.8 3.2

Shore Massachusetts 76.6 11.3 7.8 4.2

Out-of-state 74.1 2.3 19.2 4.4

Combined 75.1 8.3 12.2 4.3

Table 72. Percentage of anglers, by fishing mode and specialization level, that supported or opposed a Massachusetts

saltwater fishing license. (Responses of “No Opinion” were not included in this analysis.)

Level of Support (% of anglers)

Specialization Oppose Support Support

Mode Level Altogether without a Fee with a Fee

Partyboat Least 65.5 24.1 10.3

Moderate 72.3 14.2 13.6

Very 76.4 12.2 11.4

Most 83.0 9.8 7.2

Private boat Least N/Aa N/A N/A

Moderate 76.2 15.6 8.2

Very 76.0 5.9 18.1

Most 70.8 17.0 12.3

Shore Least N/A N/A N/A

Moderate 81.2 8.6 10.2

Very 74.3 8.4 17.3

Most 76.0 15.5 8.6

a

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 72Table 73. Extent to which anglers, by fishing mode and specialization level, agreed or disagreed with the given statement as to why they don’t saltwater fish from partyboats/

private boats/shore in Massachusetts more frequently

Agreement Level (% of anglers)

Specialization Strongly Strongly Relative

Statement Mode Level Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agreementa

Fishing regulations are too restrictive Partyboat Overall 15.9 42.9 34.3 5.7 1.2 2.33

Least 10.9 21.7 58.7 6.5 2.2 2.67Moderate 15.1 48.5 30.2 5.0 1.2 2.29Very 15.2 43.8 26.8 9.8 4.5 2.44Most 27.3 43.6 9.1 10.9 9.1 2.31

Private boat Overall 17.2 48.3 26.3 7.4 1.0 2.27

Least N/Ab N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Moderate 8.9 53.2 30.4 6.3 1.3 2.38Very 17.2 54.2 20.8 6.8 1.0 2.20Most 28.0 44.1 16.8 8.7 2.5 2.14

Shore Overall 21.4 50.2 24.0 3.5 0.9 2.12

Least N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AModerate 11.6 52.2 31.9 1.5 2.9 2.32Very 24.5 55.7 15.1 1.9 2.8 2.03Most 27.6 48.3 12.1 10.3 1.7 2.10

aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.bN/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 73

Table 74. Extent to which partyboat anglers supported or opposed various management tools for Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries. (See Appendix A1,

Questions 40a-h, for full wording of management tools.)

Support Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Somewhat Strongly Don’t Relative

Management Tool Support Support Neutral Oppose Oppose Know Supporta

Minimum size limits 68.1 24.2 3.7 1.5 1.7 0.7 1.43Slot limits 31.3 25.1 16.4 12.9 10.9 3.4 2.45Daily bag limits 44.0 28.1 10.1 10.1 7.2 0.5 2.08Seasonal restrictions 43.9 30.6 11.4 8.1 4.8 1.3 1.98Prohibiting the sale of fish by recreational anglers 27.2 18.4 25.4 13.8 12.9 2.3 2.66Not allowing the harvest of striped bass 18.8 11.6 33.4 9.6 14.1 12.6 2.87 in federal waters (EEZ)Increasing the minimum size limit, while also increasing 9.9 20.7 32.5 15.8 14.4 6.8 3.05 the daily bag limit, of a given speciesDecreasing the minimum size limit, while also decreasing 7.8 9.5 33.9 22.0 17.7 9.3 3.36 the daily bag limit, of a given speciesaMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly support, 2 = support, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat oppose, 5 = strongly oppose. Responses of “Don’t Know” were not

included in calculation of means.
Page 74

Table 75. Relative supporta by partyboat anglers for various management tools for Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater

fisheries, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Management Tool Least Moderately Very Most

Minimum size limits 1.52 1.48 1.51 1.08

Slot limits 2.55 2.57 2.59 2.08

Daily bag limits 2.07 2.11 2.06 2.50

Seasonal restrictions 1.95 2.07 1.97 2.76

Prohibiting the sale of fish by recreational anglers 2.85 2.69 2.89 2.63

Not allowing the harvest of striped bass 3.18 3.24 3.32 3.99

 in federal waters (EEZ)

Increasing the minimum size limit, while also increasing 3.46 3.16 3.32 2.95

 the daily bag limit, of a given species

Decreasing the minimum size limit, while also decreasing 3.44 3.58 3.69 4.41

 the daily bag limit, of a given species

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly support, 2 = support, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat oppose, 5 =

strongly oppose. Responses of “Don’t Know” were not included in calculation of means.
Page 75

Table 76. Extent to which private boat anglers supported or opposed various management tools for Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries. (See Appendix A2,

Questions 40a-h, for full wording of management tools.)

Support Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Somewhat Strongly Don’t Relative

Management Tool Support Support Neutral Oppose Oppose Know Supporta

Minimum size limits 79.4 15.8 1.2 1.1 0.0 2.6 1.22Slot limits 44.4 25.2 10.3 10.4 7.4 2.4 2.09Daily bag limits 68.0 21.2 2.5 3.5 4.3 0.5 1.54Seasonal restrictions 50.9 19.5 13.4 11.6 4.0 0.6 1.98Prohibiting the sale of fish by recreational anglers 47.5 9.1 16.0 12.1 14.7 0.6 2.37Not allowing the harvest of striped bass 28.4 8.1 21.9 6.2 30.7 4.8 3.03 in federal waters (EEZ)Increasing the minimum size limit, while also increasing 11.1 19.6 23.6 25.2 17.2 3.3 3.18 the daily bag limit, of a given speciesDecreasing the minimum size limit, while also decreasing 7.0 15.1 31.1 19.3 23.7 3.8 3.39 the daily bag limit, of a given speciesaMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly support, 2 = support, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat oppose, 5 = strongly oppose. Responses of “Don’t Know” were not

included in calculation of means.
Page 76

Table 77. Relative supporta by private boat anglers for various management tools for Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Management Tool Least Moderately Very Most

Minimum size limits N/Ab 1.40 1.38 1.17

Slot limits N/A 2.04 2.32 2.20

Daily bag limits N/A 1.59 1.53 1.68

Seasonal restrictions N/A 2.05 2.02 1.86

Prohibiting the sale of fish by recreational anglers N/A 2.64 2.13 2.53

Not allowing the harvest of striped bass N/A 3.09 3.28 3.02

 in federal waters (EEZ)

Increasing the minimum size limit, while also increasing N/A 3.21 3.38 3.22

 the daily bag limit, of a given species

Decreasing the minimum size limit, while also decreasing N/A 3.60 3.45 3.49

 the daily bag limit, of a given species

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly support, 2 = support, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat oppose, 5 =

strongly oppose. Responses of “Don’t Know” were not included in calculation of means.

b

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 77

Table 78. Extent to which shore anglers supported or opposed various management tools for Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries. (See Appendix A3, Questions

40a-h, for full wording of management tools.)

 Support Level (% of anglers)

Strongly Somewhat Strongly Don’t Relative

Management Tool Support Support Neutral Oppose Oppose Know Supporta

Minimum size limits 81.3 8.2 5.2 4.4 0.3 0.6 1.33Slot limits 44.0 27.9 13.2 8.4 4.5 2.1 2.00Daily bag limits 65.0 22.2 8.8 0.7 3.3 0.0 1.55Seasonal restrictions 48.5 27.0 16.4 3.9 1.9 2.3 1.81Prohibiting the sale of fish by recreational anglers 45.4 19.7 19.9 8.6 5.8 0.5 2.09Not allowing the harvest of striped bass 30.6 5.8 29.9 8.0 18.4 7.4 2.76 in federal waters (EEZ)Increasing the minimum size limit, while also increasing 7.4 19.6 32.8 18.5 18.0 3.7 3.21 the daily bag limit, of a given speciesDecreasing the minimum size limit, while also decreasing 7.7 18.3 35.4 10.6 24.5 3.5 3.27 the daily bag limit, of a given speciesaMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly support, 2 = support, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat oppose, 5 = strongly oppose. Responses of “Don’t Know” were not

included in calculation of means.
Page 78

Table 79. Relative supporta by shore anglers for various management tools for Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater

fisheries, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Management Tool Least Moderately Very Most

Minimum size limits N/Ab 1.35 1.29 1.15

Slot limits N/A 2.16 2.09 1.98

Daily bag limits N/A 1.73 1.30 1.16

Seasonal restrictions N/A 2.08 1.89 1.38

Prohibiting the sale of fish by recreational anglers N/A 2.18 2.29 1.81

Not allowing the harvest of striped bass N/A 2.84 3.64 2.62

 in federal waters (EEZ)

Increasing the minimum size limit, while also increasing N/A 3.04 3.73 3.27

 the daily bag limit, of a given species

Decreasing the minimum size limit, while also decreasing N/A 3.04 3.86 2.74

 the daily bag limit, of a given species

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = strongly support, 2 = support, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat oppose, 5 = strongly

oppose. Responses of “Don’t Know” were not included in calculation of means.

b

N/A = not available, due to sample size being too small for specialization group.
Page 79

Table 80. Relative importance placed on various items to partyboat anglers in their selection of a particular Massachusetts partyboat on which to fish

Importance Level (% of anglers) Relative

Item Not At All Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Importancea

Courteous and helpful crew 2.5 7.5 23.3 50.3 16.4 3.71Previous personal experience 8.6 12.7 28.9 38.5 11.3 3.31Cost of boat fees 6.9 17.0 32.7 31.3 12.1 3.25Size of boat 7.2 15.4 39.4 29.8 8.1 3.16Word of mouth 8.9 15.7 37.3 31.2 6.8 3.11Captain’s reputation 12.7 17.3 29.3 29.5 11.3 3.10Comfort features on the boat 8.4 22.1 40.7 24.0 4.7 2.95Number fish typically caught 16.5 20.9 31.9 25.1 5.6 2.82Distance from home to port 18.7 22.7 32.4 18.4 7.8 2.74Species of fish that boat targets 22.0 21.5 30.9 19.0 6.6 2.67Size of fish typically caught 19.1 26.7 30.7 19.5 4.0 2.63Saw advertisement in paper or magazine 31.1 23.9 29.2 12.6 3.3 2.33aMean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important.
Page 80

Table 81. Relative importancea placed on various items to partyboat anglers in their selection of a particular Massachusetts partyboat on which to fish, according to specialization level

Specialization Level

Item Least Moderately Very Most

Courteous and helpful crew 3.48 3.72 3.92 3.97

Previous personal experience 2.83 3.32 3.73 4.13

Cost of boat fees 3.53 3.18 3.32 2.98

Size of boat 3.07 3.15 3.31 3.66

Word of mouth 2.92 3.13 3.27 3.45

Captain’s reputation 2.70 3.01 3.71 4.17

Comfort features on the boat 2.89 2.98 2.85 3.48

Number of fish typically caught 2.47 2.85 2.95 3.46

Distance from home to port 2.95 2.71 2.73 2.46

Species of fish that boat targets 2.23 2.68 2.92 3.62

Size of fish typically caught 2.08 2.66 2.92 3.44

Saw advertisement in paper or magazine 2.31 2.35 2.40 2.27

a

Mean score based on five-point scale: 1 = not at all important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very

important, and 5 = extremely important.
Page 81

1. What year did you first start fishing in saltwater?

19______

2. What year did you first start fishing from partyboats in saltwater?

19______

3. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go saltwater fishing from:

_______ DAYS A PARTYBOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PARTYBOAT IN ANOTHER STATE

_______ DAYS A CHARTERBOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN MASSACHUSETTS

(includes beach, bank, pier, jetty, dock, bridge)

4. Which of the following types of partyboat fishing trips did you take in Massachusetts

in the past 12 months? (You may circle more than one type)

1 HALF DAY TRIP (about 4 hours)

2 FULL DAY TRIP (about 8 hours)

3 EVENING/NIGHT TRIP

4 OVERNIGHT TRIP

5. In the past 12 months, how many times did you go on a whale watching cruise?

_______ TIMES

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 1

6. In the past 12 months, did you fish in freshwater?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 7)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 8)

In the following questions, please tell us about your fishing activity and experience.

“Shore” fishing can include fishing from a beach, bank, jetty, pier, dock, bridge, breakwater, causeway or wading in water. For the purposes of this survey, “partyboat” is

defined as any boat where people pay per person to go fishing. A “charterboat” is a boat

which a group of people have paid a flat fee for use of the entire boat for a period of time.

 Appendix A1. Socio-economic mail survey questionnaire of Massachusetts partyboat anglers.
Page 82

8. Please fill in the appropriate letter, from the list provided, of the fish species you

most prefer to catch on partyboat trips in Massachusetts:

EASONS

_____________Most Preferred a) summer flounder (fluke) f) bluefish

b) scup (porgy) g) striped bass

_____________Second Most Preferred c) black sea bass h) Atlantic cod

d) tautog (blackfish) i) other (specify)

_____________Third Most Preferred e) striped bass j) no preference

9. When I participate in the sport of partyboat fishing I feel like:

(Please circle only one number)

1 an outsider. I am uncomfortable when I go partyboat fishing, and I don’t really feel like

I am part of the fishing scene.

2 an observer or irregular participant. Sometimes it is fun, entertaining or rewarding to go

partyboat fishing.

3 a habitual and regular participant in the sport of partyboat fishing.

4 an insider to the sport. Partyboat fishing is an important part of who I am.

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 2

7. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go freshwater fishing from:

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN ANOTHER STATE

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN ANOTHER STATE

 Next we would like some more detailed information about your fishing

 skill level and the importance of fishing in your life.
Page 83

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 3

10. During a partyboat fishing experience, I can best be described as:

(Please circle only one number)

1 being somewhat uncertain. I am unsure about what I can or cannot do while partyboat

fishing, or how to do it.

2 having some understanding of partyboat fishing, but still in the process of learning more

about partyboat fishing. I am becoming more familiar and comfortable with partyboat

fishing.

3 becoming comfortable with the sport. I have regular, routine, and predictable

experiences. I have a good understanding of what I can do while partyboat fishing, and

how to do it.

4 a knowledgeable expert in the sport and/or someone who is comfortable encouraging,

teaching and enhancing opportunities for others who are interested in partyboat fishing.

11. My relationships with other partyboat anglers are: (Please circle only one number)

1 not established. I really don’t know any other partyboat anglers.

2 very limited. I know some other partyboat anglers by sight and sometimes talk with

them, but I don’t know their names.

3 one of familiarity. I know the names of other partyboat anglers, and often speak with

them.

4 close. I have personal and close friendships with other partyboat anglers. These

friendships often revolve around partyboat fishing.

12. My commitment to partyboat fishing is: (Please circle only one number)

1 almost nonexistent. I basically don’t care whether or not I continue to go partyboat fishing.

2 moderate. I will continue to go partyboat fishing as long as it is entertaining and

provides the benefits I want.

3 fairly strong. I have a sense of being a member of the activity, and it is likely I will

continue to fish from partyboats for a long time.

4 very strong. I am totally committed to partyboat fishing. I encourage others to go

partyboat fishing, and seek to ensure the activity continues into the future.
Page 84

Questions 15-23 Relate Only to Zone 1 Partyboat Fishing

(please refer to enclosed map)

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 4

13. What type of group do you go partyboat fishing with most often?

(Please circle only one number)

1 BY YOURSELF

2 FAMILY

3 FRIENDS

4 CO-WORKERS

5 OTHER (specify) _______________

14. Who first introduced you to partyboat fishing? (Please circle only one number)

1 YOURSELF 6 GRANDPARENTS

2 FATHER 7 OTHER CLOSE RELATIVE

3 MOTHER 8 FRIEND

4 SPOUSE 9 CO-WORKER

5 BROTHER/SISTER 10 OTHER (specify) ____________

15. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go partyboat fishing from a partyboat

that left from Zone 1? (see map, Zone 1: Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, Plymouth,

Bristol, Norfolk, and Suffolk counties)

______ DAYS (If no days, skip to question 24 / If one or more days go to question 16)

16. In the past 12 months, did any of your partyboat fishing trips from a partyboat leaving

from Zone 1 involve spending at least one night away from your residence (motel,

campsite, at friends, aboard partyboat, etc.)?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 17)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 23)

The following questions will be used to perform an economic analysis of partyboat

fishing in Massachusetts. The information you provide will remain strictly confidential

and you will not be identified with your answers. Please refer to the enclosed map of

Massachusetts to answer zone specific questions in this section.
Page 85

21. On a typical trip in the past 12 months that involved spending at least one night away

from your residence and included at least one day of partyboat fishing from Zone 1,

please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

on Trip in Massachusetts in Zone 1

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls) ...... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) .. $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Partyboat cost (boat fee and tips) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Rod rental ......................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Partyboat “pool” fee ......................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking.............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Lodging (hotel, rental, camping) ....... $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Restaurant meals............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Bait and tackle .................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

k) Anything else (please specify) ........... $__________ $__________ $__________

_________________

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 5

17. In the past 12 months, how many trips did you take that involved spending at least one

night away from your residence and included at least one day of partyboat fishing from

a partyboat that left from Zone 1?

_______ TRIPS IN PAST 12 MONTHS

18. On a typical overnight trip that involved partyboat fishing from Zone 1 in the past 12

months, how many nights did you spend away from your residence?

_______ NIGHTS PER TRIP

19. On a typical trip during which you went partyboat fishing from Zone 1 in the past 12

months, how many days did you spend partyboat fishing?

_______ DAYS PARTYBOAT FISHING PER TRIP

20. Considering a typical trip during which you went partyboat fishing from Zone 1 in the

past 12 months, would you have made this trip had you not gone partyboat fishing?

1 YES

2 NO
Page 86

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 6

22. In the past 12 months, did you take any fishing trips from a partyboat leaving

from Zone 1 that did not involve spending any nights away from your residence?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 23)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 24)

23. On a typical partyboat fishing trip in the past 12 months from a partyboat leaving

from Zone 1, that did not involve spending any nights away from your residence, please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 1

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls) ...... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) .. $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Partyboat cost (boat fee and tips) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Rod rental ......................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Partyboat “pool” fee ......................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking.............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Restaurant meals............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Bait and tackle .................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Anything else (please specify) ........... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________

24. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go partyboat fishing from a partyboat

that left from Zone 2? (see map, Zone 2: Essex and Middlesex counties)

______ DAYS (If no days, skip to question 33 ; If one or more days go to question 25)

25. In the past 12 months, did any of your partyboat fishing trips from a partyboat leaving

from Zone 2 involve spending at least one night away from your residence (motel,

campsite, at friends, aboard partyboat etc.)?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 26)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 32)

Questions 24-32 Relate Only to Zone 2 Partyboat Fishing (please refer to enclosed map)
Page 87

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 7

26. In the past 12 months, how many trips did you take that involved spending at least one

night away from your residence and included at least one day of partyboat fishing from

a partyboat that left from Zone 2?

_______ TRIPS IN PAST 12 MONTHS

27. On a typical overnight trip that involved partyboat fishing from Zone 2 in the past 12

months, how many nights did you spend away from your residence?

_______ NIGHTS PER TRIP

28. On a typical trip during which you went partyboat fishing from Zone 2 in the past 12

months, how many days did you spend partyboat fishing?

_______ DAYS PARTYBOAT FISHING PER TRIP

29. Considering a typical trip during which you went partyboat fishing from Zone 2 in the

past 12 months, would you have made this trip had you not gone partyboat fishing?

1 YES

2 NO

30. On a typical trip in the past 12 months that involved spending at least one night away

from your residence and included at least one day of partyboat fishing from Zone 2,

please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 2

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls) ...... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) .. $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Partyboat cost (boat fee and tips) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Rod rental ......................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Partyboat “pool” fee ......................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking.............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Lodging (hotel, rental, camping) ....... $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Restaurant meals............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Bait and tackle .................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

k) Anything else (please specify) ........... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________
Page 88

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 8

31. In the past 12 months, did you take any fishing trips from a partyboat leaving

from Zone 2 that did not involve spending any nights away from your residence?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 32)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 33)

32. On a typical partyboat fishing trip in the past 12 months from a partyboat leaving

from Zone 2, that did not involve spending any nights away from your residence,

please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 2

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls) ...... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) .. $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Partyboat cost (boat fee and tips) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Rod rental ......................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Partyboat “pool” fee ......................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking.............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Restaurant meals............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Bait and tackle .................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Anything else (please specify) ........... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________

The following questions will help us better understand partyboat anglers’ reasons

to fish and their expectations for a satisfying experience.

33. Since the year you started partyboat fishing in Massachusetts, the number of fish

you catch per trip has generally:

1 DECREASED

2 INCREASED

3 STAYED ABOUT THE SAME

4 DON’T KNOW
Page 89

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 9

34. Below is a list of reasons why people fish. Please circle the number that indicates how

important each item is to you as a reason for going partyboat fishing in Massachusetts.

a) To be outdooors .......................................................... 12345

b) For family recreation ................................................. 12345

c) To experience new and different things ..................... 12345

d) For relaxation ............................................................. 12345

e) To be close to the water ............................................. 12345

f) To obtain fish for eating............................................. 12345

g) To get away from the demands of other people ........ 12345

h) For the experience of the catch .................................. 12345

i) To test my equipment ................................................ 12345

j) To share experiences with friends, family, or other

fishing partners............................................................ 12345

k) To win the boat “pool” ............................................... 12345

l) To develop my skills ................................................... 12345

m) For the challenge or sport ........................................... 12345

n) For the fun of catching fish ......................................... 12345

o) To catch fish to share with other people ..................... 12345

35. Please list the three reasons from above that you would rank as most important to your

Massachusetts partyboat fishing experience. (Insert the appropriate letters below)

_____________ MOST IMPORTANT

_____________ SECOND MOST IMPORTANT

_____________ THIRD MOST IMPORTANT

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important
Page 90

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 10

37. Do you support or oppose the idea of a mandatory saltwater fishing license for

Massachusetts? (Please circle only one number)

1 SUPPORT LICENSE WITHOUT A FEE

2 SUPPORT LICENSE WITH A FEE

3 OPPOSE LICENSE ALTOGETHER

4 NO OPINION

36. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about partyboat fishing in Massachusetts.

a) The more fish I catch the happier I am ...................... 1 2345

b) A fishing trip can be successful even if no fish are

caught ......................................................................... 1 2345

c) I usually eat the fish I catch ....................................... 1 2345

d) A successful fishing trip is one in which many fish

are caught ................................................................... 1 2345

e) I would rather catch one or two big fish

than ten smaller fish ................................................... 1 2345

f) When I go fishing I’m just as happy if I don’t

catch a fish ................................................................. 1 2345

g) It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch ....... 1 2345

h) The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip ........... 1 2345

i) I‘m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch ....... 1 2345

m) The partyboat fishing opportunities in Massachusetts

generally meet my needs for a satisfying experience 1 2345

n) I generally get my money’s worth when I go

partyboat fishing in Massachusetts ............................ 1 2345

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

 Strongly

 Agree
Page 91

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 11

38. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements

as to why you don’t fish from partyboats in Massachusetts more frequently.

a) I believe an increase in my fishing activity would

be bad for the resource ............................................... 1 2345

b) Partyboat costs are too high ........................................ 1 2345

c) I can’t catch enough fish to suit me ............................ 1 2345

d) I can’t catch enough keepers to take home ................. 1 2345

e) Too far a drive to get to partyboat sites ...................... 1 2345

f) Partyboats don’t target the types of fish I prefer

to catch ....................................................................... 1 2345

g) I have too many other demands on my time ............... 1 2345

h) It is difficult to find others to fish with me .................. 1 2345

i) Other leisure activities take up my time ...................... 1 2345

j) Fishing regulations are too restrictive .......................... 1 2345

k) Partyboats are too crowded ........................................ 1 2345

l) I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of

pollutants and contamination ..................................... 1 2345

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

 Strongly Agree

39. Did you purchase a freshwater fishing license in your state of residence in 1998?

1 YES

2 NO
Page 92

40. Please indicate whether you support or oppose the following management tools for

management of Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries.

a) Releasing fish below a certain length

(minimum size limit) ...................................... 1 23456

b) Releasing fish below a certain length and

above a certain maximum length (slot limit)... 1 23456

c) Being allowed to keep only a certain number

of fish you catch per day (daily bag limit)...... 1 23456

d) Not being allowed to keep certain types of

fish during certain times of year ..................... 1 23456

e) Not allowing recreational anglers to sell

their catch ...................................................... 1 23456

f) Not allowing recreational harvest of

striped bass in federal waters beyond three

miles from shore ............................................ 1 23456

g) Increasing the minimum size limit while

also increasing the daily bag limit of a

given type of fish ........................................... 1 23456

h) Decreasing the minimum size limit while

also decreasing the daily bag limit of a

given type of fish ........................................... 1 23456

Strongly

Support

Neutral

 Somewhat

Oppose

Don’t

 Somewhat

Support

Know

 Strongly

Oppose

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 12

41. Please indicate how important each of the following factors is in deciding whether you

go partyboat fishing in Massachusetts as compared to some other type of fishing you

may do in Massachusetts.

a) The cost of partyboat fishing ......................... 123456

b) The types of fish partyboats target ................ 123456

c) The number of fish I can take home ............. 123456

d) The distance to travel to a partyboat site ...... 123456

Don’t Do Any

Other Fishing

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important
Page 93

 Not At All

Importan

43. Please indicate how important each of the following items is in your selection of a

particular Massachusetts partyboat to fish with.

a) Distance from home to port..................................... 12345

b) Species of fish boat targets ....................................... 12345

c) Size of fish typically caught...................................... 12345

d) Number of fish typically caught ................................. 12345

e) Captain’s reputation ................................................... 12345

f) Cost of boat fees ........................................................ 12345

g) Comfort features on the boat ..................................... 12345

h) Courteous and helpful crew ....................................... 12345

i) Previous personal experience ..................................... 12345

j) Word of mouth .......................................................... 12345

k) Size of boat................................................................. 12345

l) Saw advertisement in paper/magazine....................... 12345

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

 Important

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 13

42. For each of the types of fishing listed below (a through e), please indicate if the number

of fishing trips you made per year in Massachusetts decreased, stayed about the same, or

increased from 1988-1993 and from 1994-1998.

Circle minus sign for decreased -

Circle “s” for stayed about the same s

Circle plus sign for increased +

Circle “n” for none if you did not do that kind of fishing during the years indicated n

1988 through 1993 1994 through 1998

a) saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts - s + n - s + n

b) saltwater charterboat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

c) saltwater partyboat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

d) saltwater private boat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

e) freshwater fishing in Massachusetts - s + n - s + n
Page 94

The following questions will help us to know more about partyboat anglers. The

information provided will remain strictly confidential and you will not be identified

with your answers.

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 14

48. What is the ZIP CODE of your current home residence?

________________

44. How old were you on your last birthday?

_______ YEARS

45. Are you?

1 MALE 2 FEMALE

46. Would you describe your ethnic background as: (Please circle only one)

1 WHITE 4 ASIAN

2 BLACK 5 NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN

3 HISPANIC 6 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) __________________

47. How many years of formal education have you completed?

(for example: high school graduate (or GED) = 12)

_______ YEARS

50. What is your approximate annual household income before taxes?

1 Under $15,000 5 $60,001 - $85,000

2 $15,001 - $30,000 6 $85,001 - $110,000

3 $30,001 - $45,000 7 $110,001 - $135,000

4 $45,001 - $60,000 8 $135,001 and above

 1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE

49. What is your current marital status?

1 SINGLE 4 SEPARATED

2 MARRIED 5 WIDOWED

3 DIVORCED
Page 95

Any additional comments you may have about this survey or saltwater fishing in

Massachusetts would be appreciated here:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

A summary report of the results of this survey will be posted in the spring of 1999

on our web site at:

http//www.umass.edu/hd/projects.html

Would you like a written summary of the results of this survey sent to you?

1 YES

2 NO

Your contribution of time to this study is greatly appreciated. Please return your completed

questionnaire in the postage paid return envelop or to the following address as soon as

possible. Thank you.

Dr. David K. Loomis

University of Massachusetts

Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management

Human Dimensions Research Unit

Holdsworth Natural Resources Center

Amherst, MA 01003-4210

Questionnaire # ________

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE 15
Page 96
Page 97

In the following questions, please tell us about your fishing activity and experience.

“Shore” fishing can include fishing from a beach, bank, jetty, pier, dock, bridge, breakwater, causeway or wading in water. For the purposes of this survey, “partyboat” is

defined as any boat where people pay per person to go fishing. A “charterboat” is a boat

which a group of people have paid a flat fee for use of the entire boat for a period of time.

1. What year did you first start fishing in saltwater?

19______

2. What year did you first start fishing from a privately owned boat in saltwater?

19______

3. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go saltwater fishing from:

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PARTYBOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PARTYBOAT IN ANOTHER STATE

_______ DAYS A CHARTERBOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN MASSACHUSETTS

(includes beach, bank, pier, jetty, dock, bridge)

4. Which of the following facility types did you make use of to go saltwater private boat

fishing in Massachusetts in the past 12 months? (You may circle more than one type)

1 PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY

2 PRIVATE BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY

3 PUBLIC ACCESS MARINA

4 PRIVATE ACCESS MARINA

5 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ____________________

5. In the past 12 months, how many times did you go on a whale watching cruise?

_______ TIMES

6. In the past 12 months, did you fish in freshwater?

_______ YES (If yes, go to question 7)

_______ NO (If no, skip to question 8)

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 1

Appendix A2. Socio-economic mail survey questionnaire of Massachusetts saltwater private

 boat anglers.
Page 98

8. Please fill in the appropriate letter from the list provided, of the fish species you most

prefer to catch when saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts.

EASONS

______________Most Preferred a) summer flounder (fluke) f) bluefish

b) scup (porgy) g) winter flounder

______________Second Most Preferred c) Atlantic cod h) striped bass

d) tautog (blackfish) i) other (specify)

______________Third Most Preferred e) Atlantic mackerel j) no preference

9. When I participate in the sport of saltwater private boat fishing I feel like:

(Please circle only one number)

1 an outsider. I am uncomfortable when I go saltwater private boat fishing, and I don’t

really feel like I am part of the fishing scene.

2 an observer or irregular participant. Sometimes it is fun, entertaining or rewarding to go

saltwater private boat fishing.

3 a habitual and regular participant in the sport of saltwater private boat fishing.

4 an insider to the sport. Saltwater private boat fishing is an important part of who I am.

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 2

7. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go freshwater fishing from:

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN ANOTHER STATE

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN ANOTHER STATE

 Next we would like some more detailed information about your fishing

 skill level and the importance of fishing in your life.
Page 99

10. During a saltwater private boat fishing experience, I can best be described as:

1 being somewhat uncertain. I am unsure about what I can or cannot do while saltwater

private boat fishing, or how to do it.

2 having some understanding of saltwater private boat fishing, but still in the process of

learning more about saltwater shore fishing. I am becoming more familiar and

comfortable with saltwater private boat fishing.

3 becoming comfortable with the sport. I have regular, routine, and predictable

experiences. I have a good understanding of what I can do while saltwater private boat

fishing, and how to do it.

4 a knowledgeable expert in the sport and/or someone who is comfortable encouraging,

teaching and enhancing opportunities for others who are interested in saltwater private

boat fishing.

11. My relationships with other saltwater private boat anglers are:

1 not established. I really don’t know any other saltwater private boat anglers.

2 very limited. I know some other saltwater private boat anglers by sight and sometimes

talk with them, but I don’t know their names.

3 one of familiarity. I know the names of other saltwater private boat anglers, and often

speak with them.

4 close. I have personal and close friendships with other saltwater private boat anglers.

These friendships often revolve around saltwater private boat fishing.

12. My commitment to saltwater private boat fishing is:

1 almost nonexistent. I basically don’t care whether or not I continue to go saltwater

private boat fishing.

2 moderate. I will continue to go saltwater private boat fishing as long as it is entertaining

and provides the benefits I want.

3 fairly strong. I have a sense of being a member of the activity, and it is likely I will

continue to fish in saltwater from private boats for a long time.

4 very strong. I am totally committed to saltwater private boat fishing. I encourage others

to go saltwater boat fishing, and seek to ensure the activity continues into the future.

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 3
Page 100

13. What type of group do you go saltwater private boat fishing with most often?

(Please circle only one number)

1 BY YOURSELF

2 FAMILY

3 FRIENDS

4 CO-WORKERS

5 OTHER (specify) _______________

14. Who first introduced you to saltwater private boat fishing?

(Please circle only one number)

1 YOURSELF 6 GRANDPARENTS

2 FATHER 7 OTHER CLOSE RELATIVE

3 MOTHER 8 FRIEND

4 SPOUSE 9 CO-WORKER

5 BROTHER/SISTER 10 OTHER (specify) ____________

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 4

The following questions will be used to perform an economic analysis of saltwater

private boat fishing in Massachusetts. The information you provide will remain strictly

confidential and you will not be identified with your answers. Please refer to the

enclosed map of Massachusetts to answer zone specific questions in this section.

15. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go saltwater private boat fishing in

Zone 1? (Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, Plymouth, Bristol, Suffolk, Norfolk counties.)

______ DAYS (If no days, skip to question 24 / If one or more days go to question 16)

16. In the past 12 months, did any of your saltwater private boat fishing in Zone 1 involve

 spending at least one night away from your residence (motel, campsite, at friends, etc.)?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 17)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 23)

Questions 15-23 Relate Only to Zone 1 Private Boat Fishing

In Saltwater (please refer to enclosed map)
Page 101

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 5

17. In the past 12 months, how many trips did you take that involved spending at least one

night away from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater private boat

fishing in Zone 1?

_______ TRIPS IN PAST 12 MONTHS

18. On a typical overnight trip that involved saltwater private boat fishing in Zone 1 in the

past 12 months, how many nights did you spend away from your residence?

_______ NIGHTS PER TRIP

19. On a typical trip during which you went saltwater private boat fishing in Zone 1 in the

past 12 months, how many days did you spend saltwater private boat fishing?

_______ DAYS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PER TRIP

20. Considering a typical trip during which you went saltwater private boat fishing in Zone

1 in the past 12 months, would you have made this trip had you not gone boat fishing?

1 YES

2 NO

21. On a typical trip in the past 12 months that involved spending at least one night away

from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater private boat fishing in

8Zone 1, please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 1

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Boat launch fee/docking fee ............ $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Boat fuel ........................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Lodging (hotel, rental, camping) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

k) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________
Page 102

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 6

22. In the past 12 months, did you take any saltwater private boat fishing trips in Zone 1

that did not involve spending any nights away from your residence?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 23)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 24)

23. On a typical saltwater private boat fishing trip in the past 12 months from Zone 1, that

did not involve spending any nights away from your residence, please estimate how

much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 1

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Boat launch fee/docking fee ............ $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Boat fuel ........................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________

24. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go saltwater private boat fishing in

Zone 2? (Essex and Middlesex counties)

______ DAYS (If no days, skip to question 33 ; If one or more days go to question 25)

25. In the past 12 months, did any of your saltwater private boat fishing in Zone 2 involve

spending at least one night away from your residence (motel, campsite, at friends ,etc)?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 26)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 32)

Questions 24-32 Relate Only to Zone 2 Private Boat Fishing

In Saltwater (please refer to enclosed map)
Page 103

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 7

26. In the past 12 months, how many trips did you take that involved spending at least one

night away from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater private boat

fishing in Zone 2?

_______ TRIPS IN PAST 12 MONTHS

27. On a typical overnight trip that involved saltwater private boat fishing in Zone 2 in the

past 12 months, how many nights did you spend away from your residence?

_______ NIGHTS PER TRIP

28. On a typical trip during which you went saltwater private boat fishing in Zone 2 in the

past 12 months, how many days did you spend private boat fishing?

_______ DAYS PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PER TRIP

29. Considering a typical trip during which you went saltwater private boat fishing in Zone

2 in the past 12 months, would you have made this trip had you not gone boat fishing?

1 YES

2 NO

30. On a typical trip in the past 12 months that involved spending at least one night away

from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater private boat fishing in

Zone 2, please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 2

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Boat launch fee/docking fee ............ $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Boat fuel ........................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Lodging (hotel, rental, camping) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

k) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________
Page 104

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 8

31. In the past 12 months, did you take any saltwater private boat fishing trips in Zone 2

that did not involve spending any nights away from your residence?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 32)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 33)

32. On a typical saltwater private boat fishing trip in Zone 2 in the past 12 months, that

did not involve spending any nights away from your residence, please estimate how

much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 2

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Boat launch fee/docking fee ............ $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Boat fuel ........................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________

33. Since the year you started saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts, the number

of fish you catch per trip has generally:

1 DECREASED

2 INCREASED

3 STAYED ABOUT THE SAME

4 DON’T KNOW

The following questions will help us better understand saltwater private boat anglers’

reasons to fish and their expectations for a satisfying experience.
Page 105

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 9

34. Below is a list of reasons why people fish. Please circle the number that indicates how

important each item is to you as a reason for going saltwater private boat fishing in

Massachusetts.

a) To be outdooors ......................................................... 12345

b) For family recreation ................................................. 12345

c) To experience new and different things ..................... 12345

d) For relaxation ............................................................. 12345

e) To be close to the water ............................................. 12345

f) To obtain fish for eating............................................. 12345

g) To get away from the demands of other people ........ 12345

h) For the experience of the catch .................................. 12345

i) To test my equipment ................................................ 12345

j) To share experiences with friends, family, or other

fishing partners .......................................................... 12345

k) To catch a “trophy” fish ............................................. 12345

l) To develop my skills .................................................. 12345

m) For the challenge or sport .......................................... 12345

n) For the fun of catching fish ........................................ 12345

o) To catch fish to share with other people .................... 12345

35. Please list the three reasons from above that you would rank as most important to your

Massachusetts saltwater private boat fishing experience.

(Insert the appropriate letters below).

_____________ MOST IMPORTANT

_____________ SECOND MOST IMPORTANT

_____________ THIRD MOST IMPORTANT

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important
Page 106

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 10

36. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts.

a) The more fish I catch the happier I am ...................... 1 2345

b) A fishing trip can be successful even if no fish are

caught ......................................................................... 1 2345

c) I usually eat the fish I catch ....................................... 1 2345

d) A successful fishing trip is one in which many fish

are caught ................................................................... 1 2345

e) I would rather catch one or two big fish

than ten smaller fish ................................................... 1 2345

f) When I go fishing I’m just as happy if I don’t

catch a fish ................................................................. 1 2345

g) It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch ....... 1 2345

h) The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip ........... 1 2345

i) I‘m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch ....... 1 2345

j) The saltwater private boat fishing opportunities in

Massachusetts generally meet my needs for a

satisfying experience.................................................. 1 2345

k) The private boat dockage and launch sites in Massachusetts meet my needs for saltwater fishing .......... 1 2345

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

 Strongly

 Agree

37. Do you support or oppose the idea of a mandatory saltwater fishing license for

Massachusetts? (Please circle only one number)

1 SUPPORT LICENSE WITHOUT A FEE

2 SUPPORT LICENSE WITH A FEE

3 OPPOSE LICENSE ALTOGETHER

4 NO OPINION
Page 107

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 11

38. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements

as to why you don’t participate in saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts

more often.

a) Fishing regulations are too confusing ........................ 1 2345

b) I believe an increase in my fishing activity would

 be bad for the resource .............................................. 1 2345

c) Costs associated with private boat fishing are too

high ............................................................................ 1 2345

d) I can’t catch enough fish to suit me ........................... 1 2345

e) I can’t catch enough keepers to take home ................ 1 2345

f) Too far a drive to get to marina/launch site ............... 1 2345

g) I have too many other demands on my time .............. 1 2345

h) It is difficult to find others to fish with me ................ 1 2345

i) Other leisure activities take up my time .................... 1 2345

j) Fishing regulations are too restrictive........................ 1 2345

k) I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of

pollutants and contamination ..................................... 1 2345

l) Too much effort to keep boat in good

working order ............................................................. 1 2345

m) I don’t always have access to a private boat .............. 1 2345

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

 Strongly Agree

39. Did you purchase a freshwater fishing license in your state of residence in 1998?

1 YES

2 NO
Page 108

a) Releasing fish below a certain length

(minimum size limit) .................................... 1 23456

b) Releasing fish below a certain length and

above a certain maximum length (slot limit) 1 23456

c) Being allowed to keep only a certain number

of fish you catch per day (daily bag limit) ... 1 23456

d) Not being allowed to keep certain types of

fish during certain times of year ................... 1 23456

e) Not allowing recreational anglers to sell

their catch...................................................... 1 23456

f) Not allowing recreational harvest of

striped bass in federal waters beyond three

miles from shore ........................................... 1 23456

g) Increasing the minimum size limit while

also increasing the daily bag limit of a

given type of fish .......................................... 1 23456

h) Decreasing the minimum size limit while

also decreasing the daily bag limit of a

given type of fish .......................................... 1 23456

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 12

41. Please indicate how important each of the following factors is in deciding whether you

go saltwater private boat fishing in Massachusetts as compared to some other type of

fishing you may do in Massachusetts.

a) The cost of private boat fishing .................... 123456

b) The types of fish I can catch from when

private boat fishing ....................................... 123456

c) The number of fish I can take home ............. 123456

d) The distance to travel to a boat launch site

or marina where boat is docked .................... 123456

Don’t Do Any

Other Fishing

40. Please indicate whether you support or oppose the following management tools for

management of Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries.

Strongly

Support

Neutral

 Somewhat

Oppose

Don’t

 Somewhat

Support

Know

Strongly

 Oppose

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important
Page 109

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 13

43. Please indicate how important each of the following items is in your selection of a

particular marina, dock or launch site to use when you go saltwater private boat fishing

a) Distance from home to site................................... .... 12345

b) Cost to use site .......................................................... 12345

c) Fishing quality in nearby waters ............................... 12345

d) Maintenance and upkeep of site................................ 12345

e) Scenery and natural surroundings ............................. 12345

f) Cleanliness of water/ water quality ........................... 12345

g) Crowdedness/ number of other private boats ........... 12345

h) Friendliness and cooperation of on-site staff ............ 12345

i) Previous personal experience.................................... 12345

j) Word of mouth .......................................................... 12345

k) Opportunity for social interaction...............................1 2345

l) Facilities at site ......................................................... 12345

42. For each of the types of fishing listed below (a through e), please indicate if the number

of fishing trips you made per year in Massachusetts decreased, stayed about the same, or

increased from 1988-1993 and from 1994-1998.

Circle minus sign for decreased -

Circle “s” for stayed about the same s

Circle plus sign for increased +

Circle “n” for none if you did not do that kind of fishing during the years indicated n

1988 through 1993 1994 through 1998

a) saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts - s + n - s + n

b) saltwater charterboat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

c) saltwater partyboat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

d) saltwater private boat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

e) freshwater fishing in Massachusetts - s + n - s + n
Page 110

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 14

The following questions will help us to know more about saltwater private boat anglers.

The information provided will remain strictly confidential and you will not be

identified with your answers.

48. What is the ZIP CODE of your current home residence?

________________

44. How old were you on your last birthday?

_______ YEARS

45. Are you?

1 MALE 2 FEMALE

46. Would you describe your ethnic background as: (Please circle only one)

1 WHITE 4 ASIAN

2 BLACK 5 NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN

3 HISPANIC 6 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) __________________

47. How many years of formal education have you completed?

(for example: high school graduate (or GED) = 12)

_______ YEARS

 1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE

49. What is your current marital status?

1 SINGLE 4 SEPARATED

2 MARRIED 5 WIDOWED

3 DIVORCED

50. What is your approximate annual household income before taxes?

1 Under $15,000 5 $60,001 - $85,000

2 $15,001 - $30,000 6 $85,001 - $110,000

3 $30,001 - $45,000 7 $110,001 - $135,000

4 $45,001 - $60,000 8 $135,001 and above
Page 111

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER PRIVATE BOAT FISHING PAGE 15

Any additional comments you may have about this survey or saltwater fishing in

Massachusetts would be appreciated here:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

A summary report of the results of this survey will be posted in the spring of 1999

on our web site at:

http//www.umass.edu/hd/projects.html

Would you like a written summary of the results of this survey sent to you?

1 YES

2 NO

Your contribution of time to this study is greatly appreciated. Please return your completed

questionnaire in the postage paid return envelop or to the following address as soon as

possible. Thank you.

Dr. David K. Loomis

University of Massachusetts

Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management

Human Dimensions Research Unit

Holdsworth Natural Resources Center

Amherst, MA 01003-4210

Questionnaire # ________
Page 112
Page 113

1. What year did you first start fishing in saltwater?

19______

2. What year did you first start fishing from the shore in saltwater?

19______

3. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go saltwater fishing from:

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PARTYBOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PARTYBOAT IN ANOTHER STATE

_______ DAYS A CHARTERBOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

4. Which of the following specific types of saltwater shore fishing did you do in

Massachusetts in the past 12 months? (You may circle more than one type)

1 SURFCASTING FROM A BEACH

2 FROM A JETTY OR BREAKWATER

3 FROM A FISHING PIER OR DOCK

4 FROM A BRIDGE OR CAUSEWAY

5 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) ___________________

5. In the past 12 months, how many times did you go on a whale watching cruise?

_______ TIMES

6. In the past 12 months, did you fish in freshwater?

_______ YES (If yes, go to question 7)

_______ NO (If no, skip to question 8)

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 1

 In the following questions, please tell us about your fishing activity and experience.

“Shore” fishing can include fishing from a beach, bank, jetty, pier, dock, bridge, breakwater, causeway or wading in water. For the purposes of this survey, “partyboat” is

defined as any boat where people pay per person to go fishing. A “charterboat” is a boat

which a group of people have paid a flat fee for use of the entire boat for a period of time.

Appendix A3. Socio-economic mail survey questionnaire of Massachusetts saltwater shore

 anglers.
Page 114

8. Please fill in the appropriate letter from the list provided, of the fish species you most

prefer to catch when saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts:

EASONS

_____________Most Preferred a) summer flounder (fluke) e) bluefish

b) scup (porgy) f) winter flounder

_____________Second Most Preferred c) pollock g) striped bass

d) Atlantic mackerel h) other (specify)

_____________Third Most Preferred e) cunner i) no preference

9. When I participate in the sport of saltwater shore fishing I feel like:

(Please circle only one number)

1 an outsider. I am uncomfortable when I go saltwater shore fishing, and I don’t really feel

like I am part of the fishing scene.

2 an observer or irregular participant. Sometimes it is fun, entertaining or rewarding to go

saltwater shore fishing.

3 a habitual and regular participant in the sport of saltwater shore fishing.

4 an insider to the sport. Saltwater shore fishing is an important part of who I am.

7. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go freshwater fishing from:

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOAT IN ANOTHER STATE

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN MASSACHUSETTS

_______ DAYS THE SHORE IN ANOTHER STATE

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 2

 Next we would like some more detailed information about your fishing

 skill level and the importance of fishing in your life.
Page 115

10. During a saltwater shore fishing experience, I can best be described as:

1 being somewhat uncertain. I am unsure about what I can or cannot do while saltwater

shore fishing, or how to do it.

2 having some understanding of saltwater shore fishing, but still in the process of learning

more about saltwater shore fishing. I am becoming more familiar and comfortable with

saltwater shore fishing.

3 becoming comfortable with the sport. I have regular, routine, and predictable

experiences. I have a good understanding of what I can do while saltwater shore fishing,

and how to do it.

4 a knowledgeable expert in the sport and/or someone who is comfortable encouraging,

teaching and enhancing opportunities for others who are interested in saltwater shore

fishing.

11. My relationships with other saltwater shore anglers are:

1 not established. I really don’t know any other saltwater shore anglers.

2 very limited. I know some other saltwater shore anglers by sight and sometimes talk

with them, but I don’t know their names.

3 one of familiarity. I know the names of other saltwater shore anglers, and often speak

with them.

4 close. I have personal and close friendships with other saltwater shore anglers. These

friendships often revolve around saltwater shore fishing.

12. My commitment to saltwater shore fishing is:

1 almost nonexistent. I basically don’t care whether or not I continue to go saltwater

shore fishing.

2 moderate. I will continue to go saltwater shore fishing as long as it is entertaining and

provides the benefits I want.

3 fairly strong. I have a sense of being a member of the activity, and it is likely I will

continue to fish in saltwater from the shore for a long time.

4 very strong. I am totally committed to saltwater shore fishing. I encourage others to go

saltwater shore fishing, and seek to ensure the activity continues into the future.

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 3
Page 116

13. What type of group do you go saltwater shore fishing with most often?

(Please circle only one number)

1 BY YOURSELF

2 FAMILY

3 FRIENDS

4 CO-WORKERS

5 OTHER (specify) _______________

14. Who first introduced you to saltwater shore fishing? (Please circle only one number)

1 YOURSELF 6 GRANDPARENTS

2 FATHER 7 OTHER CLOSE RELATIVE

3 MOTHER 8 FRIEND

4 SPOUSE 9 CO-WORKER

5 BROTHER/SISTER 10 OTHER (specify) ____________

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 4

The following questions will be used to perform an economic analysis of saltwater shore

fishing in Massachusetts. The information you provide will remain strictly confidential

and you will not be identified with your answers. Please refer to the enclosed map of

Massachusetts to answer zone specific questions in this section.

15. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go saltwater shore fishing in Zone 1?

(Zone 1: Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, Plymouth, Bristol, Suffolk, Norfolk counties.)

______ DAYS (If no days, skip to question 24 / If one or more days go to question 16)

16. In the past 12 months, did any of your saltwater shore fishing in Zone 1 involve

spending at least one night away from your residence (motel, campsite, at friends, etc.)?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 17)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 23)

Questions 15-23 Relate Only to Zone 1 Shore Fishing

In Saltwater (please refer to enclosed map)
Page 117

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 5

17. In the past 12 months, how many trips did you take that involved spending at least one

night away from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater shore fishing

in Zone 1?

_______ TRIPS IN PAST 12 MONTHS

18. On a typical overnight trip that involved saltwater shore fishing in Zone 1 in the past

12 months, how many nights did you spend away from your residence?

_______ NIGHTS PER TRIP

19. On a typical trip during which you went saltwater shore fishing in Zone 1 in the past

12 months, how many days did you spend saltwater shore fishing?

_______ DAYS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PER TRIP

20. Considering a typical trip during which you went saltwater shore fishing in Zone 1 in

the past 12 months, would you have made this trip had you not gone shore fishing?

1 YES

2 NO

21. On a typical trip in the past 12 months that involved spending at least one night away

from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater shore fishing in Zone 1,

please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 1

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Site entrance fee ............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Lodging (hotel, rental, camping) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________
Page 118

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 6

22. In the past 12 months, did you take any saltwater shore fishing trips in Zone 1 that

did not involve spending any nights away from your residence?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 23)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 24)

23. On a typical saltwater shore fishing trip in the past 12 months in Zone 1, that

did not involve spending any nights away from your residence, please estimate how

much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 1

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Site entrance fee ............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________

24. In the past 12 months, how many days did you go saltwater shore fishing in Zone 2?

(Zone 2: Essex and Middlesex counties)

______ DAYS (If no days, skip to question 33 ; If one or more days go to question 25)

25. In the past 12 months, did any of your saltwater shore fishing trips in Zone 2 involve

spending at least one night away from your residence (motel, campsite, at friends,etc.)?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 26)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 32)

Questions 24-32 Relate Only to Zone 2 Shore Fishing

In Saltwater (please refer to enclosed map)
Page 119

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 7

26. In the past 12 months, how many trips did you take that involved spending at least one

night away from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater shore fishing

in Zone 2?

_______ TRIPS IN PAST 12 MONTHS

27. On a typical overnight trip that involved saltwater shore fishing in Zone 2 in the past 12

months, how many nights did you spend away from your residence?

_______ NIGHTS PER TRIP

28. On a typical trip during which you went saltwater shore fishing in Zone 2 in the past 12

months, how many days did you spend shore fishing?

_______ DAYS SHORE FISHING PER TRIP

29. Considering a typical trip during which you went saltwater shore fishing in Zone 2 in

the past 12 months, would you have made this trip had you not gone shore fishing?

1 YES

2 NO

30. On a typical trip in the past 12 months that involved spending at least one night away

from your residence and included at least one day of saltwater shore fishing in Zone 2,

please estimate how much you spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 2

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Site entrance fee ............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Lodging (hotel, rental, camping) ..... $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

j) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________
Page 120

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 8

31. In the past 12 months, did you take any saltwater shore fishing trips in Zone 2 that

did not involve spending any nights away from your residence?

1 YES (If yes, go to question 32)

2 NO (If no, skip to question 33)

32. On a typical saltwater shore fishing trip in Zone 2 in the past 12 months, that did not

involve spending any nights away from your residence, please estimate how much you

spent on each of the following items.

Total Spent Money Spent Money Spent

On Trip in Massachusetts In Zone 2

a) Auto costs (fuel, rental car, tolls)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

b) Other transportation (airplane, etc.) . $__________ $__________ $__________

c) Site entrance fee ............................... $__________ $__________ $__________

d) Bait ................................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

e) Tackle ............................................... $__________ $__________ $__________

f) Parking ............................................. $__________ $__________ $__________

g) Restaurant meals .............................. $__________ $__________ $__________

h) Groceries (food, drinks, ice, etc.)..... $__________ $__________ $__________

i) Anything else (please specify) ......... $__________ $__________ $__________

 _________________

33. Since the year you started saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts, the number of fish

you catch per trip has generally:

1 DECREASED

2 INCREASED

3 STAYED ABOUT THE SAME

4 DON’T KNOW

The following questions will help us better understand saltwater shore anglers’ reasons

to fish and their expectations for a satisfying experience.
Page 121

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 9

34. Below is a list of reasons why people fish. Please circle the number that indicates how

important each item is to you as a reason for going saltwater shore fishing in

Massachusetts.

a) To be outdooors ......................................................... 12345

b) For family recreation ................................................. 12345

c) To experience new and different things ..................... 12345

d) For relaxation ............................................................. 12345

e) To be close to the water ............................................. 12345

f) To obtain fish for eating............................................. 12345

g) To get away from the demands of other people ........ 12345

h) For the experience of the catch .................................. 12345

i) To test my equipment ................................................ 12345

j) To share experiences with friends, family, or other

fishing partners .......................................................... 12345

k) To catch a “trophy” fish ............................................. 12345

l) To develop my skills .................................................. 12345

m) For the challenge or sport .......................................... 12345

n) For the fun of catching fish ........................................ 12345

o) To catch fish to share with other people .................... 12345

35. Please list the three reasons from above that you would rank as most important to your

Massachusetts saltwater shore fishing experience. (Insert the appropriate letters below)

_____________ MOST IMPORTANT

_____________ SECOND MOST IMPORTANT

_____________ THIRD MOST IMPORTANT

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important
Page 122

36. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts.

a) The more fish I catch the happier I am ...................... 1 2345

b) A fishing trip can be successful even if no fish are

caught ......................................................................... 1 2345

c) I usually eat the fish I catch ....................................... 1 2345

d) A successful fishing trip is one in which many fish

are caught ................................................................... 1 2345

e) I would rather catch one or two big fish

than ten smaller fish ................................................... 1 2345

f) When I go fishing I’m just as happy if I don’t

catch a fish ................................................................. 1 2345

g) It doesn’t matter to me what type of fish I catch ....... 1 2345

h) The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip ........... 1 2345

i) I‘m just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch ....... 1 2345

j) The saltwater shore fishing opportunities in

Massachusetts generally meet my needs for a

satisfying experience.................................................. 1 2345

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

 Strongly

 Agree

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 10

37. Do you support or oppose the idea of a mandatory saltwater fishing license for

Massachusetts? (Please circle only one number)

1 SUPPORT LICENSE WITHOUT A FEE

2 SUPPORT LICENSE WITH A FEE

3 OPPOSE LICENSE ALTOGETHER

4 NO OPINION
Page 123

38. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements

as to why you don’t participate in saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts more often.

a) Fishing regulations are too confusing ........................ 1 2345

b) I believe an increase in my fishing activity would

 be bad for the resource .............................................. 1 2345

c) Costs associated with saltwater shore fishing are

too high ...................................................................... 1 2345

d) I can’t catch enough fish to suit me ........................... 1 2345

e) I can’t catch enough keepers to take home ................ 1 2345

f) Too far a drive to get to shore fishing sites ............... 1 2345

g) When fishing from shore, I can’t catch the types of

fish I prefer to catch ................................................... 1 2345

h) I have too many other demands on my time .............. 1 2345

i) It is difficult to find others to fish with me ................ 1 2345

j) Other leisure activities take up my time .................... 1 2345

k) Fishing regulations are too restrictive........................ 1 2345

m) Shore fishing sites are too crowded ........................... 1 2345

n) I am afraid to eat the fish I catch because of

pollutants and contamination ..................................... 1 2345

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 11

39. Did you purchase a freshwater fishing license in your state of residence in 1998?

1 YES

2 NO

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

 Strongly Agree
Page 124

41. Please indicate how important each of the following factors is in deciding whether you

go saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts as compared to some other type of fishing

you may do in Massachusetts.

40. Please indicate whether you support or oppose the following management tools for

management of Massachusetts’ recreational saltwater fisheries.

a) Releasing fish below a certain length

(minimum size limit) .................................... 1 23456

b) Releasing fish below a certain length and

above a certain maximum length (slot limit) 1 23456

c) Being allowed to keep only a certain number

of fish you catch per day (daily bag limit) ... 1 23456

d) Not being allowed to keep certain types of

fish during certain times of year ................... 1 23456

e) Not allowing recreational anglers to sell

their catch...................................................... 1 23456

f) Not allowing recreational harvest of

striped bass in federal waters beyond three

miles from shore ........................................... 1 23456

g) Increasing the minimum size limit while

also increasing the daily bag limit of a

given type of fish .......................................... 1 23456

h) Decreasing the minimum size limit while

also decreasing the daily bag limit of a

given type of fish .......................................... 1 23456

Strongly

Support

Neutral

 Somewhat

Oppose

Don’t

 Somewhat

Support

Know

 Strongly

Oppose

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 12

a) The cost of shore fishing ............................... 123456

b) The types of fish I can catch from shore....... 123456

c) The number of fish I can take home ............. 123456

d) The distance to travel to a shore fishing site. 123456

Don’t Do Any

Other Fishing

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important
Page 125

 Not At All

Important

Slightly

 Important

Very

 Important

 Moderately

Important

 Extremely

Important

42. For each of the types of fishing listed below (a through e), please indicate if the number

of fishing trips you made per year in Massachusetts decreased, stayed about the same, or

increased from 1988-1993 and from 1994-1998.

Circle minus sign for decreased -

Circle “s” for stayed about the same s

Circle plus sign for increased +

Circle “n” for none if you did not do that kind of fishing during the years indicated n

1988 through 1993 1994 through 1998

a) saltwater shore fishing in Massachusetts - s + n - s + n

b) saltwater charterboat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

c) saltwater partyboat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

d) saltwater private boat fishing in Mass. - s + n - s + n

e) freshwater fishing in Massachusetts - s + n - s + n

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 13

43. Please indicate how important each of the following is in your selection of a

particular Massachusetts saltwater shore fishing location.

a) Distance from home to site................................... .... 12345

b) Species of fish typically caught at site ...................... 12345

c) Size of fish typically caught...................................... 12345

d) Number of fish typically caught ............................... 12345

e) Scenery and natural surroundings ............................. 12345

f) Cleanliness of water/ water quality ........................... 12345

g) Ability to avoid crowds of people at site .................. 12345

h) Accessability to site .................................................. 12345

i) Previous personal experience.................................... 12345

j) Word of mouth .......................................................... 12345

k) Availability of parking................................................12345

l) Facilities at site ......................................................... 12345
Page 126

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 14

The following questions will help us to know more about saltwater shore anglers. The

information provided will remain strictly confidential and you will not be identified

with your answers.

48. What is the ZIP CODE of your current home residence?

________________

44. How old were you on your last birthday?

_______ YEARS

45. Are you?

1 MALE 2 FEMALE

46. Would you describe your ethnic background as: (Please circle only one)

1 WHITE 4 ASIAN

2 BLACK 5 NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN

3 HISPANIC 6 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) __________________

47. How many years of formal education have you completed?

(for example: high school graduate (or GED) = 12)

_______ YEARS

 1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS PARTYBOAT ANGLERS PAGE

49. What is your current marital status?

1 SINGLE 4 SEPARATED

2 MARRIED 5 WIDOWED

3 DIVORCED

50. What is your approximate annual household income before taxes?

1 Under $15,000 5 $60,001 - $85,000

2 $15,001 - $30,000 6 $85,001 - $110,000

3 $30,001 - $45,000 7 $110,001 - $135,000

4 $45,001 - $60,000 8 $135,001 and above
Page 127

Any additional comments you may have about this survey or saltwater fishing in

Massachusetts would be appreciated here:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

A summary report of the results of this survey will be posted in the spring of 1999

on our web site at:

http//www.umass.edu/hd/projects.html

Would you like a written summary of the results of this survey sent to you?

1 YES

2 NO

Your contribution of time to this study is greatly appreciated. Please return your completed

questionnaire in the postage paid return envelop or to the following address as soon as

possible. Thank you.

 Dr. David K. Loomis

University of Massachusetts

Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management

Human Dimensions Research Unit

Holdsworth Natural Resources Center

Amherst, MA 01003-4210

1998 SURVEY OF MASSACHUSETTS SALTWATER SHORE FISHING PAGE 15

Questionnaire # ________
Page 128
Appendix B. Map of Massachusetts saltwater fishing zones used for economic analysis.

Page 129

Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Jon A. Gibson, Biological Sciences Editor & Laura S. Garner, Editor

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). For

all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific review,

but not necessarily external scientific review. For most issues,

the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing. Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific publishing

should be initially submitted to one of NMFS’s primary series

(i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Technical Report NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review).

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations may

be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval

by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series if:

1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC’s mission; 2) the manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director’s approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding

funds to be transferred to the NEFSC’s Research Communications Unit account from another federal account. For all manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published in this

series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the manuscripts’ contents; authors must accept such responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series are

expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines

contained in Chapter 1 (“Ethical Conduct in Authorship and

Publication”) of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition (Chicago,

IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual are

available at virtually all scientific libraries.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table of

contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study

Area,” “Methods & Materials,” “Results,” “Discussion” and/or

“Conclusions,” “Acknowledgments,” and “References Cited.”

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent edition

of the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual.

That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the

CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works

contains all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial titles in such lists, use the most recent edition of the

BIOSIS Serial Sources (Philadelphia, PA: Biosciences Information Service). Personal communications must include date of

contact and full name and mailing address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes,

mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and

Canada, use Special Publications No. 20 (fishes), 26 (mollusks),

and 17 (decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society

(Bethesda, MD). For spelling of scientific and common names

of marine mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the

Society for Marine Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in

general, use the most recent edition of Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged

(Springfield, MA: G.&C. Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, tables,

and figure captions must be converted to the NOAA-wide

standard of WordPerfect. In general, keep text simple (e.g.,

don’t switch fonts and type sizes, don’t use hard returns within

paragraphs, don’t indent except to begin paragraphs). Also,

don't use the WordPerfect automatic footnoting function; all

notes should be indicated in the text by simple numerical

superscripts, and listed together in an "Endnotes" section prior

to the "References Cited" section. Especially, don’t use the

WordPerfect graphics function for embedding tables and figures

in text.

Tables may be prepared either with WordPerfect text or

with the WordPerfect table formatting function. If text is used,

then data should be assigned to columns by using all tabs or all

spaces, but not a combination of the two.

Each figure should be supplied both on paper and on disk,

unless there is no digital file of a given figure. Except under

extraordinary circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one disk copy, and original figures (if applicable).

NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off “NEFSC

Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Review Form.” Non-NEFSC

authors who are not federal employees will be required to sign

a “Release of Copyright” form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to:

Jon A. Gibson (Biological Sciences Editor)

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 USA.

NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER

Dr. Michael P. Sissenwine, Science & Research Director

Capt. John T. Moakley, Operations, Management & Information Services Chief

Teri L. Frady, Research Communications Chief
Research Communications Unit

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of longterm or large area studies; synthesis reports for major resources or habitats; annual reports of assessment or monitoring programs;

documentary reports of oceanographic conditions or phenomena; manuals describing field and lab techniques; literature surveys of major

resource or habitat topics; findings of task forces or working groups; summary reports of scientific or technical workshops; and indexed

and/or annotated bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Fishermen's Report -- This information report is a quick-turnaround report on the distribution and relative abundance of commercial

fisheries resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel surveys of the Northeast's continental shelf. There is

no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of this report.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports

on field and lab observations or experiments; progress reports on continuing experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background

papers for scientific or technical workshops; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review, but no technical or copy

editing.

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources for the benefit of the

nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health of their environment." As the research

arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "planning,

developing, and managing multidisciplinary programs of basic and applied research to: 1) better understand the living marine

resources (including marine mammals) of the Northwest Atlantic, and the environmental quality essential for their existence and

continued productivity; and 2) describe and provide to management, industry, and the public, options for the utilization and

conservation of living marine resources and maintenance of environmental quality which are consistent with national and regional

goals and needs, and with international commitments." Results of NEFSC research are largely reported in primary scientific media

(e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its

constituents, the NEFSC occasionally releases its results in its own media. Those media are in four categories:

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

OBTAINING A COPY: To obtain a copy of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science

Center Reference Document, or to subscribe to the Fishermen's Report or the The Shark Tagger, either contact the NEFSC

Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2228) or consult the NEFSC webpage on

"Publications and Reports" (http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/publications/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY

ENDORSEMENT.

MEDIA

 MAIL

The Shark Tagger -- This newsletter is an annual summary of tagging and recapture data on large pelagic sharks as derived from the

NMFS's Cooperative Shark Tagging Program; it also presents information on the biology (movement, growth, reproduction, etc.) of these

sharks as subsequently derived from the tagging and recapture data. There is internal scientific review, but no technical or copy editing,

of this newsletter.