NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-63

https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-PIFSC-63

May 2017

Economic and Social Characteristics of the Hawaii 

Small Boat Fishery 2014

Hing Ling Chan and Minling Pan

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce 
About this document 

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to understand 

and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and to conserve and manage coastal and oceanic 

marine resources and habitats to help meet our Nation’s economic, social, and environmental 

needs. As a branch of NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducts or 

sponsors research and monitoring programs to improve the scientific basis for conservation and 

management decisions. NMFS strives to make information about the purpose, methods, and 

results of its scientific studies widely available. 

NMFS’ Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) uses the NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS series to achieve timely dissemination of scientific and technical 

information that is of high quality but inappropriate for publication in the formal peer-reviewed 

literature. The contents are of broad scope, including technical workshop proceedings, large data 

compilations, status reports and reviews, lengthy scientific or statistical monographs, and more. 

NOAA Technical Memoranda published by the PIFSC, although informal, are subjected to 

extensive review and editing and reflect sound professional work. Accordingly, they may be 

referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. 

A NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS issued by the PIFSC may be cited using the 

following format: 

Chan, H.L., M. Pan. 

2017. Economic and Social Characteristics of the Hawaii Small Boat Fishery 2014, 

NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-63, 107 p. 

https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-PIFSC-63.

__________________________ 

For further information, direct inquiries to 

Chief, Science Operations Division 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

1845 Wasp Boulevard

Bldg. 176

Honolulu, Hawaii 96818

Phone: 808-725-5331

Fax: 808-725-5532 

___________________________________________________________ 
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economic and Social Characteristics of the Hawaii 

Small Boat Fishery 2014

Hing Ling Chan1 and Minling Pan2

1

Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research

University of Hawaii

1000 Pope Road

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

2

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

1845 Wasp Boulevard

Building 176

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-63

https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-PIFSC-63

May 2017

v

Executive Summary

This report presents an empirical description of the economic and social characteristics of the

Hawaii small boat fishery using results from the cost-earnings study of the fleet conducted in 

2014. Those surveyed included fishermen who held a State of Hawaii Commercial Marine 

License (CML) and fished using small vessels and sold at least one fish during 2013. The survey 

booklets were mailed to all 1,796 small boat fishermen in the summer of 2014, with an online

survey option. Excluding 33 undeliverable or inactive fishermen, this made the effective 

population 1,763 CML holders who met the survey criteria. We received 824 returns, including 

733 via the mail and 91 online, and achieved a 47% response rate. An identification number 

printed on each survey booklet and a unique password for online surveys were used for response 

tracking and response rate analysis. In addition, we compared the survey responses with State of 

Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources (HDAR) fishing reports and dealer reports to analyze the 

survey response representativeness for landings and sale values, respectively. All the survey 

results were presented in aggregate forms, and no individual results were disclosed. With over 

800 responses, this study provides a robust economic and social description of the Hawaii small 

boat fleet including demographics of small boat fishermen, vessel characteristics, levels of 

fishing activity, social aspects of small boat fishing, market participation, fishing trip costs, and 

annual fishing fixed costs. The Hawaii small boat fishery comprises fishermen from different 

islands who use different fishing gears and target different species. The attitudes/motivations 

toward fishing activities among fishermen also vary. With this large number of responses, we 

can segment the data and examine the characteristics and differences between subgroups of the 

fishery, including county of residence, motivations, gear types most commonly used, and subfisheries within the Hawaii small boat fishery. Sub-fisheries are defined by the types of fishing 

trips that fishermen had in the past 12 months. This enhances information from previous costearnings studies of Hawaii’s small boat fishery where results were presented only by county and 

broad fisherman types, such as commercial and non-commercial fishermen. This study results 

from different self-identified fisherman types; full-time commercial fishermen, part-time 

commercial fishermen, cultural fishermen, recreational expenses fishermen, purely recreational 

fishermen, and subsistence fishermen.

Results showed the Hawaii small boat fishery was 95% owner-operated, and 91% of respondents 

never loaned out their vessels without being present. The average vessel size was approximately 

23 feet long with a 216-horsepower engine. The average age of vessels was 23 years, and the 

average duration of vessel ownership was 12 years. Vessel purchase price was close to $40,000 

on average and their estimated current market value was higher, at $43,000. Small boat 

fishermen, on average, took 38 boat fishing trips in the past 12 months. Trolling was the most

common type of fishing, followed by bottomfish handline and pelagic handline. Most fishermen 

(72% respondents) used multiple fishing gears, two on average, during their trips in the past 12 

months. Trolling and bottomfish handline were the most common combination, with 20% of 

respondents using these two gears in the past 12 months, followed by 14% who used troll and 

pelagic handline gears. The combination of trolling, pelagic handline, and bottomfish handline 

gears accounted for another 11%. 

Although the population we surveyed was small boat fishermen who held a State of Hawaii 

Commercial Marine License, they had diverse motivations to fish. When the survey asked 
vi

fishermen to self-identify, 7% identified as full-time commercial, 51% identified as part-time 

commercial, 27% identified as recreational expense, 11% as purely recreational, 3% as 

subsistence, and 1% as cultural. Fishing level varied by motivation, with full-time commercial 

fishermen taking 99 trips in the past 12 months, part-time commercial fishermen taking 41 trips, 

recreational expense fishermen taking 28 trips, and purely recreational fishermen taking 20 trips. 

Gear usage also varied by fisherman type. Trolling was more commonly used by recreational 

fishermen, and pelagic handline and bottomfish gears were more commonly used by commercial 

fishermen. 

There was variation in annual landings among different types of fishermen. In 2013, the total 

landings of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish reported in the survey from all 824 respondents

were approximately 2.18 million pounds, and sold for $5.54 million. Full-time commercial 

fishermen reported considerably higher landings than other fisherman types, with over 10,000 lbs 

of fish (pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish) sold per year compared with cultural fishermen 

(3,581 lbs), part-time commercial fishermen (2,837 lbs), recreational expense fishermen (1,485 

lbs), subsistence fishermen (922 lbs), and purely recreational fishermen (624 lbs). Ninety-three 

percent of small boat fishermen had landed pelagics in the past 12 months. Though less common, 

about half of respondents reported that they caught and landed bottomfish or reef fish in the past 

12 months. 

Distributions of catch and value of fish sold varied substantially by fisherman type. Of those 

who responded to the survey, full-time commercial fishermen caught 28% of the total fish which

represented 35% of total value of fish sold by all respondents. Part-time commercial fishermen 

caught 53% of total fish, and their fish sales represented 55% of total value. Recreational 

expense fishermen represented 14% of total catch and 8% of total value. Purely recreational 

fishermen’s catch was 3% of total catch and 1% of total value.

The diversity of fishermen’s motivations and how they relate to behavior echoes the findings in 

past studies, which shows a disconnection between fishermen’s behavior relative to the 

definition of commercial and recreational fishing by the fisheries management agencies. For 

example, the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines commercial fishing as “fishing in which the fish 

harvested are intended to enter commerce”; however, the survey results show that while the 

majority of small boat fishermen (83%) reported selling at least part of their catch in the past 12 

months, not all of them defined themselves as commercial fishermen. In addition, the intent of 

catch, whether to sell, keep for home consumption, or give away varied greatly by fisherman 

type. Full-time and part-time commercial fishermen sold 73% and 68% of their catch,

respectively. A substantial portion of their landings, were distributed for home consumption and 

given away to friends and family; 21% and 27% for the full-time and part-time commercial 

fishermen, respectively. This supports past research findings that showed the vital social role 

small boat fishermen played in local community. On the other hand, recreational expense

fishermen also sold substantial portions (52%) of their catch; and even the self-identified 

“purely” recreational fishermen sold 28% of their catch. However, because their catch was 

relatively small, the average amount they sold was limited to 800 lbs annually per recreational 

expense fisherman and 180 lbs per purely recreational fisherman. This finding demonstrates that 

selling fish is common among recreational fishermen. 
vii

Small boat fishermen used several market outlets to sell their catch; the majority (72%) sold to 

wholesalers or auctions, 43% to restaurants or stores, 27% to friends, neighbors, or coworkers, 

and 8% on the roadside or at farmers’ markets. The average value of fish sold by all respondents 

was approximately $8,500. Full-time commercial fishermen, as expected, reported the highest 

value of fish sold ($35,528 annually and $558 per trip), followed by part-time commercial 

fishermen ($8,391 annually and $245 per trip), cultural fishermen ($3,900 annually and $150 per 

trip), recreational expenses fishermen ($2,690 annually and $95 per trip), and subsistence 

fishermen ($1,905 annually and $79 per trip). Purely recreational fishermen also reported selling 

close to $1,000 annually ($58 per trip). Thus, to full-time commercial fishermen, income from 

fish sales served as an important source of personal income since 41% of the full-time 

commercial fishermen reported 75% to 100% of their personal income came from fish sales. 

A small boat fishing trip cost approximately $269 per trip, with a median of $230. Fuel 

accounted for 58% of trip costs. Ice contributed 12%. Food and beverage, daily maintenance 

and repair, and bait each contributed 9%. Trip costs varied by subgroups, with Maui county

fishermen spending more per trip ($322) than fishermen in the other counties. Full-time 

commercial fishermen reported substantially higher spending ($376) than other types of 

fishermen, and trolling trips cost more ($292) than other types of trips.

Small boat fishermen also incurred significant annual fishing fixed costs; the costs incurred 

regardless of the number of trips taken in a year. On average, survey respondents reported 

annual fishing fixed costs of $5,557, with a median spending of $3,364. Most respondents 

reported fees for CML, truck and trailer registration (95%), gear replacement and repair (94%), 

and boat and trailer repair, maintenance, and improvements (91%). Almost half reported 

spending on boat insurance (48%) and lower incidence of mooring fees (18%), loan payments

(15%), and financial services (6%). The highest expenditure was loan payments for those with 

loans ($6,429), followed by mooring fees ($2,312), boat and trailer repair and maintenance 

($1,803), gear replacement and repair ($1,785), boat insurance ($874), financial services ($514), 

and fees ($422). 

It is evident that the Hawaii small boat fishery consists of fishermen with unique demographic 

profiles, various fishing motivations, gear usage, and target species; therefore, it is important for 

fishery managers to consider the heterogeneity of the fishery as many potential regulatory 

changes will affect fishermen unequally. The information in this study provides an important 

update on the economic and social characteristics of the fishery and will allow fishery managers 

to make timely and better-informed decisions by having the best scientific information available.
viii
ix

CONTENTS

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ v

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

Materials and Methods.................................................................................................................... 2

Population .....................................................................................................................................................2

 Methodology............................................................................................................................................2

 Response Rates........................................................................................................................................3

Results............................................................................................................................................. 6

 Respondents by Subgroup........................................................................................................................6

 Demographics..........................................................................................................................................9

 Vessel Characteristics............................................................................................................................12

 Fishing Activity Characteristics.............................................................................................................14

 Total Catch and Revenue by Fisherman Type .......................................................................................41

 Trip Costs...............................................................................................................................................43

 Annual Fishing Fixed Costs...................................................................................................................47

 Analysis by Fishery................................................................................................................................51

 Fishermen’s Comments and Suggestions for How Hawaii’s Fisheries Should be Managed and Topics 

for Further Study ...................................................................................................................................64

Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 66

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... 67

References..................................................................................................................................... 68

Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 69

Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................................69

Appendix B. Summary Tables....................................................................................................................72
x
INTRODUCTION

This study profiles the current Hawaii small boat fleet and describes recent fishing experiences, 

market participation, fishing trip costs, annual fishing fixed costs, and opinions about fisheries 

management. Fishery management decisions are based, in part, on minimizing adverse 

economic impacts on fishing communities, making this research vital to the assessment of future 

ocean management plans and actions.

The small boat fishery in Hawaii is important to local communities as it provides jobs for fishing 

participants, food for local families and communities, and preserves cultural practices. The 

Hawaii small boat fishery can be described by fishing gear, with major gears including troll, 

handline for pelagics and bottomfish, spears, and nets. Gear type determines fishing methods 

and target species. Trolling is the most popular fishing method in the Hawaii small boat fishery 

and it targets pelagic species like yellowfin tuna, marlin, and mahi-mahi. Other popular fishing 

methods include bottomfishing targeting opakapaka and onaga, and handline fishing targeting 

yellowfin tuna and juvenile bigeye tuna. In addition, the Hawaii small boat fishery includes 

fishermen1 with various levels of participation ranging from full-time commercial, to occasional 

recreational, to subsistence. Based on the State of Hawaii statistics, the number of participants 

involved in small boat fishing has increased over the past decade, from 1,587 small boat-based 

commercial marine license holders in 2003, to 1,843 in 2013 (excluding charter, aquarium, and

precious coral fisheries) (State of Hawaii, 2013a). Together, these small boat fishermen 

produced 6.2 million pounds of fish in 2013, with a commercial value of $16 million.

Despite the economic importance of the fishery, cost-earnings data on the small boat-based 

fishery in Hawaii are limited and outdated. The first cost-earnings study for the Hawaii small 

boat fishery was done in 1996 (Hamilton and Huffman 1997); and Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 

(2011) conducted a study of the Hawaii small boat pelagic fishery in 2007. Hospital and Beavers 

(2012) did a similar study in 2010, but it was limited to the main Hawaiian Islands bottomfish 

fishery. To update the economic impact and social behavior of the small boat fishery, we 

conducted a survey of the Hawaii small boat fishery (all fishermen with a Hawaii Commercial 

Marine License) that comprises pelagic, bottomfish, coral reef, and other fisheries. The 

objectives of this study are to update baseline cost-earnings economic information for the Hawaii

small boat fleet and to explore the economic and cultural value of these fisheries to support 

current management actions. 

 1 These included 2% of female respondents in the sample. 
2

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Population

Fishermen in Hawaii who intend to sell fish must hold a Hawaii Commercial Marine License 

(CML). The list of CML holders provides a registry of commercial fishermen in the State of 

Hawaii. The population for this study was provided by the State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic 

Resources (HDAR). It included 1,796 fishermen who held a State of Hawaii CML and met the 

following criteria which characterize the small boat fishery: fishermen who caught, landed, and 

sold at least one fish using small vessels during 2013 and with valid mailing address. It excluded

fishermen in charter, longline, aquarium, and precious coral fisheries. The number of CML 

holders (who caught and sold marine life) increased 16% from 1,560 in 2003 to 1,811 in 2013

(Table 1). The number of CML holders who did not sell any fish or those who went fishing but 

had no catch was minimal. In 2013 for example, among the 1,843 CML holders, only 5 

fishermen did not report any sales to HDAR. 

Table 1.--CML small boat holders (excluding charter, longline, aquarium, and precious coral 

fisheries), 2003-2013.

Number of CML 

holders who: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Caught & sold 1,560 1,556 1,518 1,489 1,563 1,666 1,807 1,708 1,742 1,838 1,811*

Caught & not sold 5 4 1 6 5 5 2 4 5 3 5

Effort but no catch 22 27 15 19 21 24 29 27 33 33 27

Total 1,587 1,587 1,534 1,514 1,589 1,695 1,838 1,739 1,780 1,874 1,843

Source: State of Hawaii (2013a).

*1,811 CML holders represent small vessel licensees who caught and sold marine life, and are non-chartered vessels 

and do not belong to the longline, aquarium, & precious coral fisheries in 2013 but only 1,796 with valid mailing 

addresses.

Methodology

Two survey types were developed; one to be mailed in and one to be completed online. The mail 

survey adopted a modified Dillman’s Total Design Method which comprised a four-wave 

mailing, including: (a) an advance letter notifying fishermen a week before they received the 

survey, (b) first mailing of survey booklet with personalized cover letter and pre-addressed 

stamped return envelope, (c) a reminder postcard mailed a week after the first survey mailing, 

and (d) second mailing of survey booklet with cover letter to non-respondents four weeks after 

the reminder postcard (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). Respondents were also provided 

an online survey option. The website address for the survey and the unique password were 

printed on the cover letter and sent together with the survey booklet in the first and second 

mailings. This unique password and identification number were printed on each survey booklet 

and used for response tracking and response rate analysis. In addition, we compared the survey 

responses with HDAR’s fishing reports and dealer reports to analyze the survey response 

representativeness for landings and sale values, respectively. 
3

The survey booklets were mailed to 1,796 fishermen, and the timeline for the mailings is shown 

in Table 2.

Table 2.--Survey implementation schedule.

Sent pre-notification letter to the fishermen June 23, 2014

Sent first survey booklet and cover letter to the fishermen June 30, 2014

Sent a postcard reminder to all fishermen 7 days after mailing the first questionnaire July 7, 2014

Sent a second survey booklet and cover letter to non-respondents 4 weeks after 

mailing the reminder postcard August 4, 2014

We used this mail methodology because the sample tends to be less biased than an in-person 

survey since an in-person survey is more likely to intercept more active fishermen. For example, 

recreational fishermen who, on average, take fewer trips are less likely to be encountered and 

surveyed in-person. The data collection period is shorter using a mail survey compared to the 

previous surveys that lasted for 10 months in Hamilton and Huffman (1997) and 8 months in 

Hospital, Bruce, and Pan (2011), thereby avoiding seasonal bias. However, when compared to 

in-person interviews, respondents cannot ask or clarify questions with interviewers in a mail 

survey, so the interpretation of the questions may differ for each person. 

The online option was first implemented on cost-earnings surveys as many Hawaiian fishermen 

already submit their fishing reports online to HDAR.

The survey instrument was adapted from the past small boat cost-earnings surveys (Hamilton 

and Huffman 1997; Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011; and Hospital and Beavers 2012), with 

several modifications. 1) A category was added for fisherman type so respondents could selfidentify. 2) Open-ended answers for the highest category of response bins were added, such as

fish landings (more than 1,000 pounds) and value of fish sold (more than $50,000), to estimate 

the landings and values more accurately. 3) There were new questions added to investigate the 

use of new fishing gear and the use of scuba gear as regulations on scuba gear usage differ by 

island. 4) New questions regarding the number of non-boat fishing trips and gear usage were 

added to gauge the non-boat fishing activities in which small boat fishermen take part. 5) The 

survey was shortened to avoid survey fatigue. The online version of the survey was essentially 

the same as the mail version, with slight changes in wording and format to enhance online 

readability. The online survey form was designed using the Survey Monkey platform. The

survey was divided into seven sections: 1) fishing experiences, 2) market participation, 3) vessel

characteristics, 4) fishing trip costs, 5) annual fishing fixed costs, 6) basic demographics, and 7) 

opinions about fisheries management. Fishermen were asked about fishing activities, market 

participation, and fishing trip costs only within the past 12 months to avoid recall bias. 

Questions about annual fishing fixed costs were for the 2013 calendar year since fixed costs, 

such as loan payments, are usually recorded in calendar year for accounting and tax purposes. A 

copy of the survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.

Response Rates

Table 3 presents the survey population and response rates by county. Among the 1,796 

fishermen in the population, 33 were excluded (including 24 undeliverable, 7 inactive (not 
4

fishing anymore), and 2 deceased). This makes the effective small boat population 1,763

participants. We received 824 returns, including 733 by mail and 91 online for an overall 

response rate of 47%. Among the four counties, response rate was highest in Oahu, with more 

than half of the fishermen responding; the lowest response rate was found in Hawaii County, 

with a 43% response rate. The distribution of the survey respondents by county is representative 

of the effective population.

Table 3.--Survey population and response rates.

No. of effective

population

(n)

Completed 

surveys 

(n)b

Response rate

(%)

% distribution of 

effective

population

% distribution of 

completed

surveys

Oahu 588 298 50.7% 33% 36%

Hawaii 691 297 43.0% 39% 36%

Mauia 257 126 49.0% 15% 15%

Kauai 217 96 44.2% 12% 12%

US mainland 10 4 40.0% 1% 0%

No zip code 0 3 n.a. 0% 0%

Total 1,763 824 46.7% 100% 100% a The response rate was 40% for Molokai (8 of 20) and 38% for Lanai (3 of 8).

b We received 4 completed surveys from other states and 3 completed surveys without respondent ID. These responses 

are not presented separately in this report, but the 7 respondents are included in the total responses when the analyses 

are not area specific.

The survey responses by mail were entered into an Access database with quality control checks, 

including predefined value ranges for variables and skip patterns for questions associated with a 

conditional response. Internet responses were extracted from the Survey Monkey platform into 

an Excel file. These two data files were merged into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 

(SPSS) for further cleaning, processing, and analysis. The metadata for this report can be found 

in: https://inport.nmfs.noaa.gov/inport/item/29820.

Among the 824 total completed surveys, we excluded 18 cases from the analysis for various 

reasons. These included 4 cases with no fishing activity during the survey period (past 12 

months), 4 charters, 3 cases in which kayaks were used for fishing, 3 that fished the seamounts, 2 

that targeted shrimp, and 2 replies which came after the survey closeout date. Although the mailout sample already excluded the CMLs which self-identified as charters, we still received 4 

returns from charter fishermen, probably due to the change of vessel use after registration with 

HDAR. Kayak fishing is not considered boat fishing as it does not require fuel. Seamount 

fishing and shrimp fishing usually require a larger vessel. In addition, seamount fishing usually 

takes multi-day trips, which differs from typical small boat fishing trips that are single day trips. 

Therefore, the charters, shrimp fishing, and seamount fishing are not considered part of the small 

boat fishery. The total sample for the analysis in this report is 806. With the effective 

population of 1,763, the sampling error at 95% confidence level is +/-3%. With over 800 

responses, this provides a robust description of Hawaii small boat fleet. 

This is the first cost-earnings study with an online survey component; it is interesting to see 

whether the respondents’ demographics vary by survey method. In general, the majority (89%) 

responded by mail, while only 11% responded online. Table 4 shows the demographic 

distribution of the survey respondents by survey method. Comparing the two survey methods, 

subgroups that were more likely to respond online included Oahu fishermen, Asian, mixed, 
5

fishermen who are younger than 55 years old with income $100,000 or more, with bachelor’s 

degree or higher education, and recreational fishermen. The subgroups that were more likely to 

respond by mail included non-Oahu fishermen, White, or Hawaiian, 55 years and older, without 

bachelor’s degree, and commercial fishermen (part-time and full-time).

Table 4.--Demographics by mail and online respondents.

Percentage of 

responses

All 

respondents

Mail

respondents

Online

respondents

Number of respondents (n) 800 710 90

County Oahu 36.5 35.1 47.8

Big Island 36.3 37.0 30.0

Maui 15.5 15.9 12.2

Kauai 11.8 12.0 10.0

Race American Indian/Alaska Native 0.3 0.3 0.0

Asian 40.8 39.6 50.0

Hispanic or Latino 0.8 0.6 2.3

Native Hawaiian 15.0 16.0 7.0

Other Pacific Islander 3.1 3.1 2.3

White 26.0 26.8 19.8

Mixed 14.1 13.6 18.6

Age Less than 25 years 0.6 0.7 0.0

25 - 34 years 8.5 8.2 11.6

35 - 44 years 14.3 13.9 17.4

45 - 54 years 21.5 19.7 36.0

55 - 64 years 32.4 33.2 25.6

More than 64 years 22.7 24.3 9.3

Income Less than $10,000 2.8 2.8 2.4

$10,000 - $24,999 8.8 9.0 7.2

$25,000 - $49,999 19.0 20.3 8.4

$50,000 - $99,999 40.3 40.8 36.1

$100,000 or more 29.1 27.1 45.8

Education Less than high school 4.7 5.1 1.2

High school graduate 25.5 26.9 14.0

Some college or associate's degree 46.3 46.5 44.2

Bachelor's degree or higher 23.5 21.4 40.7

Fisherman Full-time commercial 7.1 7.8 2.2

Classification Part-time commercial 51.0 51.7 45.6

Recreational expense 26.7 25.8 33.3

Purely recreational 10.8 10.0 16.7

Subsistence 3.4 3.5 2.2

Cultural 1.0 1.1 0.0
6

RESULTS

In this report, survey responses are presented for all respondents and segmented by different 

subgroups including counties, fisherman classifications, most common gear used, and subfisheries. This report provides analysis by sub-fishery since fishery management and regulations

are often tied to specific types of fishing. The most common gear is defined by fishermen as 

“the most common type of fishing trip in the past 12 months”. The types of fishing trips listed in 

the survey included trolling, handline for pelagic species, handline for bottomfish species, 

spearfishing, nets, and others (specify). Sub-fisheries include troll pelagic, handline pelagic, 

bottomfish, and coral reef fisheries and are defined by the types of fishing trip that fishermen 

reported to have in the past 12 months. If fishermen conducted different types of fishing trips in 

the past 12 months, they are included in all different sub-fishery groups. Thus, the sum of subfisheries groups is greater than the total number of respondents. For example, if fishermen 

reported trolling, pelagic handlining, and bottomfish handlining trips in the past 12 months, they 

are included in troll pelagic, handline pelagic, and bottomfish fisheries, respectively. 

Determining whether fishermen should be included in the coral reef fishery is more complicated 

because coral reef fishing trips involve different gear types such as spears and nets. The coral 

reef fishery is defined as any fishing trip that targeted reef-like fish and used spears or nets, as 

well as reporting any landings of reef fish in the past 12 months. Tables with noticeable 

differences between subgroups are shown in the main text, and tables without noticeable 

differences between subgroups are shown in Appendix B.

Respondents by Subgroup

The summary results from all respondents combined are presented and discussed in this report,

as well as summary results by subgroups of the fishery, focusing on those with notable 

differences among subgroups. Figure 1 shows the distribution of respondents by county. 

Among all respondents, 37% were from Oahu, 36% were from Hawaii County, 15% were from 

Maui county, and 12% were from Kauai.

Figure 1.--Survey respondents by county.

Oahu

37%

Hawaii

36%

Maui 

County

15%

Kauai

12%
7

Figure 2 shows the distribution of respondents by fishermen’s self-identified motivations. Seven 

percent of respondents self-identified as full-time commercial fishermen, 51% identified as parttime commercial fishermen, 27% identified as recreational expense fishermen, 11% as purely 

recreational, 3% as subsistence, and 1% as cultural fishermen. 

Figure 2.--Fishermen self-identified motivations.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of respondents by most common gear. Most of the small boat 

fishermen trolled, and about 526 fishermen (65% of respondents) stated that trolling was the 

most common gear they used, while 128 fishermen (16%) stated bottomfish handline, and 93 

fishermen (12%) stated pelagic handline were their most commonly used gears. The same 

information across subgroups is listed in Appendix Table B1. 

Figure 3.--The most common gear composition.

Table 5 presents the distribution of respondents by county for various subgroups. The larger

percentage of full-time commercial, part-time commercial, and subsistence fishermen were from 

Part-time 

commercial

51%

Recreational 

expense

27%

Purely 

recreational

11%

Subsistence

3%

Cultural 1%

Full-time 

commercial

7%

Troll

65%

Bottomfish 

handline

16%

Pelagic 

handline

12%

Spear

1%

Nets

1%

Other

5%
8

Hawaii County, while the greater percentage of recreational expense and purely recreational 

fishermen were from Oahu. Across different gears, troll and spear were more commonly used by 

Oahu fishermen; pelagic handline gear and nets were more commonly used by Hawaii County 

fishermen. Bottomfish handline gear was more commonly used by Oahu and Maui county 

fishermen. When compared across sub-fisheries, the handline pelagic fishery had more Hawaii 

County fishermen and the coral reef fishery had more Oahu fishermen.

Table 5.--Distribution of survey responses by county and subgroup.

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Oahu

(%)

Hawaii

(%)

Maui

(%)

Kauai

(%)

All Respondents 800 36.5 36.3 15.5 11.8

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 56 25.0 42.9 17.9 14.3

 Part-time commercial 403 33.3 39.5 15.9 11.4

 Recreational expense 213 43.7 30.5 13.6 12.2

 Purely recreational 86 43.0 31.4 15.1 10.5

 Subsistence 26 26.9 46.2 19.2 7.7

 Cultural 8 37.5 37.5 0.0 25.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 521 39.7 34.2 12.5 13.6

 Pelagic handline 92 12.0 76.1 5.4 6.5

 Bottomfish handline 128 36.7 20.3 34.4 8.6

 Spear 10 70.0 0.0 30.0 0.0

 Nets 11 36.4 45.5 9.1 9.1

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 740 36.2 37.6 14.2 12.0

 Handline pelagic 294 15.6 58.2 13.9 12.2

 Bottomfish 381 38.1 28.6 18.6 14.7

 Coral reef 151 41.1 28.5 19.9 10.6

Table 6 shows the distribution of respondents by self-identified motivation for various

subgroups. Trolling was more commonly used by recreational fishermen, whereas pelagic 

handline and bottomfish handline gears were more commonly used by commercial fishermen. 

When comparing across sub-fisheries, the handline pelagic fishery had more commercial 

fishermen.
9

Table 6.--Distribution of survey responses by fisherman classification and subgroup. Number of 

respondents

(n)

Full-time 

commercial

(%)

Part-time 

commercial

(%)

Recreational 

expense

(%)

Purely 

recreational

(%)

Subsistence

(%)

Cultural

(%)

All Respondents 798 7.1 51.0 26.7 10.8 3.4 1.0

By County

 Oahu 288 4.9 46.5 32.3 12.8 2.4 1.0

 Hawaii 290 8.3 54.8 22.4 9.3 4.1 1.0

 Maui 121 8.3 52.9 24.0 10.7 4.1 0.0

 Kauai 93 8.6 49.5 28.0 9.7 2.2 2.2

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 522 4.8 47.9 30.5 13.4 2.7 0.8

 Pelagic handline 92 13.0 63.0 17.4 2.2 3.3 1.1

 Bottomfish handline 126 11.1 53.2 20.6 8.7 5.6 0.8

 Spear 10 0.0 50.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 0.0

 Nets 11 36.4 45.5 9.1 0.0 0.0 9.1

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 738 6.1 50.1 28.3 11.2 3.3 0.9

 Handline pelagic 294 10.9 59.2 22.4 3.1 2.7 1.7

 Bottomfish 376 9.0 50.8 27.1 8.0 4.3 0.8

 Coral reef 149 9.4 55.7 23.5 6.0 3.4 2.0

Demographics

This section presents the demographic profile of the Hawaii small boat fishermen including 

gender, race, age, income, and education attainment and compares the profile with the general 

population of the State of Hawaii. Knowing the demographic profile of the fishing community is 

important for recognizing the potential impacts to different socioeconomic groups from 

conservation and management measures. 

Fishing is traditionally a male dominated activity; our survey reflected this, as 98% of 

respondents were male. In terms of race, the composition of the small boat fishery community 

was in line with the state population, especially the top two races: Asian and White. Table 7

shows the race distribution of survey respondents versus the whole State of Hawaii population 

based on 2010 U.S. Census (State of Hawaii 2013b). The largest two races, Asian and White,

comprised 41% and 26% of the small boat fishermen, respectively, and 39% and 25% in the state 

population. However, proportionally there were more Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders 

who responded to the survey than in the general population (18% vs. 10%).
10

Table 7.--Survey Responses: “How would you describe your race? (check all that apply).”

All Survey Respondents

(%)

State of Hawaii

Population1

(%)

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3 0.3

Asian 41 39

Black or African American 0 2

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 18 10

White 26 25

Hispanic or Latino 0.8 0

Two or more races 14 24

Source: 1 State of Hawaii (2013b).

The distributions of race for subgroups of the survey respondents are presented in Appendix

Table B2. When compared with all respondents, there were relatively more Asian small boat 

fishermen in Oahu, more Hawaiian and Pacific Islander fishermen in Hawaii County and Kauai, 

and more White fishermen in the counties of Hawaii and Maui. Across different types of 

fishermen, full-time commercial fishermen were more likely to be Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 

recreational expense fishermen were more likely to be Asian, and purely recreational fishermen

were more likely to be White. For those who used bottomfish handline gear most often, 62% 

were Asian.

Table 8 shows the age distribution of the survey respondents and general adult-age population. 

Compared to the general population, the Hawaii small boat fishermen tended to skew toward 

older age groups, with more than half (55%) over 54 years old, versus 36% in the general 

population. The age distribution in the State of Hawaii was based on the table in the 2013 State 

of Hawaii Data Book, 18 years and over (State of Hawaii 2013b). Only 10% of the Hawaii small 

boat fishermen were 34 years old or under, versus 32% in the state population.2

 

Table 8.--Survey Responses: “What is your age?”

All Survey Respondents

(%)

State of Hawaii Population1

(%)

18-24 years 1 13

25 to 34 years 9 19

35 to 44 years 14 16

45 to 54 years 21 16

55 to 64 years 32 16

More than 64 years 23 20

Source: 1 State of Hawaii (2013b).

Subsistence fishermen tended to be older; 74% were over 54 years. Fishermen who used 

bottomfish handline gear most often also tended to be older; 67% were over 54. This is likely 

due to more skill and experience required for bottomfishing. In addition, fishermen who 

participated in the coral reef fishery tended to be younger; 56% of them under 55 years, versus 

41% in the bottomfish fishery. Distributions by subgroup are shown in Appendix Table B3. 

Table 9 shows the income distribution of survey respondents and general population. Sixty-nine 

percent of small boat fishermen had $50,000 or more household income versus 63% in the 

 2 Only compared with adult-age population characteristics (18 and above).
11

general population. The income distribution in the State of Hawaii was based on the American 

Community Survey 2008-2012 estimates administered by the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2012). 

Table 9.--Survey Responses: “What was your total household income, before taxes, in 2013, 

including fishing income?”

All Survey Respondents

(%)

State of Hawaii Population1

(%)

Less than $10,000 3 6

$10,000 to $24,999 9 11

$25,000 to $49,999 19 20

$50,000 to $99,999 40 33

$100,000 and more 29 30

Source: 1) U.S. Census (2012).

Seventy-six percent of Oahu fishermen made $50,000 or more while only 61% of Hawaii County

fishermen had the same income level. Income also varied by fisherman type and gear usage. 

Fifty-two percent of full-time commercial fishermen had household income of $50,000 or more;

76% of recreational expense and 78% of purely recreational fishermen had the same income 

level. Only half of fishermen who used pelagic handline gear or spears and 36% of those who 

used nets most often had household income $50,000 or more, versus 73% of fishermen who 

trolled or used bottomfish handline gear most often. Appendix Table B4 shows the income 

distribution of survey respondents by different subgroups.

Table 10 presents the education attainment of survey respondents and general population. 

Hawaii small boat fishermen tended to be somewhat better educated than the state average, with 

69% reporting to have some college, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree or higher, versus 61% 

for the state. The education attainment in the State of Hawaii was based on 2013 State of Hawaii 

Data Book, 18 years and over (State of Hawaii, 2013b). 

Table 10.--Survey Responses: “What is the highest level of education you have completed?”

All Survey Respondents

(%)

State of Hawaii Population1

(%)

Less than high school 5 9

High school graduate 26 30

Some college or associate's degree 46 34

Bachelor’s degree or higher 23 27

Source: State of Hawaii (2013b).

Twenty-three percent of the respondents had bachelor’s or higher degrees. Oahu fishermen 

tended to be better educated as 32% had bachelor's or higher degrees. The better educated 

groups included recreational expense and purely recreational fishermen compared to full-time 

commercial and subsistence fishermen. In addition, fishermen who used bottomfish handline 

gear most often had higher education attainment; 30% had bachelor’s degrees or higher. This 

was in contrast with those who used pelagic handline gear most often (15%) and those who used 

spears most often (0%). Among different sub-fisheries, 30% of the coral reef fishermen had 

bachelor’s degree or higher. Appendix Table B5 shows the education distribution of the survey 

respondents by different subgroups.
12

Vessel Characteristics

This section presents the characteristics of vessels used in the Hawaii small boat fishery. The 

majority of the small boat fishermen (95%) owned the boat that they used for fishing (Figure 4). 

Across subgroups, 98% of Maui county fishermen, 100% of subsistence fishermen, and 100% of 

the fishermen that used spears and nets most often owned their own boats (Appendix Table B6).

Figure 4.--Own your fishing boat.

Only 9% of the respondents had non-family members use their boat without being present

themselves, and this is done infrequently. Appendix Table B7 shows the percent of time nonfamily members used the boat without the owner by different subgroups. Across counties, Kauai 

fishermen (13%) were more likely to have non-family members use their boat. Among gear 

types, fishermen who most often used spears (20%) or nets (18%) were more likely to have nonfamily members use their boat in contrast to those who often used bottomfish handline gear, with

only 4% sharing their boat. Comparing fisherman types, almost all (98%) full-time commercial 

and all (100%) cultural fishermen did not share their boat with others (non-family members).

Figure 5 shows the distribution of vessel sizes. The most common (65%) vessel size was 16 to 

24 feet, while the second most common vessel size (23%) was 25 to 30 feet. Only 4% of small 

boat fishermen owned boats less than 16 feet, while 9% owned boats longer than 30 feet. 

Appendix Table B8 presents the distribution of vessel sizes by different subgroups.

Yes

95%

No

5%
13

Figure 5.--Vessel size.

Table 11 shows the characteristics of vessels used in small boat fishery. The average vessel 

length was approximately 23 feet with a 216-horsepower engine. The average age of vessels was 

23 years, and the average duration of ownership was 12 years. The average purchase price of 

vessel was close to $40,000 and the estimated current market value was approximately $43,000.

Table 11.--Vessel characteristics by county (mean, standard error, and median).

Variable

Number of respondents

(n) Mean Standard error Median

Boat length (feet) 762 22.9 0.2 22

Boat horsepower 751 216.2 6.7 180

Age of boat (years) 711 22.8 0.5 22

Current boat ownership (years) 729 11.7 0.4 9

Boat purchase price ($) 717 39,661 1,813 26,000

Boat current market value ($) 700 43,039 1,931 30,000

Appendix Table B9 shows vessel characteristics by county. Oahu fishermen tended to have 

slightly larger and more powerful vessels; however, their vessels also tended to be slightly older 

with longer ownership. Vessels owned by fishermen in Hawaii County tended to be smaller in 

size and power and had, therefore, lower average purchase price and market value. Average 

purchase price was highest for fishermen in Maui county because their vessels were newer, but 

the average estimated current market value was highest in Kauai.

Appendix Table B10 shows the characteristics of vessels used by different fisherman types. Not 

surprisingly, full-time commercial fishermen’s vessels were larger and had higher value. Their 

vessels tended to be older with longer ownership than vessels owned by other types of fishermen. 

Purely recreational fishermen also tended to have bigger, more powerful vessels. They also 

owned their vessels for shorter periods of time. Subsistence fishermen’s vessels were smaller 

and less powerful and, therefore, of lower value.

Appendix Table B11 shows the characteristics of vessels by gear most commonly used. 

Fishermen who trolled most often tended to have bigger, more powerful, and newer vessels, with 

relatively short ownership. Those who used nets most often tended to have smaller, less 

powerful, older vessels with longer ownership. Vessel differences also reflected in the values: 

4%

65%

23%

9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

< 16 feet 16 - 24 feet 25 - 30 feet > 30 feet

% of fishermen
14

vessels for fishermen who trolled most often were most valuable versus vessels for fishermen 

who used nets. In addition, fishermen who used spears most often owned newer vessels with 

shorter ownership.

Fishing Activity Characteristics

Fishing Trips and Gear Used 

This section presents small boat fishermen’s fishing experiences in the past 12 months, including 

the number of boat and non-boat fishing trips, gear usage, spatial aspect of the trips, number of 

people on board, and pounds of fish caught. This information is essential to understand the 

distribution of fishing effort and trip characteristics within a year and gauge the degree of impact 

from any potential regulatory changes to the fishery.

Figure 6 shows the number of boat fishing trips survey respondents took in the past 12 months in 

percentage distribution using the response bins in the survey. The average number of boat 

fishing trips reported by all respondents was 39, calculated using the medians of the response 

bins (e.g. assuming small boat fishing trips are mostly one-day trips, the maximum number of 

trips in a year is 365, and the median for the response bin “more than 200 trips” is 283 trips). 

More than half of the survey respondents (53%) took fewer than 25 trips in the past 12 months,

and only 7% took 100 trips or more. 

Figure 6.--Number of boat fishing trips in past 12 months.

Hawaii County fishermen reported an average of 46 fishing trips per year, whereas Maui county

fishermen reported fewer trips (31) on average. As expected, full-time commercial fishermen 

made the most trips in the past 12 months (99 trips on average), followed by part-time 

commercial fishermen (41 trips), and purely recreational and cultural fishermen made only 20 

and 18 trips, respectively. Fishermen who used nets most often made more than 100 trips per 

year, while those who trolled and used bottomfish handline gears most often took, on average, 35 

trips. Table 12 shows the distribution of fishing trips in response bins and average number of 

trips per year by different subgroups.

< 25 trips

53%

25-49 trips

26%

50-99 trips

13%

100-200 

trips

6%

201+ trips

2%
15

Table 12. --Survey Responses: “Approximately how many BOAT fishing trips did you take in 

the past 12 months?” (percentage of responses and mean).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Fewer than 

25 trips

(%)

25-49

trips

(%)

50-99

trips

(%)

100-200 

trips

(%)

More than 

200 trips

(%)

Number of 

trips 

(Mean)1

All Respondents 795 53.1 26.3 13.2 6.0 1.4 38.5

By County

 Oahu 287 57.8 26.1 11.8 3.5 0.7 32.4

 Hawaii 288 48.3 25.0 14.9 9.7 2.1 46.3

 Maui 121 59.5 25.6 11.6 2.5 0.8 30.6

 Kauai 93 46.2 31.2 12.9 7.5 2.2 43.9

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 55 20.0 12.7 32.7 21.8 12.7 99.2

 Part-time commercial 401 46.9 28.9 16.2 7.2 0.7 41.1

 Recreational expense 211 63.0 25.6 8.5 2.4 0.5 27.9

 Purely recreational 85 75.3 20.0 3.5 1.2 0.0 20.3

 Subsistence 27 59.3 33.3 3.7 3.7 0.0 27.6

 Cultural 8 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 519 56.1 26.4 11.8 4.2 1.5 35.6

 Pelagic handline 90 42.2 25.6 17.8 13.3 1.1 50.9

 Bottomfish handline 127 52.0 29.1 12.6 6.3 0.0 35.3

 Spear 10 40.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 38.1

 Nets 11 27.3 0.0 36.4 18.2 18.2 106.3

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 736 52.9 27.3 13.2 5.4 1.2 37.5

 Handline pelagic 290 43.1 25.9 19.0 10.3 1.7 49.1

 Bottomfish 372 48.4 30.6 14.8 5.4 0.8 38.3

 Coral reef 149 45.6 25.5 18.1 7.4 3.4 48.7 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Figure 7 shows the number of gears used in boat fishing trips in the past 12 months. Most of the 

survey respondents (72%) used more than one fishing gear. We do not know whether multiple 

gears were used in the same trip since the question merely asked which types of gears were used 

in their boat fishing trips in the past 12 months.3 On average, most small boat fishermen used 

one or two types of fishing gears.

 3 The number of gears was derived from this question: In the past 12 months, what percent of your BOAT fishing 

trip were: trolling, handling for pelagic species, handline for bottomfish species, spearfishing, nets, other gear? 
16

Figure 7.--Number of gears used in boat fishing trips in past 12 months.

Among different subgroups, proportionally more Oahu fishermen used single gear, whereas 

Hawaii County and Kauai fishermen used multiple gears. Full-time commercial and cultural 

fishermen used more gears, while more than half of the purely recreational fishermen were single 

gear users. Those who trolled most often were more likely to use single gear (35%), and those 

who used spears most often used, on average, three different types of gears. Fishermen who 

participated in the coral reef fishery were more likely to use multiple gears; 3 on average. Table 

13 shows the details.

Table 13.--Number of gears used in BOAT fishing trips in the past 12 months (percentage of 

responses and mean). Number of 

respondents

(n)

One

(%)

Two

(%)

Three

(%)

Four

(%)

Five or 

more

(%)

Number 

of gears 

(Mean)

All Respondents 789 27.6 46.4 18.3 6.3 1.4 2.1

By County

 Oahu 288 34.0 47.6 13.5 4.5 0.3 1.9

 Hawaii 282 21.6 46.1 23.8 6.4 2.1 2.2

 Maui 121 25.6 48.8 15.7 8.3 1.7 2.1

 Kauai 92 26.1 42.4 19.6 9.8 2.2 2.2

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 24.1 31.5 29.6 9.3 5.6 2.4

 Part-time commercial 397 23.2 49.1 18.9 7.3 1.5 2.2

 Recreational expense 210 29.0 46.7 18.1 5.7 0.5 2.0

 Purely recreational 86 51.2 38.4 9.3 1.2 0.0 1.6

 Subsistence 27 22.2 51.9 18.5 7.4 0.0 2.1

 Cultural 8 12.5 50.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 2.6

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 35.3 44.6 15.1 4.1 1.0 1.9

 Pelagic handline 92 7.6 48.9 32.6 8.7 2.2 2.5

 Bottomfish handline 126 13.5 54.0 19.0 12.7 0.8 2.3

 Spear 9 11.1 33.3 22.2 22.2 11.1 3.0

 Nets 10 30.0 20.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 2.5

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 734 24.9 47.4 19.3 6.8 1.5 2.1

 Handline pelagic 292 2.4 41.8 36.0 16.1 3.8 2.8

 Bottomfish 376 4.5 50.5 30.3 12.0 2.7 2.6

 Coral reef 148 4.7 32.4 29.1 26.4 7.4 3.0

One

28%

Two

46%

Three

18%

Four

7%

Five +

1%
17

Figure 8 shows gear usage in boat fishing trips by all fishermen combined. Troll was the most 

commonly used gear by small boat fishermen; almost all (93%) survey respondents trolled in the 

past 12 months. Almost half (45%) used bottomfish handline gear. Thirty-seven percent of 

fishermen used pelagic handline in the past 12 months.

Figure 8.--Gear usage in boat fishing trips in the past 12 months.

Table 14 shows the gear usage in boat fishing trips in the past 12 months by different subgroups. 

Trolling was most commonly used gear across all subgroups. Relatively, more Hawaii County

fishermen used pelagic handline gear (60%) and more Maui county fishermen used bottomfish 

handline gear (57%). Across different fisherman types, full-time commercial fishermen were

more likely to use pelagic handline (57%) and bottomfish handline (59%), whereas almost all 

recreational expense and purely recreational fishermen trolled. 

15%

6%

13%

37%

45%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Net

Spear

Pelagic handline

Bottomfish handline

Troll

% of fishermen
18

Table 14.--Gear usage in BOAT fishing trips in the past 12 months (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Troll

(%)

Pelagic 

handline

(%)

Bottomfish

handline

(%)

Spear

(%)

Net

(%)

Other

(%)

All Respondents 789 93.0 36.9 44.6 13.1 5.6 14.6

By County

 Oahu 288 92.0 15.3 45.8 15.3 5.2 16.0

 Hawaii 282 96.8 60.3 35.5 11.3 6.0 11.7

 Maui 121 85.1 33.9 57.0 15.7 6.6 14.0

 Kauai 92 94.6 38.0 55.4 8.7 4.3 18.5

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 77.8 57.4 59.3 14.8 16.7 16.7

 Part-time commercial 397 91.7 43.3 44.6 15.6 5.5 14.4

 Recreational expense 210 98.6 31.4 44.8 10.5 2.9 13.8

 Purely recreational 86 96.5 10.5 32.6 4.7 2.3 14.0

 Subsistence 27 88.9 29.6 55.6 14.8 7.4 14.8

 Cultural 8 87.5 62.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 25.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 100.0 29.9 34.9 10.0 4.1 11.8

 Pelagic handline 92 88.0 100.0 35.9 14.1 5.4 5.4

 Bottomfish handline 126 80.2 27.0 100.0 15.9 1.6 9.5

 Spear 9 66.7 33.3 33.3 100.0 22.2 44.4

 Nets 10 60.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 100.0 10.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 734 100.0 37.5 44.1 12.7 5.0 13.5

 Handline pelagic 292 94.2 99.7 48.6 17.8 7.9 9.6

 Bottomfish 376 92.3 38.3 93.6 14.1 5.1 14.9

 Coral reef 148 87.8 42.6 48.0 60.8 22.3 39.2

Figure 9 shows the combination of fishing gear usage (percentages sum to 100%). The top panel 

shows results for those who only used one gear throughout the year. Trolling and bottomfish 

handline were the most common combination for those who used multiple gears (20%), followed 

by trolling and pelagic handline gears (14%). The combination of trolling, pelagic handline, and 

bottomfish handline gears accounted for another 11%, and four or more gears accounted for 8%.
19

Figure 9.--Combination of gear usage in boat fishing trips in the past 12 months

(percentages sum to 100%).

The previous section presents the number of gears and the types of gears fishermen used in the 

past 12 months derived from the survey question: In the past 12 months, what percent of your 

boat fishing trip were: trolling, handling for pelagic species, handline for bottomfish species, 

spearfishing, nets, other gear? Appendix Tables B12 to B16 show the results of this question in

percent distribution based on the survey response bins and average percentage calculated by the 

medians of response bins for all respondents and subgroups. 

Figure 10 shows the average annual number of fishing trips by gear type. This was calculated by 

using the medians of survey response bins from percentage of fishing trips by gear type and the 

number of boat fishing trips taken in the past 12 months. It only included fishing trips which 

used a particular gear type (excluding those who did not take a trip with that particular gear 

(those in the 0-trip response bin)). On average, survey respondents had taken 21 trolling trips, 19 

pelagic handlining trips, 15 bottomfish handlining trips, 10 spearfishing trips, and 25 nets trips in 

the past 12 months. Appendix Table B17 shows the number of boat fishing trips by subgroup.

8%

0.3%

1%

3%

4%

11%

2%

10%

14%

20%

1%

1%

2%

23%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

4+ gears

Non-Troll & 2 other gears

Troll & 2 other gears

Troll, Pelagic handline, & other

Troll, Bottomfish handline, & other

Troll, Pelagic handline, & Bottomfish handline

Non-Troll & other

Troll & other

Troll & Pelagic handline

Troll & Bottomfish handline

Other gear

Pelagic handline

Bottomfish handline

Troll

% of fishermen

Three gears

Two gears

Single gear
20

Figure 10.--Average number of boat fishing trips by gear type.

Besides the common gear types used in boat fishing trips, the survey also asked about the usage 

of gears that were less common, such as green-stick4 and scuba gear, when fishermen went 

spearfishing. Figure 11 shows that 8% of survey respondents used green-stick as one of the gear 

types for their boat-fishing trips in the past 12 months. Eighteen percent of Kauai fishermen 

used green-stick versus 4% of Maui fishermen. Green-stick was more likely to be used by fulltime commercial fishermen and less likely by purely recreational, subsistence, or cultural 

fishermen. Appendix Table B18 shows the green-stick usage rate by subgroup.

Figure 11.--Used green-stick for boat fishing trips in the past 12 months.

Among all respondents, 103 fishermen (13%) went spearfishing in the past 12 months. Among 

those, 73% did not use any scuba gear (Figure 12). For those who used scuba gear, it was done 

on 60% of the trips. Appendix Table B19 shows the scuba gear usage by subgroup. Forty-five 

percent of the spearfishing fishermen in Oahu used scuba, compared to less than 20% of 

spearfishing fishermen in Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui. The county differences may reflect areaspecified scuba gear restrictions. For example, spearfishing with the aid of scuba gear in waters 

 4 Green-stick fishing is a fishing technique that primarily targets tuna; it trolls artificial squid from a fiberglass pole 

(called green-stick) just above the water surface to attract tuna.

21

19

15

10

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Troll Pelagic

handline

Bottomfish

handline

Spear Nets

Number of trips

Yes

8%

No

92%
21

off West Hawaii has been prohibited since 2013. In addition, scuba gear is not allowed from 

June 1 to October 1, in collection of banded urchin, long-spined urchin, and helmet urchin in the 

Old Kona Airport Marine Life Conservation District.5 

Figure 12.--Percent of time used scuba gear in the past 12 months.

Sixty-five percent of small boat fishermen survey respondents did not take any non-boat fishing 

trips in the past 12 months (Figure 13). Appendix Table B20 shows the distribution and the 

average number of non-boat fishing trips by subgroup.

Figure 13.--Number of non-boat fishing trips in past 12 months.

Figure 14 shows the gear usage for non-boat fishing trips in the past 12 months. For fishermen 

who took non-boat fishing trips, most of them (85%) used rod and reel, 43% used spears, 23% 

cast nets, and 5% used other gears. Appendix Table B21 shows the gear usage for non-boat 

fishing trips by subgroup.

 5 More information about Hawaii’s fishing regulations is available on: 

http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/files/2015/08/fishing_regs_Aug_2015.pdf. 

73%

8% 4% 4%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 1%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

% of fishermen

% of time used scuba gear

0 trip

65%

< 25 trips

31%

25-49 trips

3%

50+ trips

1%
22

Figure 14.--Gear usage in non-boat fishing trips in the past 12 months.

Figure 15 shows the average number of non-boat fishing trips by gear type. This was calculated 

by the percentage of non-boat fishing trips by gear type (medians of survey response bins) 

multiplied by the number of non-boat fishing trips over the past 12 months (excluding those who 

did not take a trip with that particular gear (those in the 0-trip response bin)). On average, survey 

respondents took 12 rod and reel trips, 9 spearfishing trips, 9 net trips, and 8 other non-boat 

fishing trips. Appendix Table B22 shows the average number of non-boat fishing trips by gear 

type by subgroup. 

Figure 15.--Average number of non-boat fishing trips by gear type.

Fishing Areas and Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) 

Questions regarding the spatial aspect of small boat fishing trips included percentage of fishing 

trips in state and federal waters and percentage of trips around Fish Aggregating Devices 

(FADs). Table 15 shows the average percentage of fishing trips in state and federal waters. On 

average, slightly more than half (55%) of boat fishing trips occurred in state waters and 45% in 

federal waters. Spatial behavior differed by county, fisherman type, and gear usage. Hawaii 

County fishermen were more active within state waters (67% of fishing trips), while Oahu 

fishermen were more active within federal waters (55% of fishing trips or fishing time). Parttime commercial and purely recreational fishermen were more active within state waters (58% -

5%

23%

43%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other gear

Cast/throw net

Spearfishing

Rod and reel

% of fishermen

12

9 9

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Rod and reel Spearfishing Cast/throw net Other gear

Number of trips
23

59%), while recreational fishermen fished in both jurisdictional waters evenly. Fishermen who 

trolled were also equally distributed in state and federal waters, while fishermen who used other 

(non-troll) gears most often were more active within state waters. Fishermen who participated in

the coral reef fishery were more likely to fish within state waters. 

Table 15.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your fishing trips occurred 

in state and/or federal jurisdiction?” (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

State waters1

(%)

Federal waters1

(%)

All Respondents 768 55.5 44.5

By County

 Oahu 280 44.8 55.2

 Hawaii 276 66.7 33.3

 Maui 119 53.0 47.0

 Kauai 87 58.3 41.7

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 53 53.8 46.2

 Part-time commercial 388 58.4 41.6

 Recreational expense 206 49.3 50.7

 Purely recreational 80 58.7 41.3

 Subsistence 25 56.4 43.6

 Cultural 8 40.6 59.4

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 500 49.8 50.2

 Pelagic handline 85 61.7 38.3

 Bottomfish handline 125 62.9 37.1

 Spear 9 80.6 19.4

 Nets 11 88.6 11.4

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 712 53.8 46.2

 Handline pelagic 278 56.9 43.1

 Bottomfish 365 56.8 43.2

 Coral reef 149 62.1 37.9 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Figure 16 shows the percent of fishing trips at FADs. Appendix Table B23 shows the use of 

FADs by subgroup. Across counties, Kauai fishermen (86%) were more likely to use FADs, 

whereas Maui county fishermen were less likely (71%). FAD usage was tied to the fishing trip

types. Fishermen who took trolling or pelagic handlining trips most often were more reliant on 

FADs compared with those who had bottomfishing and spearfishing trips most often. Gear 

preference differed by fisherman type; more recreational expense fishermen were reliant on 

FADs since they were more likely to troll. Cultural fishermen also relied on FADs since they 

were more likely to use pelagic handline gear. On the other hand, full-time commercial and 

subsistence fishermen were less likely to use FADs as they preferred bottomfish handline gear.
24

Figure 16.--Percent of time used FADs in the past 12 months.

Approximately half of respondents reported two fishermen on board during an average trip, and 

20% of them fished alone (Figure 17). Subgroups of fishermen who were more likely to fish 

alone included Kauai fishermen (29%), full-time commercial fishermen (56%), and fishermen 

who used bottomfish handline (36%) or nets most often (60%). Subgroups with more people on 

board included purely recreational fishermen and those who trolled most often (Appendix Table 

B24).

Figure 17.--Number of people on board for an average fishing trip.

Fish Landings 

This study compares fishermen’s total landings reported to HDAR by the entire small boat 

population versus the landings of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish reported by all survey 

respondents (seamount fishing, shrimp fishing, charters, kayak fishers; those who did no boat

fishing in the past 12 months were excluded from the analysis). Table 16 presents the results of 

landings from these two sources. The total landings reported by survey respondents were 

calculated using the medians of catch bins. For those who reported the highest category of 

landing bin (>1,000 lbs; 86%), the actual reported landings of all types of fish were used. For 

the 14% who did not report the actual landings, the missing values were replaced by the average 

20%

32%

20% 18%

10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0% 1%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

% of fishermen

% of fishing trips at FADs

One

20%

Two

47%

Three

25%

Four

6%

Five +

2%
25

of the actual landings reported by other fishermen. The State of Hawaii landings data are 

available in HDAR’s Fishermen Reporting System (FRS). We used FRS data from July 2013 to 

June 2014 to match the 12 months recall in our surveys (our first surveys were sent out in early 

July 2014). There were 154 fishermen in the survey population (1,796 fishermen) and 42 survey 

respondents who had no fishing record in the FRS during this period, thus they were excluded in 

this analysis. Figure 18 shows the overall distribution of landings reported to HDAR by the 

entire survey population and the landings reported by the survey respondents. Overall survey 

respondents are representative for each category (classified by total landings amount) of the 

survey population. For the four groups with landings 500 lbs or less, the percentages are 

consistent between sample and population. There were more survey respondents who reported 

landings ranging from 501 lbs to 1,000 lbs than the general population and fewer who reported 

over 1,000 lbs. Thus, the average landings per fisherman reported in FRS was 14% higher than 

the average calculated from the survey sample; 3,199 lbs versus 2,798 lbs. Similar results are 

found at county levels. The means between population and survey respondents shows higher 

average landings in the population than in the survey respondents (except for Kauai), particularly

in the county of Hawaii. 

Table 16.--Total landings for the survey population from State of Hawaii DAR’s Fishermen 

Reporting System vs. survey respondents (percentage of responses).

All Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Total landings

kept (lbs)

Survey

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey 

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey 

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey 

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey 

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

0 0.4 1.7 0.9 3.3 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.1 

1-50 4.6 3.7 4.3 3.6 4.5 4.0 6.3 4.2 4.3 2.2 

51-100 4.1 4.7 4.5 4.7 3.2 4.4 5.9 5.8 3.8 4.4 

101-500 25.3 28.0 27.9 28.3 21.9 29.2 28.0 27.5 25.5 24.4 

501-1,000 16.0 23.9 17.0 24.6 16.2 23.4 14.2 20.8 14.9 26.7 

More than 1,000 49.5 38.0 45.4 35.5 54.1 38.3 45.6 40.8 51.0 41.1 

Number of fishermen 1,616 763 535 276 625 274 239 120 208 90

Total landings kept per fisherman

Mean (lbs) 3,199 2,798 2,553 2,459 3,931 2,971 2,779 2,437 3,175 3,839 

Standard error (lbs) 204 235 432 362 316 427 366 372 426 898 

Median (lbs) 984 750 873 750 1,139 750 743 750 1,015 800 

Note: The survey population included all species landings from small boat trips in the State of Hawaii DAR’s 

fishermen reporting system from July 2013 to June 2014. It excluded those without fishing record in FRS during 

July 2013 to June 2014 (n = 154) and 11 seamount fishing, 4 shrimp fishing, 4 charters, 4 cases identified as no boat 

fishing in the past 12 months in the survey, and 3 cases where kayaks were used for fishing. Survey responses only 

included landings for pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish. Survey responses excluded fishermen with no HDAR 

FRS record during July 2013 to June 2014 (n = 42) and one fishermen who did not answer fish landings question.
26

Figure 18.--Total landings distribution for the survey population (HDAR FRS statistics) vs. 

survey respondents.

We also compared the landings reported to HDAR versus the landings reported in the survey for

survey respondents, and they corresponded well (Table 17). The average landings between 

fishing reports and survey responses match very well at the state level. The average landings per 

fisherman was 2,606 lbs based on the HDAR reports and 2,798 lbs based on the survey. 

However, differences at the county level are somewhat larger. 

Table 17.--Total landings for survey respondents: State of Hawaii DAR’s Fishermen Reporting 

System vs. survey responses (percentage of responses).

All Respondents Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Total landings 

kept (lbs)

Fishing 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Fishing 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Fishing 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Fishing 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Fishing 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

0 0.4 1.7 1.1 3.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.1 

1-50 3.9 3.7 2.9 3.6 5.1 4.0 5.8 4.2 1.1 2.2 

51-100 4.2 4.7 4.0 4.7 3.6 4.4 5.8 5.8 4.4 4.4 

101-500 23.7 28.0 26.4 28.3 19.3 29.2 29.2 27.5 22.2 24.4 

501-1,000 19.0 23.9 18.8 24.6 21.2 23.4 15.0 20.8 16.7 26.7 

More than 1,000 48.8 38.0 46.7 35.5 50.7 38.3 44.2 40.8 55.6 41.1 

Number of fishermen 763 763 276 276 274 274 120 120 90 90

Total landings kept per fisherman

Mean (lbs) 2,606 2,798 1,890 2,459 3,132 2,971 2,683 2,437 3,116 3,839 

Standard error (lbs) 201 235 179 362 436 427 526 372 579 898 

Median (lbs) 962 750 913 750 1,031 750 763 750 1,215 800 

Note: Excluded fishermen with no DAR FRS records during July 2013 to June 2014 (n=42) and one fishermen who 

did not answer fish landings question.

Table 18 shows the average landings per respondent in the past 12 months for the sum of three 

species groups (pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish), and each of these groups separately, 

based on the survey results. The average landings per respondent was approximately 2,700 lbs, 

including 2,150 lbs pelagic fish, 312 lbs bottomfish, and 267 lbs reef fish. Kauai fishermen 

landed more fish on average than other counties. However, Maui county fishermen caught more 

bottomfish. 

Total landings as reported to the survey varied among fishermen with different motivations, and 

there were great differences between full-time commercial fishermen and other groups of 

fishermen. Full-time commercial fishermen landed over 10,000 lbs of fish a year, while part0

5 4

25

16

50

2 4 5

28

24

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 lb 1-50 lbs 51-100 lbs 101-500 lbs 501-1000

lbs

More than

1000 lbs

%

Population Survey respondents
27

time commercial landed just 3,000 lbs, recreational expense landed 1,500 lbs, and purely 

recreational landed 600 lbs. The small group of fishermen self-identified with cultural

motivation landed 3,600 lbs a year per person. 

Table 18.--Catch Composition: “In the past 12 months, approximately how many total pounds of 

pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish did you catch?” (mean and median).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Annual 

landings of 

pelagic fish, 

bottomfish, 

and reef fish

(Mean)

Annual 

landings of 

pelagic fish, 

bottomfish, 

and reef fish

(Median)

Annual 

landings of 

pelagic fish 

(Mean)

Annual 

landings of 

bottomfish 

(Mean)

Annual 

landings of 

reef fish

(Mean)

All Respondents 805 2,719 750 2,150 312 267

By County

 Oahu 292 2,383 750 1,870 249 271

 Hawaii 290 2,888 750 2,469 154 274

 Maui 123 2,395 750 1,482 804 115

 Kauai 94 3,686 788 2,907 370 449

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 10,632 5,575 7,656 1,447 1,529

 Part-time commercial 407 2,837 800 2,299 324 235

 Recreational expense 212 1,485 675 1,241 126 120

 Purely recreational 86 624 338 531 58 36

 Subsistence 27 922 600 731 120 71

 Cultural 8 3,581 775 3,394 91 97

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 526 2,535 750 2,345 133 64

 Pelagic handline 93 4,139 1,125 3,585 263 291

 Bottomfish handline 128 2,648 875 956 1,149 564

 Spear 9 1,242 400 325 50 867

 Nets 11 4,905 2,100 1,136 380 3,389

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 746 2,729 750 2,258 283 197

 Handline pelagic 295 4,437 900 3,768 355 315

 Bottomfish 381 3,053 850 2,130 622 317

 Coral reef 151 3,375 1,125 2,215 382 793

Note: All the means were calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Figure 19 shows the distribution of the fishermen with different levels of landings based on the

survey responses. About 60% of small boat fishermen caught more than 500 lbs in the past 12 

months. Two percent of survey respondents did not catch any fish (pelagic fish, bottomfish, or 

reef fish) in the past 12 months. Distribution of total landings by subgroup is shown in Appendix 

Table B25.
28

Figure 19.--Distribution of fishermen with different levels of landings.

Table 19 shows the distribution of the fishermen with different levels of landings of pelagic fish, 

bottomfish, and reef fish. Ninety-three percent of the respondents reported landing pelagic fish 

in the past 12 months. Landings of bottomfish and reef fish were less common, yet about half of 

respondents reported having caught and landed bottomfish or reef fish in the past 12 months. 

Appendix Tables B26 to B28 show the distribution of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish 

landings by subgroup, respectively. 

Table 19.--Distribution of fishermen with different levels of landings (total of pelagic fish, 

bottomfish, reef fish) in the past 12 months (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

None

(%)

1-50 

pounds

(%)

51-100 

pounds

(%)

101-500 

pounds

(%)

501-1,000 

pounds

(%)

More than 

1,000 

pounds

(%)

Pelagic fish 802 7.0 5.9 7.1 29.4 26.6 24.1

Bottomfish 800 49.0 16.3 8.9 13.9 6.9 5.1

Reef fish 801 50.2 20.2 8.9 12.5 4.7 3.5

Table 20 shows the average landings per trip, which were calculated by the total landings of 

pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish (by summing the medians of the catch bins for each type of 

fish) divided by the number of boat fishing trips in the past 12 months (using the median of 

survey response bins). For all respondents, the average landings per trip was approximately 76 

lbs. As expected, full-time commercial fishermen and part-time commercial fishermen reported 

higher landings per trip (150 lbs and 89 lbs, respectively). Recreational expense, subsistence, and 

purely recreational fishermen reported lower catch per trip. Fishermen who self-identified with 

“cultural” motivation for fishing also had higher landings per trip (126 lbs). Fishermen who used 

pelagic handline gear most often caught more fish per trip (109 lbs), and fishermen who used 

spears most often caught fewer fish per trip (33 lbs).

0 lb

2%

1-50 lbs

4% 51-100 lbs

5%

101-500 lbs

28%

501-1000 lbs

24%

1000 lbs+

37%
29

Table 20.--Average per trip landings (sum of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish) (percentage 

of responses, mean, and median).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

None

(%)

1-20 

pounds

(%)

21-50 

pounds

(%)

51-100 

pounds

(%)

More than 

100 

pounds

(%)

Landings 

per trip 

(Mean)1

Landings 

per trip 

(Median)

All Respondents 795 1.9 23.9 37.2 20.4 16.6 76.2 30.0

By County

 Oahu 288 3.1 20.8 38.9 20.8 16.3 74.3 31.3

 Hawaii 288 1.0 27.8 38.9 17.7 14.6 79.4 27.1

 Maui 120 0.8 20.8 35.0 24.2 19.2 74.9 37.4

 Kauai 93 2.2 24.7 31.2 21.5 20.4 75.0 29.2

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 55 0.0 16.4 25.5 20.0 38.2 149.5 74.3

 Part-time commercial 402 2.2 24.1 32.8 20.1 20.6 89.2 31.3

 Recreational expense 210 1.0 24.3 42.4 22.9 9.5 53.0 29.2

 Purely recreational 85 3.5 22.4 55.3 14.1 4.7 35.4 25.0

 Subsistence 27 3.7 37.0 37.0 14.8 7.4 38.8 21.5

 Cultural 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 125.5 64.6

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 519 1.5 22.7 38.9 21.6 15.2 71.8 29.2

 Pelagic handline 91 2.2 19.8 37.4 16.5 24.2 108.6 37.3

 Bottomfish handline 127 0.0 27.6 33.1 19.7 19.7 78.8 41.2

 Spear 9 11.1 33.3 33.3 11.1 11.1 32.6 21.5

 Nets 11 0.0 27.3 45.5 18.2 9.1 48.1 25.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 736 1.1 24.2 37.5 20.7 16.6 75.7 30.2

 Handline pelagic 291 0.7 23.4 33.0 19.2 23.7 106.0 33.7

 Bottomfish 372 0.0 24.5 37.1 19.1 19.4 77.8 33.3

 Coral reef 149 0.0 22.8 32.2 22.8 22.1 107.7 41.7 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Catch Disposition and Market Participation

This section presents disposition of fish landed by the small boat fishermen and their market 

participation. Understanding the landing disposition among fish sales and other uses, such as 

home consumption or give away to friends and family, may shed light on the social and cultural 

importance of the small boat fishery to the community. Market participation is related to 

economic aspects of fishing, including percent of fishermen selling fish, value of fish sold, and 

portion of personal income derived from fish sales. Market access will also be discussed. The 

information discussed in this section satisfies the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) requirements under section 303(a)(9), to consider fishermen’s

dependence on fishery and cultural value relevant to the fishery when developing management 

plans. 

 Catch distribution and disposition

Figure 20 shows the landing distribution among fishermen on board after a fishing trip. Twentyfive percent of survey respondents kept all the fish they caught, 24% kept/received a portion of 

the total fish caught, and 6% kept/received a portion of trip revenue. The rest (44%) of survey 

respondents stated that the distribution among fishermen on board may vary trip by trip or “do

not know”. Catch distribution by subgroup is shown in Appendix Table B29. Forty-eight 
30

percent of purely recreational fishermen were more likely to keep their entire catch, whereas 

54% of full-time commercial fishermen were more likely to distribute their catch among 

fishermen on board.

Respondents who shared fish caught among fishermen on board kept, on average, 46% of the 

total. Respondents who shared the trip revenue kept, on average, 63% of trip revenue. Average 

percentages of fish and revenue kept/received by subgroup are presented in Appendix Table B30.

Figure 20.--Catch distribution among fishermen over the past 12 months.

Figure 21 shows the catch disposition by all survey respondents in the past 12 months.

Figure 21.--Catch disposition in the past 12 months.

Table 21 shows the fish disposition by subgroup which varied by fisherman type. Full-time and 

part-time commercial fishermen sold 73% and 68% of their catch, respectively, with most of the 

balance distributed between home consumption or given away to friends and family. This 

25% 24%

6%

44%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

I kept all the fish

caught

I kept/ received

some % of total fish

caught

I kept/ received

some % of trip

revenue

Don't know/ different

every time

Other

% of fishermen

Sold 

65%

Caught & 

released 

6%

Given away 

14%

Consumed 

at home 

15%
31

supports past research findings that showed the vital social role commercial small boat fishermen 

play in the local community (Hospital and Beavers, 2012; Hospital, Bruce, and Pan, 2011). 

“Recreational” fishermen also sold substantial portions of their catch to the market. Recreational 

expense and purely recreational fishermen sold 52% and 28% of their catch, respectively. This 

finding demonstrates that selling fish for supplemental income is common among self-identified 

recreational fishermen. Subsistence fishermen sold less than half of their catch and kept about 

one-third for home consumption, which was the highest among fisherman types. Cultural 

fishermen sold and gave away the same proportion of their catch (37%). Figures 22–25 show the 

catch disposition for each category of fishermen.

Table 21.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your catch was: caught 

and released, given away, consumed at home, or sold?” (percentage of catches).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Caught and 

released

(%)

Given away

(%)

Consumed at 

home

(%)

Sold

(%)

All Respondents 738 5.6 13.9 15.4 65.0

By County

 Oahu 265 6.2 16.2 14.9 62.6

 Hawaii 266 4.9 12.7 16.1 66.3

 Maui 115 6.9 12.8 16.5 63.7

 Kauai 88 5.2 13.4 13.9 67.5

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 55 6.2 9.4 11.6 72.8

 Part-time commercial 369 5.2 12.9 14.4 67.5

 Recreational expense 200 6.7 19.8 21.7 51.8

 Purely recreational 78 5.4 37.3 29.6 27.6

 Subsistence 24 1.9 20.7 31.0 46.5

 Cultural 8 4.0 36.8 22.5 36.7

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 492 6.1 14.6 16.0 63.3

 Pelagic handline 81 5.8 11.9 13.8 68.5

 Bottomfish handline 118 4.1 14.2 15.2 66.5

 Spear 8 3.6 14.2 19.3 62.9

 Nets 9 1.5 5.4 11.8 81.4

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 695 5.8 14.2 15.6 64.3

 Handline pelagic 276 5.9 12.1 13.6 68.3

 Bottomfish 358 5.9 13.9 15.1 65.1

 Coral reef 148 6.5 13.4 16.7 63.4
32

Figure 22.--Disposition of catch by full-time commercial fishermen.

Figure 23.--Disposition of catch by part-time commercial fishermen.

Figure 24.--Disposition of catch by recreational expense fishermen.

Sold 

73%

Consumed 

at home 

12%

Given away 

9%

Caught & 

released 

6%

Sold 

68%

Consumed 

at home 

14%

Given away 

13%

Caught & 

released 

5%

Sold 

52%

Consumed 

at home 

22%

Given away 

20%

Caught & 

released 

6%
33

Figure 25.--Disposition of catch by purely recreational fishermen.

Figure 26 shows the catch disposition by fisherman type in terms of average amount of catch 

(lbs). Although full-time commercial fishermen kept a smaller percentage of catch for home 

consumption or to give away, the average amount kept and shared was the largest (2,274 lbs)

among all groups. Selling fish was also common for non-commercial fishermen, to a lesser 

extent. For example, recreational expense fishermen sold 800 lbs annually, and purely 

recreational fishermen only sold 180 lbs. Cultural fishermen had a unique pattern of disposition. 

Their annual landings were higher than the part-time commercial fishermen’s, but cultural

fishermen sold less and gave away much more (1,300 lbs) compared to the part-time commercial 

fishermen. 

Figure 26.--Catch disposition by fisherman type.

Sold 

28%

Consumed 

at home 

30%

Given away 

37%

Caught & 

released 

5%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Full-time

commercial

Part-time

commercial

Recreational

expense

Purely

recreational

Subsistence Cultural

lbs

Caught and released

Given away

Consumed at home

Sold

10,810

3,014

1,555

663 1,009

3,581
34

 Market participation

The survey asked fishermen: “In the past 12 months, did you ever sell any of the fish you 

caught?” Eighty-three percent of the survey respondents stated that they sold at least some fish 

in the past 12 months, and 17% sold none though all had CMLs. Appendix Table B31 shows the 

market participation among subgroups.

Table 22 shows the percentage of respondents that used particular market outlets for their catch. 

Seventy-two percent of survey respondents sold some or all their catch to wholesalers or 

auctions, 43% to restaurants or stores, 27% to friends, neighbors, or coworkers, and 8% on the 

roadside or at farmers’ markets. The use of market outlet differed across counties and fisherman 

types. Oahu and Hawaii County fishermen were more likely to sell to wholesalers or auctions

(almost 80%), whereas Maui county fishermen were more likely to sell to other channels

including 65% to restaurants or stores. Eighty-four percent of full-time commercial fishermen 

sold to wholesalers or auctions, 54% to restaurants or stores, and 12% to roadside or farmers’ 

markets. For other types of fishermen, wholesaler or auction was also the most commonly used

outlet, but the percentages were lower compared to the full-time commercial fishermen. Among

sub-fisheries, wholesaler or auction was the most common outlet, but fishermen in the coral reef 

fishery were more likely to use other outlets.
35

Table 22.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, where did you sell your fish: 

wholesaler/auction, restaurants/stores, friends/neighbors/coworkers, roadside/farmers’ market, 

other?”1 (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Wholesaler/

auction

(%)

Restaurants/

stores

(%)

Friends/

neighbors/

coworkers

(%)

Roadside/

farmers’ 

market

(%)

Other

(%)

All Respondents 659 71.6 42.5 27.3 7.9 0.6

By County

 Oahu 229 79.5 27.9 27.5 7.4 0.9

 Hawaii 245 78.8 42.9 22.4 6.5 0.4

 Maui 101 48.5 65.3 41.6 15.8 1.0

 Kauai 79 54.4 55.7 24.1 3.8 0.0

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 84.2 54.4 26.3 12.3 1.8

 Part-time commercial 368 70.1 44.6 29.3 9.8 0.5

 Recreational expense 171 74.3 37.4 24.0 2.9 0.6

 Purely recreational 42 61.9 26.2 21.4 2.4 0.0

 Subsistence 12 58.3 50.0 33.3 0.0 0.0

 Cultural 6 83.3 50.0 50.0 33.3 0.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 433 71.4 41.1 27.9 8.5 0.5

 Pelagic handline 85 78.8 40.0 29.4 8.2 0.0

 Bottomfish handline 97 73.2 49.5 26.8 5.2 0.0

 Spear 7 42.9 71.4 0.0 0.0 14.3

 Nets 10 70.0 20.0 30.0 0.0 10.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 612 73.2 42.8 27.5 7.5 0.5

 Handline pelagic 266 73.7 46.2 29.3 10.2 0.0

 Bottomfish 310 74.5 44.5 29.0 7.1 0.6

 Coral reef 132 65.2 58.3 37.9 11.4 1.5 1 The sum of percentages of responses are greater than 100% due to multiple answers allowed.

 Revenue of fish sold

In addition to fish landings in the past 12 months, fishermen were also asked about revenue from 

the fish they sold. To check whether the sold values reported in the survey are representative of 

the entire Hawaii small boat fleet, Table 23 shows the distribution of values reported to HDAR 

for the survey population and for survey respondents. The number of respondents is consistent 

with Tables 16 and 17. Marine fish dealers (which includes any business that purchases fish 

directly from fishermen, i.e., wholesalers and auctions, restaurants, and retail stores) are required 

to report data on seafood purchased from fishermen, including the fisherman from whom the 

dealer purchased the fish. These reports are submitted to HDAR monthly. The dealer data are 

then compiled in HDAR’s Dealer Reporting System (DRS). The data summary presented in 

Table 23 is from July 2013 to June 2014. The survey asked about the value of fish sold over the 

past 12 months and some fishermen may have only had fish sales in the first half of 2013 or 

second half of 2014, so they did not have sale record in DRS during the survey period. These 

included 162 fishermen in the survey population and 46 survey respondents. In addition, 114 

respondents reported no fish sales in the past 12 months, and the 19 respondents who did not 

answer the fish sale question in the survey were also excluded. Figure 27 shows the overall 

distribution of value of fish sold reported to HDAR for the survey population and the value 

reported in the survey. Overall, survey respondents are representative of the survey population 
36

in each value range, though slightly over-represented in the lower value range, $501 to $1,000.

Therefore, the average value of fish sold reported by the survey respondents was slightly lower 

than the average value of the whole population (7% lower overall).

Table 23.--Revenue from fish sold for the survey population from State of Hawaii DAR’s Dealer 

Reporting System vs. survey respondents (percentage of responses).

All Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Revenue from 

fish sold

Survey

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey 

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Survey 

Population

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

$1-$100 4.5 1.9 6.3 2.3 2.7 2.1 5.6 2.1 4.6 0.0 

$101-$500 15.2 16.9 12.9 18.9 15.6 15.8 16.9 15.8 17.9 16.7 

$501-$1,000 11.9 16.9 13.9 15.7 10.1 15.4 12.2 17.9 11.8 23.1 

$1,001-$2,000 15.1 12.0 18.1 15.2 13.2 10.3 11.7 10.5 16.4 9.0 

$2,001-$5,000 19.7 19.9 21.9 22.6 20.0 19.7 16.4 14.7 17.4 20.5 

$5,001-$10,000 12.9 12.9 12.7 9.7 13.0 15.8 13.6 15.8 13.3 10.3 

$10,001-$20,000 8.5 8.0 6.8 6.5 9.8 9.0 10.8 7.4 6.2 10.3 

$20,001-$50,000 8.0 8.5 4.9 8.3 9.9 9.4 8.5 9.5 8.7 3.8 

Over $50,000 4.1 3.0 2.5 0.9 5.7 2.6 4.2 6.3 3.6 6.4 

Number of fishermen 1,475 627 474 217 584 234 213 95 195 78

Revenue per fisherman

Mean ($) 9,327 8,694 7,203 6,288 10,919 9,037 9,956 11,473 9,070 10,833 

Standard error ($) 574 684 1,077 720 883 1,142 1,479 2,150 1,527 2,702 

Median ($) 2,341 3,500 1,883 1,500 2,891 3,500 2,555 3,500 1,933 3,500 

Note: Population included in the State of Hawaii DAR’s Dealer reporting system included all species sales from 

small boat trips, July 2013 to June 2014, and excluded those without dealer records between July 2013 and June 

2014 (n=162). It also excluded respondents who reported no fish sales in the past 12 months in the survey (n=114),

fishermen who did not answer fish sale question (n=19), and 11 seamount fishing, 4 shrimp fishing, 4 charters, 4 

cases identified as no boat fishing in the past 12 months in the survey, and 3 cases where kayaks were used for 

fishing. Survey responses excluded cases with no DAR’s Dealer records between July 2013 and June 2014 (n=46)

and respondents who reported no fish sales in the past 12 months in the survey (n=114) and fishermen did not 

answer fish sale question (n=19).

Figure 27.--Revenue from fish sold for the survey population (HDAR DRS statistics) vs. survey 

respondents.

5

15

12

15

20

13

9 8

4

2

17 17

12

20

13

8 9

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

Survey population Survey respondents
37

To compare the results from survey and HDAR dealer reports, Table 24 lists the distribution of 

value of fish sold reported to HDAR versus the value reported in the survey for survey 

respondents. These distributions match very well. Survey responses show only slightly higher 

average sale values (about 6% for all respondents) than the dealer reports.

Table 24.--Revenue from fish sold for survey respondents: State of Hawaii DAR’s Dealer 

Reporting System vs. survey responses (percentage of responses).

All Respondents Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Revenue from

fish sold

Dealer 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Dealer 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Dealer 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Dealer 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

Dealer 

Reports

(%)

Survey

Responses

(%)

$1-$100 2.2 1.9 3.2 2.3 1.3 2.1 4.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 

$101-$500 13.4 16.9 12.0 18.9 14.1 15.8 13.7 15.8 15.4 16.7 

$501-$1,000 11.3 16.9 12.9 15.7 9.0 15.4 14.7 17.9 10.3 23.1 

$1,001-$2,000 18.2 12.0 19.4 15.2 17.9 10.3 13.7 10.5 19.2 9.0 

$2,001-$5,000 22.6 19.9 23.5 22.6 25.2 19.7 15.8 14.7 21.8 20.5 

$5,001-$10,000 13.7 12.9 13.8 9.7 12.8 15.8 13.7 15.8 16.7 10.3 

$10,001-$20,000 7.2 8.0 7.4 6.5 7.7 9.0 8.4 7.4 3.8 10.3 

$20,001-$50,000 7.8 8.5 6.5 8.3 8.5 9.4 9.5 9.5 6.4 3.8 

Over $50,000 3.5 3.0 1.4 0.9 3.4 2.6 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.4 

Number of fishermen 627 627 217 217 234 234 95 95 78 78

Revenue per fisherman

Mean ($) 8,224 8,694 5,974 6,288 8,502 9,037 11,540 11,473 9,591 10,833 

Standard error ($) 690 684 691 720 1,169 1,142 2,552 2,150 2,199 2,702 

Median ($) 2,423 3,500 2,230 1,500 2,588 3,500 2,539 3,500 2,320 3,500 

Note: Excluded cases with no DAR’s Dealer records between July 2013 and June 2014 (n=46) and respondents 

reported no fish sales in the past 12 months in the survey (n=114) and fishermen did not answer fish sale question

(n=19).

Table 25 shows the distribution, average, and median of revenue from fish sold reported by 

survey respondents. The average revenue from fish sales was calculated using the medians of 

response bins, except for those who reported the highest category of sale value bin (>$50,000). 

In these cases, the actual reported values were used. There were 19 respondents who reported 

this category; 14 of them answered the open-ended question to report the actual sale values. For 

the other 5 fishermen, the missing values were compared with the dealer records. Three records 

were over $50,000 and they were used to replace the missing values. Two records were below 

$50,000, and the lower end value of the category $50,001 was used to replace the missing values. 

The average revenue from fish sold by all respondents was approximately $8,500. Maui county

and Kauai fishermen reported higher value of fish sold (approximately $11,000) than Hawaii 

County fishermen ($8,782). Oahu fishermen reported the lowest value ($6,226). Across 

fisherman types, full-time commercial fishermen, as expected, reported the highest value of fish 

sold ($35,528), followed by part-time commercial fishermen ($8,391), cultural fishermen 

($3,900), recreational expenses fishermen ($2,690), and subsistence ($1,905). Self-identified 

purely recreational fishermen reported selling close to $1,000 of their catch. Fishermen who 

used nets most often reported the highest value of fish sold ($18,672, but only a small number of 

respondents were in this category). Those who used bottomfish handline and pelagic handline 

gears most often sold approximately $12,000.
38

Table 25.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what was the approximate value of all the 

fish you sold?” (percentage of responses, mean, and median). Number 

of 

respondents

(n)

$1

-

$100

(%)

$101

-

$500

(%)

$501

-

$1000

(%)

$1001

-

$2000

(%)

$2001

-

$5000

(%)

$5001

-

$10000

(%)

$10001

-

$20000

(%)

$20001

-

$50000

(%)

Over 

$50000

(%)

Value 

of fish 

sold 

(Mean)1

Value

of fish 

sold 

(Median)

All Respondents 648 2 17 17 12 20 13 8 8 3 8,546 3,500

By County

 Oahu 224 2 19 16 16 22 10 7 8 1 6,226 1,500

 Hawaii 243 2 17 15 11 19 15 9 9 2 8,782 3,500

 Maui 97 2 15 18 10 15 16 7 9 6 11,350 3,500

 Kauai 79 0 16 23 9 20 11 10 4 6 10,790 3,500

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 55 0 2 4 4 18 5 11 31 25 35,528 35,000

 Part-time commercial 363 1 12 12 11 23 18 11 10 1 8,391 3,500

 Recreational expense 168 2 27 24 18 15 8 3 1 1 2,690 750

 Purely recreational 43 7 42 30 9 9 2 0 0 0 995 750

 Subsistence 11 18 18 27 0 27 9 0 0 0 1,905 750

 Cultural 5 0 0 40 40 0 0 20 0 0 3,900 1,500

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 430 3 21 18 13 20 13 4 7 2 6,855 1,500

 Pelagic handline 83 1 12 11 10 19 14 14 14 4 11,998 3,500

 Bottomfish handline 93 1 10 14 12 17 14 16 10 6 12,457 3,500

 Spear 7 0 0 14 0 57 0 29 0 0 6,393 3,500

 Nets 9 0 11 11 0 22 0 33 11 11 18,672 15,000

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 602 2 18 17 12 20 13 7 8 3 8,187 3,500

 Handline pelagic 262 1 13 11 11 20 15 11 12 5 12,049 3,500

 Bottomfish 303 2 14 15 14 20 14 8 10 5 10,426 3,500

 Coral reef 126 0 13 14 18 15 18 10 7 5 9,512 3,500 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Table 26 presents the distribution, average, and median of value of fish sold per trip. Average 

value of fish sold per trip was calculated based on the value of fish sold divided by the number of 

boat fishing trips in the past 12 months (using the median of value bins defined in the 

questionnaires). The average value of fish sold for all respondents was $215 and varied greatly 

by fisherman type. Full-time commercial fishermen sold over $550 per trip, part-time 

commercial fishermen sold half of that at $245. Recreational expense fishermen sold $95, and 

purely recreational fishermen sold $58. Across different gears, fishermen who used bottomfish 

handline gear most often sold the most at $376 per trip.
39

Table 26.--Revenue from fish sold per trip (percentage of responses, mean, and median).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

<= $50

(%)

$51 - $100

(%)

$101 - $500

(%)

More 

than $500

(%)

Value of 

fish sold 

per trip 

(Mean)1

Value of 

fish sold 

per trip 

(Median)

All Respondents 638 33.7 24.0 33.2 9.1 215 97

By County

 Oahu 219 38.4 20.1 33.3 8.2 200 75

 Hawaii 241 35.3 24.9 32.8 7.1 197 97

 Maui 95 20.0 28.4 32.6 18.9 306 125

 Kauai 78 33.3 25.6 34.6 6.4 202 97

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 53 13.2 11.3 43.4 32.1 558 292

 Part-time commercial 357 27.5 23.8 37.8 10.9 245 100

 Recreational expense 166 45.2 27.7 25.9 1.2 95 63

 Purely recreational 43 62.8 23.3 14.0 .0 58 25

 Subsistence 11 45.5 36.4 18.2 .0 79 63

 Cultural 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 .0 150 125

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 424 39.6 23.8 30.2 6.4 172 63

 Pelagic handline 80 22.5 23.8 43.8 10.0 239 125

 Bottomfish handline 92 21.7 22.8 33.7 21.7 376 125

 Spear 7 .0 42.9 57.1 .0 177 200

 Nets 9 33.3 22.2 44.4 .0 120 100

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 593 34.9 23.9 32.5 8.6 204 97

 Handline pelagic 257 27.2 21.4 40.5 10.9 259 125

 Bottomfish 295 30.2 23.4 34.2 12.2 254 97

 Coral reef 124 27.4 24.2 39.5 8.9 253 100 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Fishermen were asked the percentage of value of fish sold from three major species groups 

(pelagic, bottomfish, and reef fish). Results are presented in Table 27. Half of the survey 

respondents reported that 76% to 100% of the revenue was from pelagic fish sales; only 6% and 

4% respondents reported that the same percentage of revenue came from bottomfish and reef 

fish, respectively. The average percentage of value of fish sold was calculated using the medians 

of the revenue bins and percentage of the value of fish sold from pelagic fish, bottomfish, and 

reef fish. As shown in Figure 28, pelagic fish represented a higher percentage of catch than sold 

value (79% of total catch vs. 63% of total value). The opposite was true for bottomfish (11% of 

total catch vs. 23% of total value). This may be due to bottomfish generally having a higher unit 

price than pelagic fish. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that most of the “no fish sold” 

were from bottomfish and reef fish groups. 
40

Table 27.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of the value of fish sold 

came from the sale of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish?” (percentage of responses and 

mean).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25%

(%)

26%-50%

(%)

51%-75%

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of value of 

% fish sold 

(Mean)1

Pelagic fish 627 13.2 11.3 12.8 13.1 49.6 62.9

Bottomfish 627 62.7 16.7 10.0 4.8 5.7 23.3

Reef fish 627 80.7 12.0 2.6 1.1 3.7 7.5 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Figure 28.--Distribution of catch and value of fish sold by species group.

Average percentages of value of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish sold are presented in 

Appendix Table B32. In Hawaii County, 70% of value of fish sold was from pelagic fish. In 

Maui county, 45% of value of fish sold was from bottomfish. Reef fish revenue in Oahu was 

15% of the value of total fish sold. Comparing across fisherman types, cultural and recreational 

expense fishermen derived 99% and 73% of their fish sales from pelagic fish, respectively; fulltime commercial fishermen derived only 55% of sales from pelagic fish. On the other hand, 

commercial fishermen derived higher proportion of fish sales from bottomfish (28%) than other 

types of fishermen.

Income from fishing plays different roles among fisherman types. Figure 29 shows the 

contribution of fishing income to total personal income. Most respondents (74%) reported 

fishing income contributed only 1% to 25% of their personal income, and 6% of survey 

respondents reported fishing income contributed 76% to 100% of their personal income. The 

latter is not surprising since about 7% of fishermen self-identified as full-time commercial 

fishermen. On average, fishing income contributed about 23% of their total personal income 

(calculated using medians of response bins), quite a substantial contribution. 

79%

11% 10%

63%

23%

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pelagic fish Bottomfish Reef fish

Catch Value of fish sold
41

Figure 29.--Percent of personal income came from fish sales.

Appendix Table B33 shows the percentage of personal income from fish sales by subgroup. 

Fishermen in Hawaii County were more reliant on fishing income; an average of 25% came from 

fish sales compared with fishermen in other counties. Full-time commercial fishermen were 

heavily reliant on fish sales as 41% reported that sales were responsible for 76% to 100% of their 

personal income. In addition, fishermen who used pelagic handline and bottomfish handline 

gears most commonly had a higher percentage of personal income from fish sales than fishermen 

who used other gears. 

Total Catch and Revenue by Fisherman Type

The previous section shows the distribution of catch and value of fish sold for all respondents 

and within each individual subgroup. The diversity of fishermen can also be shown by 

comparing their reported catch and revenue. Figure 30 shows the distribution of respondents by 

fisherman type, and Figures 31 and 32 represent the percentage of catch and revenue by 

fisherman type. 

Figure 30 shows that full-time commercial fishermen represented 7% of survey respondents, and 

together they caught 28% of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish (Figure 31) and 35% of total 

value of fish sold (Figure 32). Part-time commercial fishermen represented 51% of survey 

respondents, and their catch represented 53% of total fish caught and 55% of total value. 

Recreational expense fishermen were the second most represented group (27%), but their catch

only represented 14% of total catch and 8% of total value. Purely recreational fishermen 

represented 11% of respondents, but their catch represented only 3% of total catch and 1% of 

total value.

74%

13%

7% 6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%

% of fishermen

% of personal income from fish sales
42

Figure 30.--Survey responses by fisherman classification.

Figure 31.--Pounds of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish caught by fisherman

classification.

Figure 32.--Value of fish sold by fisherman classification.

Part-time 

commercial

51%

Recreational 

expense

27%

Purely 

recreational

11%

Subsistence

3%

Cultural 1%

Full-time 

commercial

7%

Part-time 

commercial

53%

Recreational 

expense

14%

Purely 

recreational

3%

Subsistence

1%

Cultural

1%

Full-time 

commercial

28%

Part-time 

commercial

55%

Recreational 

expense 

8%

Purely 

recreational 

1%

Subsistence

0.4%

Cultural 

0.4%

Full-time 

commercial

35%
43

Trip Costs

One of the primary goals of this study is to update our understanding of the costs of fishing and 

to detail current levels of investment in the fishery. In the survey, fishermen were asked about 

their trip costs for the two most common types of gear they had used in the past 12 months. This 

information provides us with the variable costs for the operation of vessels including boat fuel, 

truck fuel, oil, ice, bait, food and beverage, daily maintenance and repair, and other. Table 28

shows the average fishing trip costs for all respondents and the itemized costs. A typical small 

boat fishing trip averaged $269 with a median cost of $230. The highest cost category was fuel 

($156, including $131 for boat fuel and $25 for truck fuel) which contributed 58% of the total.

The second most important cost item was ice ($32), which contributed 12%. Food and beverage 

($25), daily maintenance and repair ($24), and bait ($23) each contributed 9% of trip costs. 

Other costs included oil ($7) and other ($1). 

Table 28.--Fishing trip costs for most common and second most common gear usage (total and 

itemized) (mean, standard error, and median).

Category

Number of 

respondents

(n) Mean Standard error Median

Percentage of 

total trip cost

(%)

Boat fuel 1193 130.86 2.89 100 48.7

Truck fuel 1193 25.03 0.64 20 9.3

Oil 1193 7.39 0.46 0 2.7

Ice 1193 32.39 0.84 25 12.1

Bait 1193 23.33 0.99 15 8.7

Food and beverage 1193 25.31 0.77 20 9.4

Daily maintenance & repair 1193 23.89 1.16 10 8.9

Other trip cost 1193 0.69 0.17 0 0.3

Total trip cost 1193 268.63 5.29 230

Appendix Table B34 shows the fishing trip costs by county. Maui county fishermen reported 

highest average trip cost ($322), followed by Oahu fishermen ($262), Hawaii County fishermen 

($255), and Kauai fishermen ($252). 

Table 29 shows the fishing trip costs by gear type. The highest costs were for trolling trips

($292), followed by pelagic handlining trips ($284), and bottomfish handlining trips ($253). 

Lower trip costs were found for netting trips ($175) and spearfishing trips ($159). More than 

half of the trolling trip costs were for boat fuel ($154). Bait was a higher contributor for pelagic 

handlining trips ($45), and ice was a higher contributor for trolling and pelagic handlining trips 

($35 and $34, respectively).
44

Table 29.--Fishing trip costs by gear type (based on fishermen using this gear as their most 

common and second most common gear types) (mean, standard error, and median).

Category Gear type

Number of 

respondents 

(n) Mean

Standard 

error Median

Percentage of 

total trip cost 

(%)

Boat fuel Troll 622 153.74 3.89 140 52.7

Pelagic handline 183 120.64 6.98 100 42.5

Bottomfish handline 242 110.94 6.72 80 43.9

Spear 39 62.64 8.28 50 39.4

Nets 18 74.17 16.49 57.5 42.4

Truck fuel Troll 622 25.26 0.90 20 8.7

Pelagic handline 183 28.02 1.81 20 9.9

Bottomfish handline 242 23.30 1.35 20 9.2

Spear 39 23.62 2.84 20 14.9

Nets 18 23.83 3.65 20 13.6

Oil Troll 622 7.89 0.66 0 2.7

Pelagic handline 183 8.32 1.18 0 2.9

Bottomfish handline 242 7.30 1.17 0 2.9

Spear 39 4.68 0.90 3 2.9

Nets 18 4.10 0.98 4.5 2.3

Ice Troll 622 35.39 1.21 30 12.1

Pelagic handline 183 34.06 2.21 30 12.0

Bottomfish handline 242 29.90 1.85 20 11.8

Spear 39 19.87 2.81 16 12.5

Nets 18 30.39 5.11 24.5 17.4

Bait Troll 622 17.28 1.20 8 5.9

Pelagic handline 183 44.72 3.24 30 15.8

Bottomfish handline 242 30.27 2.33 20 12.0

Spear 39 5.38 1.91 0 3.4

Nets 18 5.56 2.14 0 3.2

Food and Troll 622 26.56 1.06 20 9.1

beverage Pelagic handline 183 25.27 1.70 20 8.9

Bottomfish handline 242 24.94 2.06 20 9.9

Spear 39 23.28 2.68 20 14.6

Nets 18 16.83 4.69 11 9.6

Daily Troll 622 25.30 1.60 10 8.7

maintenance & Pelagic handline 183 22.84 3.05 10 8.1

repair Bottomfish handline 242 24.60 2.89 10 9.7

Spear 39 16.64 4.02 10 10.5

Nets 18 16.67 4.12 15 9.5

Other trip cost Troll 622 0.39 0.17 0 0.1

Pelagic handline 183 0.32 0.19 0 0.1

Bottomfish handline 242 1.34 0.59 0 0.5

Spear 39 2.82 1.98 0 1.8

Nets 18 3.33 3.33 0 1.9

Total trip cost Troll 622 291.67 7.06 255

Pelagic handline 183 283.72 13.53 235

Bottomfish handline 242 252.58 13.38 197.5

Spear 39 158.94 15.80 150

Nets 18 174.88 24.35 148.5

Table 30 shows fishing trip costs by fisherman type. Full-time commercial fishermen spent most 

per fishing trip ($376), followed by subsistence fishermen ($278), purely recreational fishermen 

($271), and part-time commercial fishermen ($262). Recreational expense fishermen ($253) and 
45

cultural fishermen ($237) reported lower trip costs. Full-time commercial fishermen spent more 

on boat and truck fuels ($214), ice ($56), bait ($37), and oil ($13); and purely recreational 

fishermen spent more on daily maintenance and repair ($33).
46

Table 30.--Fishing trip costs by fisherman type (based on fishermen using this gear as their most 

common and second most common gear types) (mean, standard error, and median).

Category Gear type

Number of 

respondents

(n) Mean

Standard

error Median

Percentage of 

total trip cost

(%)

Boat fuel Full-time commercial 83 184.08 19.97 145 48.9

Part-time commercial 603 125.39 3.60 100 47.8

Recreational expense 327 125.00 4.72 100 49.4

Purely recreational 116 138.53 8.72 130 51.2

Subsistence 38 135.08 20.58 100 48.6

Cultural 13 114.62 15.12 120 48.3

Truck fuel Full-time commercial 83 30.09 3.34 20 8.0

Part-time commercial 603 24.69 0.92 20 9.4

Recreational expense 327 25.00 1.13 20 9.9

Purely recreational 116 24.23 1.80 20 9.0

Subsistence 38 23.42 3.33 20 8.4

Cultural 13 24.23 3.71 25 10.2

Oil Full-time commercial 83 13.28 3.77 4 3.5

Part-time commercial 603 7.56 0.60 1 2.9

Recreational expense 327 5.88 0.65 0 2.3

Purely recreational 116 5.88 0.90 0 2.2

Subsistence 38 11.25 3.43 0 4.0

Cultural 13 4.77 2.12 0 2.0

Ice Full-time commercial 83 56.09 5.26 45 14.9

Part-time commercial 603 32.05 1.15 25 12.2

Recreational expense 327 29.81 1.25 25 11.8

Purely recreational 116 28.13 2.66 24 10.4

Subsistence 38 22.56 2.88 20 8.1

Cultural 13 33.85 7.56 25 14.3

Bait Full-time commercial 83 37.45 4.55 22 10.0

Part-time commercial 603 26.11 1.60 20 9.9

Recreational expense 327 18.76 1.38 10 7.4

Purely recreational 116 12.40 1.61 5 4.6

Subsistence 38 23.27 5.92 20 8.4

Cultural 13 22.69 8.18 20 9.6

Food and Full-time commercial 83 26.08 2.39 20 6.9

beverage Part-time commercial 603 24.13 0.93 20 9.2

Recreational expense 327 24.26 0.98 20 9.6

Purely recreational 116 28.03 1.94 20 10.4

Subsistence 38 45.75 14.59 22.5 16.5

Cultural 13 18.62 3.29 20 7.9

Daily Full-time commercial 83 28.19 4.51 10 7.5

maintenance & Part-time commercial 603 22.18 1.46 10 8.5

repair Recreational expense 327 23.99 2.03 10 9.5

Purely recreational 116 33.48 6.17 10 12.4

Subsistence 38 15.82 3.15 10 5.7

Cultural 13 17.38 7.44 3 7.3

Other trip cost Full-time commercial 83 0.96 0.65 0 0.3

Part-time commercial 603 0.85 0.30 0 0.3

Recreational expense 327 0.57 0.26 0 0.2

Purely recreational 116 0.00 0.00 0 0.0

Subsistence 38 0.89 0.51 0 0.3

Cultural 13 0.92 0.92 0 0.4

Total Trip Full-time commercial 83 376.23 33.75 300

Cost Part-time commercial 603 262.49 7.14 225

Recreational expense 327 253.28 7.68 225

Purely recreational 116 270.70 16.08 251

Subsistence 38 278.04 39.31 200

Cultural 13 237.08 29.35 220
47

Fishermen who used the same gear type, regardless their motivations, had similar fishing trip 

costs, except for full-time commercial fishermen. As shown in Figure 33, fishing trip costs for 

full-time commercial fishermen were substantially higher than other types of fishermen. For 

trolling trips, full-time commercial fishermen reported 46% higher costs than other fishermen. 

Bottomfishing trips cost 83% more for the full-time commercial fishermen than the other groups. 

Figure 33.--Trolling and bottomfishing trip costs by fisherman type.

Fishermen were asked how their trip costs were shared among fishermen on board. Most

respondents (92%) paid all trip costs themselves (Appendix Table B35 shows the details). Those 

who shared some percentage of total trip costs paid an average of 61% of the total, and those 

who shared a fixed amount of fishing costs paid an average of $112 per trip.

Annual Fishing Fixed Costs

Besides fishing trip costs, small boat fishing in Hawaii incurred considerable annual fishing fixed 

costs like insurance, loan payments, mooring fees, gear replacement and repair, boat and trailer 

repair, maintenance and improvement, fees, and financial services. Table 31 shows the annual 

fixed costs in 2013 for all respondents and the percentage of total fleet that incurred some 

expenditure in each category. All respondents reported some spending on fixed costs, and 95%

reported spending on fees (e.g. CML, non-commercial permit ramp, registration for truck and 

trailer, safety), 94% on gear replacement and repair, and 91% on boat and trailer repair, 

maintenance, and improvements. Forty-eight percent reported spending on boat insurance. Only 

18% incurred mooring fees which shows most small boat fishermen used trailers rather than 

mooring their boats. 

On average, survey respondents reported an annual fixed cost of $5,557 and a median spending

of $3,364. Thirty percent of annual fixed costs were spent on gear replacement and repair

($1,671) and another 29% on boat and trailer repair, maintenance, and improvement ($1,635). 

$416 

$287 $273 

$305 $306 

$252 

$429 

$243 $229 

$202 

$296 

$205 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Full-time

commercial

Part-time

commercial

Recreational

expense

Purely

recreational

Subsistence Cultural

Trolling Bottomfishing
48

Note that due to large variations in fixed costs among respondents, a few large outliers would 

inflate the mean. This is evident in Table 31 since the median fixed costs were lower than the 

average fixed costs for overall and individual categories. If large differences between means and 

medians exist, medians would provide better representation of the typical fixed costs for 

fishermen. We also present the actual out-of-pocket fixed costs (excluding zero expenditure 

responses) later in this section (Table 34). 

Table 31.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 for all respondents (mean, standard error, median, 

and percentage of fleet with expenditure).

Category

Number of 

respondents 

(n) Mean

Standard

error Median

Percentage of 

fleet with this 

expenditure 

(%)

Gear replacement/repair 749 1,671 93 800 93.6

Boat and trailer repair/maintenance 749 1,635 104 750 90.7

Loan payments 749 970 125 0 15.1

Boat insurance 749 420 30 0 48.1

Mooring fees 749 414 48 0 17.9

Fees 749 399 18 250 94.5

Financial services 749 30 7 0 5.9

Other 749 19 6 0 1.6

Annual fixed costs 749 5,557 238 3,364

Appendix Table B36 shows the annual fishing fixed costs by county. Oahu fishermen reported 

highest fixed costs (mean = $6,317), and Hawaii County fishermen reported lowest (mean =

$4,713). For individuals, Kauai fishermen reported higher spending on gear replacement and 

repair ($2,099), and Maui county fishermen reported higher spending on boat and trailer repair 

and improvement ($1,910). Oahu fishermen reported higher spending on boat insurance ($628), 

mooring fees ($746), and other fees ($485).

Table 32 shows the annual fixed costs in 2013 by fisherman type. As expected, full-time 

commercial fishermen reported higher annual fixed costs (mean = $10,617) than any other types 

of fishermen, and the other groups (except for subsistence fishermen) reported annual fixed costs 

in the range of $5,000. Full-time commercial fishermen reported more than twice the amount 

spent on gear replacement and repair, boat and trailer repair and maintenance, and loan payments

than other types of fishermen.
49

Table 32.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by fisherman type (mean, standard error, and 

median).

Fixed cost item

Full-time 

commercial

Part-time 

commercial

Recreational 

expense

Purely 

recreational Subsistence Cultural

Number of 

respondents(n) 53 379 200 77 26 8

Gear replacement/ Mean 3,556 1,678 1,443 1,246 1,113 1,229

repair Standard error 663 131 130 168 316 570

Median 2,000 800 700 500 550 475

Boat and trailer repair/ Mean 3,268 1,360 1,780 1,636 847 2,914

maintenance/ Standard error 694 105 242 252 175 2,171

improvements Median 1,500 600 875 847 500 875

Loan payments Mean 2,123 924 1,015 668 362 0

Standard error 744 156 290 213 194 0

Median 0 0 0 0 0 0

Boat insurance Mean 477 441 362 478 276 439

Standard error 118 50 39 70 101 172

Median 0 0 50 300 15 325

Mooring fees Mean 586 328 411 773 309 311

Standard error 187 64 88 209 190 311

Median 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fees Mean 518 375 421 331 550 337

Standard error 81 21 40 37 192 135

Median 300 250 250 250 325 110

Financial services Mean 90 35 10 0 14 0

Standard error 44 10 3 0 14 0

Median 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Mean 0 19 14 55 0 0

Standard error 0 9 9 37 0 0

Median 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annual fixed costs Mean 10,617 5,160 5,456 5,187 3,471 5,229

Standard error 1,454 314 433 585 603 2,759

Median 6,300 3,150 3,605 3,550 2,411 2,735

Table 33 shows the annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by the gear most commonly used. 

Fishermen who trolled most often reported highest fixed costs (mean = $5,830), closely followed 

by those who used pelagic handline gear (mean = $5,734), and those who used bottomfish 

handline gear (mean = $5,012). Those who used pelagic handline gear most often reported 

higher spending on gear replacement and repair and boat and trailer repair, maintenance, and 

improvements. Those who trolled most often spent more on loan payments, boat insurance, and 

mooring fees.
50

Table 33.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by the fisherman’s most common gear (mean, 

standard error, and median).

Fixed cost item Troll

Pelagic 

handline

Bottomfish 

handline Spear Nets

Number of 

respondents(n) 493 80 118 9 11

Gear replacement/ Mean 1,667 2,124 1,413 1,144 1,465

repair Standard error 117 304 204 363 612

Median 1,000 1,000 500 500 400

Boat and trailer repair/ Mean 1,601 2,089 1,735 983 922

maintenance/ Standard error 124 440 271 276 405

improvements Median 900 675 550 500 300

Loan payments Mean 1,118 795 641 0 1,346

Standard error 177 255 191 0 659

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Boat insurance Mean 503 226 318 456 133

Standard error 42 59 54 219 70

Median 150 0 0 300 0

Mooring fees Mean 487 114 427 80 65

Standard error 67 53 107 80 65

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Fees Mean 400 350 438 304 322

Standard error 23 42 51 66 96

Median 250 200 250 300 120

Financial services Mean 29 33 26 75 30

Standard error 9 17 18 50 30

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Other Mean 25 3 14 0 0

Standard error 9 3 10 0 0

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Annual fixed costs Mean 5,830 5,734 5,012 3,042 4,283

Standard error 306 759 533 785 1,160

Median 3,550 3,623 2,825 2,000 5,183

The percentage of fishermen who reported annual fixed costs on different categories varied from 

94% for gear replacement and repair to as low as 6% for financial services. The actual out-ofpocket expenditures for low incidence categories could be quite different from the averages 

when including all respondents with zero expenditure. Table 34 shows the out-of-pocket 

expenditures for all respondents who had non-zero spending in that category. Loan payments

were the highest spending category ($6,429), followed by mooring fees ($2,312), boat and trailer 

repair and maintenance ($1,803), and gear replacement and repair ($1,785). Appendix Tables 

B37, B38, B39 show the non-zero annual fixed costs by county, fisherman type, and most 

common gear type used, respectively.
51

Table 34.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 for all respondents (non-zero expenditures on 

individual category) (mean, standard error, and median).

Category

Number of 

respondents

(n) Mean

Standard 

error Median

Gear replacement/repair 701 1,785 98 1,000

Boat and trailer repair/maintenance 679 1,803 113 1,000

Loan payments 113 6,429 616 4,680

Boat insurance 360 874 53 600

Mooring fees 134 2,312 198 1,588

Fees 708 422 19 250

Financial services 44 514 90 300

Other 12 1,178 211 1,275

Annual fixed costs 749 5,557 238 3,364

Analysis by Fishery

This section provides the analysis by fishery since fishery management and regulations are often 

categorized by type of fish caught and the fishermen who are involved with the fishery. It 

presents the survey results by three major sub-fisheries within the Hawaii small boat fishery:

pelagic, bottomfish, and coral reef fisheries. The three fisheries are grouped by the types of 

fishing trips over past 12 months. Any fishermen who took trolling or pelagic handlining trips

are included in the pelagic fishery; any fishermen who took bottomfish handlining trips are 

included in the bottomfish fishery; and any fishermen who took coral reef fishing trips are 

included in the coral reef fishery. It is common in the Hawaii small boat fishing community for

fishermen to be involved in different sub-fisheries (e.g. mixed trolling and bottomfishing during 

a trip or over the course of a year), hence the sum of the fishermen from the three sub-fisheries is

greater than the number of surveys returned. For those in the bottomfish fishery, 94% were also 

in the pelagic fishery, and for those in the coral reef fishery, 89% were also in the pelagic 

fishery. Due to the overlapping of fishermen in different sub-fisheries, fishing activities (like 

catch and revenue) from other trip types conducted by the fishermen in a specific sub-fishery are 

included as part of the activities of the sub-fishery. For example, the total catch from the coral 

reef fishery not only shows the catch by all the coral reef fishing trips, but also includes the noncoral reef fishing trips taken by all fishermen who took coral reef fishing trips. 

Table 35 shows the demographics of fishermen for the three fisheries. Among the 797 

respondents who filled out the questions on fishing trip type, 755 were involved in the pelagic 

fishery, 379 were involved in the bottomfish fishery, and 148 were involved in the coral reef 

fishery. Fishermen in the pelagic fishery were more likely to be White. Fishermen in the 

bottomfish fishery were more likely to be Asian and/or in an older age group. Fishermen in the 

coral reef fish fishery were more likely to be Native Hawaiian, younger, have higher income, 

and/or have more education. Of those who were involved in the pelagic fishery, 57% selfidentified as full-time or part-time commercial fishermen compared to 60% in the bottomfish 

fishery, and 65% in the coral reef fishery who self-identified in the same categories.
52

Table 35.--Fishermen demographics by fishery (percentage of responses).

Percentage of 

responses

All 

Respondents

Fishermen in 

pelagic

fishery

Fishermen in 

bottomfish 

fishery

Fishermen in 

coral reef 

fishery

Number of respondents (n) 797 755 379 148

Race American Indian/Alaska Native 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0

Asian 40.8 40.2 56.1 39.7

Hispanic or Latino 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7

Native Hawaiian 15.0 14.2 9.8 19.2

Other Pacific Islander 3.1 3.0 3.7 4.1

White 26.0 27.0 16.2 19.9

Mixed 14.1 14.5 13.6 16.4

Age Less than 25 years 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7

25 - 34 years 8.5 9.0 7.1 10.1

35 - 44 years 14.3 14.8 12.1 18.9

45 - 54 years 21.5 21.9 21.9 26.4

55 - 64 years 32.4 32.3 32.5 26.4

More than 64 years 22.7 21.3 26.1 17.6

Income Less than $10,000 2.8 2.8 3.0 1.4

$10,000 - $24,999 8.8 8.6 9.1 8.2

$25,000 - $49,999 19.0 18.7 16.6 15.1

$50,000 - $99,999 40.3 40.7 41.0 45.2

$100,000 or more 29.1 29.2 30.2 30.1

Education Less than high school 4.7 4.4 2.9 2.7

High school graduate 25.5 25.6 22.0 20.9

Some college or associate's degree 46.3 46.2 49.6 46.6

Bachelor's degree or higher 23.5 23.9 25.5 29.7

Fisherman Full-time commercial 7.1 6.6 9.0 9.4

Classification Part-time commercial 51.0 50.2 50.8 55.7

Recreational expense 26.7 27.8 27.1 23.5

Purely recreational 10.8 11.1 8.0 6.0

Subsistence 3.4 3.3 4.3 3.4

Cultural 1.0 0.9 0.8 2.0

Table 36 shows the vessel characteristics by fishery. Vessels used in both pelagic and 

bottomfish fisheries were similar in size and horsepower. Vessels used in the coral reef fishery 

tended to be smaller, less powerful, older, less expansive, and had lower market value. 

Fishermen in the bottomfish fishery tended to have longer ownership of their vessel. 
53

Table 36.--Vessel characteristics by fishery (mean, standard error, median, and percentage of 

responses).

All 

Respondents

Fishermen 

in pelagic

fishery

Fishermen in

bottomfish

fishery

Fishermen 

in coral reef

fishery

Boat length Number of 

respondents (n) 762 720 364 146

Mean 22.9 23.1 22.8 21.7

Standard error 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4

Median 22.0 22.0 22.0 21.0

Boat horsepower Number of 

respondents (n) 751 709 363 144

Mean 216.2 219.5 209.1 195.0

Standard error 6.7 7.0 8.1 14.1

Median 180.0 190.0 180.0 150.0

Age of boat (years) Number of 

respondents (n) 711 673 346 136

Mean 22.8 22.3 22.4 23.4

Standard error 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1

Median 22.0 22.0 22.0 24.0

Current boat ownership (years) Number of 

respondents (n) 729 691 348 138

Mean 11.7 11.4 12.7 11.0

Standard error 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9

Median 9.0 8.0 10.0 7.0

Boat purchase price ($) Number of 

respondents (n) 717 678 347 137

Mean 39,661 40,963 40,533 34,174

Standard error 1,813 1,899 2,296 3,531

Median 26,000 27,500 27,000 20,000

Boat current market value ($) Number of 

respondents (n) 700 663 343 140

Mean 43,039 44,499 42,651 36,816

Standard error 1,931 2,016 2,289 3,417

Median 30,000 30,000 30,000 25,000

Own boat that fish on Number of 

respondents (n) 804 761 381 151

% Yes 95.3 95.1 95.8 96.7

Others used boat without you Number of 

respondents (n) 762 720 363 145

% of time

0% 90.8 90.7 91.5 87.6

1%-25% 7.0 7.2 6.6 9.7

26%-100% 2.2 1.7 1.7 2.8

Table 37 shows the characteristics of fishing activity by fishery. When compared across three 

fisheries, fishermen in the coral reef fishery made more trips in the past 12 months, used more 

different types of gears, and were more likely to fish in the state waters. Fishermen in the 

pelagic fishery were more likely to fish at FADs (84%) and had more people on board during a 

fishing trip.
54

Table 37.--Fishing activity characteristics by fishery (percentage of responses and mean).

All 

Respondents

Fishermen 

in pelagic 

fishery

Fishermen 

in bottomfish 

fishery

Fishermen 

in coral reef

fishery

Number of BOAT fishing trips in the past 12 months (%)

Number of respondents (n) 795 752 372 149

Fewer than 25 trips 53.1 52.8 48.4 45.6

25-49 trips 26.3 26.7 30.6 25.5

50-99 trips 13.2 13.3 14.8 18.1

100-200 trips 6.0 6.0 5.4 7.4

More than 200 trips 1.4 1.2 0.8 3.4

Mean1 38.5 38.2 38.3 48.7

Number of gears used in BOAT fishing trips in the past 12 months (%)

Number of respondents (n) 789 751 376 148

One 27.6 25.3 4.5 4.7

Two 46.4 47.7 50.5 32.4

Three 18.3 18.9 30.3 29.1

Four 6.3 6.7 12.0 26.4

Five or more 1.4 1.5 2.7 7.4

Mean 2.1 2.1 2.6 3.0

Percent of your fishing trips occurred in state and federal jurisdiction (%)

Number of respondents 768 727 365 149

State waters1 55.5 54.1 56.8 62.1

Federal waters1 45.5 45.9 43.2 37.9

Percent of fishing trips fished at Fish Aggregating Devices (%)

Number of respondents (n) 796 754 377 151

0% 20.0 16.4 22.3 23.8

1%-25% 31.8 33.2 35.3 35.1

26%-50% 20.1 21.1 20.2 14.6

51%-75% 17.7 18.4 15.1 15.9

76%-100% 10.4 10.9 7.2 10.6

Mean percentage, exclude 01 39.5 39.5 35.5 38.0

Number of people (including yourself) on board for an average trip (%)

Number of respondents (n) 755 718 355 145

One 20.4 18.8 24.8 26.2

Two 47.2 47.6 49.0 38.6

Three 24.8 25.6 20.6 24.1

Four 6.1 6.3 4.2 8.3

Five or more 1.6 1.7 1.4 2.8

Mean 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.2 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Table 38 shows the landings of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish by fishery. Across three 

fisheries, the volume of pelagic fish landings was similar (over 2,000 lbs) because small boat 

fishermen overlapped in multiple sub-fisheries. On average, fishermen in the coral reef fishery 

landed more fish annually and per trip compared to the other fisheries. This was due to several 

high landings of pelagic fish by fishermen who were in both pelagic and coral reef fisheries. On 

average, fishermen in the pelagic fishery landed 2,238 lbs pelagic fish, fishermen in the 

bottomfish fishery landed 622 lbs bottomfish, and fishermen in the coral reef fishery landed 793 

lbs reef fish. 
55

Table 38.--Landings by species group under each fishery (percentage of responses, mean, and 

median).

All 

Respondents

Fishermen 

in pelagic 

fishery

Fishermen 

in bottomfish 

fishery

Fishermen

in coral reef

fishery

Annual landings of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish

Number of respondents (n) 805 763 381 151

None (%) 1.9 1.3 0.0 0.0

1-50 pounds (%) 3.9 3.7 2.9 2.6

51-100 pounds (%) 5.2 5.4 4.2 4.0

101-500 pounds (%) 27.7 27.7 25.5 20.5

501-1,000 pounds (%) 24.0 24.8 21.8 19.2

More than 1,000 pounds (%) 37.4 37.2 45.7 53.6

Mean (lbs)1 2,719 2,740 3,053 3,375

Median (lbs) 750 750 850 1,125

Annual landings of pelagic fish Mean (lbs)1 2,150 2,238 2,130 2,215

Median (lbs) 750 750 300 750

Annual landings of bottomfish Mean (lbs)1 312 305 622 382

Median (lbs) 25 25 75 25

Annual landings of reef fish Mean (lbs)1 267 206 317 793

Median (lbs) 0 0 25 300

Average per trip landings of pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish

Number of respondents (n) 795 753 372 149

None (%) 1.9 1.3 0.0 0.0

1-20 pounds (%) 23.9 24.2 24.5 22.8

21-50 pounds (%) 37.2 37.3 37.1 32.2

51-100 pounds (%) 20.4 20.6 19.1 22.8

More than 100 pounds (%) 16.6 16.6 19.4 22.1

Mean (lbs)

1 76.2 75.2 77.8 107.7

Median (lbs) 30.0 30.0 33.3 41.7 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.

Table 39 shows the catch disposition and market participation by fishery. Almost half the 

fishermen in the coral reef fishery reported the distribution among fishermen on board varying

by trip or did not know, and more than 44% of fishermen in the pelagic fishery reported the 

same. Catch disposition was similar across fisheries; two-thirds of the catch was sold. A

majority of fishermen sold fish, particularly fishermen involved in the coral reef fishery (88%). 

Across three fisheries, pelagic fish represented the highest percentage of value of fish sold (63% 

overall). Most fishermen in the pelagic and bottomfish fisheries sold fish to wholesalers or

auctions, and proportionally more fishermen in the coral reef fishery sold to other channels. 

Value of fish sold was higher in the bottomfish fishery with an average of $10,426 annually 

versus $8,375 in the pelagic fishery.
56

Table 39.--Catch disposition and market participation by fishery (percentage of responses, mean, 

and median).

All 

Respondents

Fishermen 

in

pelagic

fishery

Fishermen 

in

bottomfish 

fishery

Fishermen 

in

coral reef

fishery

Catch distribution Number of respondents (n) 706 666 328 134

I kept all the fish I caught (%) 24.9 24.5 22.6 20.1

I kept/received some % of total fish caught (%) 23.8 24.5 23.5 23.1

I kept/ received some % of trip revenue (%) 6.4 6.3 6.7 6.7

Don’t know/different every time (%) 43.9 43.7 46.6 48.5

Other (%) 1.0 1.1 0.6 1.5

Catch disposition Number of respondents (n) 738 710 358 148

Caught and released (%) 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.5

Given away (%) 13.9 14.1 13.9 13.4

Consumed at home (%) 15.4 15.5 15.1 16.7

Sold (%) 65.0 64.6 65.1 63.4

Sold fish Number of respondents (n) 798 756 378 150

Yes (%) 82.8 83.2 82.0 88.0

Market outlet Number of respondents (n) 659 627 310 132

Wholesaler/auction (%) 71.6 72.9 74.5 65.2

Restaurants/stores (%) 42.5 42.3 44.5 58.3

Roadside/farmers’ market (%) 7.9 7.7 7.1 11.4

Friends/neighbors/coworkers (%) 27.3 27.8 29.0 37.9

Other (%) 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.5

Value of fish sold Number of respondents (n) 648 617 303 126

Percentage of responses

$1-$100 2 2 2 0

$101-$500 17 18 14 13

$501-$1,000 17 16 15 14

$1,001-$2,000 12 12 14 18

$2,001-$5,000 20 20 20 15

$5,001-$10,000 13 13 14 18

$10,001-$20,000 8 8 8 10

$20,001-$50,000 8 8 10 7

Over $50,000 3 3 5 5

Mean ($)1 8,546 8,375 10,426 9,512

Median ($) 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

Percentage of value of fish sold from pelagic, bottomfish, reef fish, and other

Number of respondents (n) 627 598 298 129

Pelagic fish (%) 62.9 66.8 50.6 48.6

Bottomfish (%) 23.3 23.3 39.0 19.9

Reef fish (%) 7.5 6.0 6.9 21.1

Other (%) 6.4 3.9 3.5 10.4

Percentage of personal income came from the sale of fish

Number of respondents (n) 644 612 304 131

1%-25% (%) 74.5 75.7 72.0 75.6

26%-50% (%) 12.9 12.3 12.8 10.7

51%-75% (%) 6.8 6.4 6.9 8.4

76%-100% (%) 5.7 5.7 8.2 5.3

Mean percentage1 23.1 22.7 25.0 23.0 1 Calculated using the medians of the response bins.
57

Table 40 shows the fishing trip costs by fishery. The pelagic fishery shows the highest trip cost

($290), mostly due to higher fuel costs.

Table 40.--Fishing trip costs by fishery (mean, standard error, median, and percentage of total 

trip cost).

Pelagic Fishery Bottomfish Fishery Coral Reef Fishery

Variable cost $ per trip

% of total trip 

cost $ per trip

% of total trip 

cost $ per trip

% of total trip 

cost

Number of 

responses (n) 806 257 71

Boat fuel Mean 146.11 50.4 109.29 43.7 61.28 38.2

Standard error 3.43 6.40 6.53

Median 121.37 80.00 50.00

Truck fuel Mean 25.88 8.9 23.12 9.3 23.69 14.8

Standard error 0.81 1.30 2.47

Median 20.00 20.00 20.00

Oil Mean 7.98 2.8 7.03 2.8 4.81 3.0

Standard error 0.58 1.10 0.93

Median 0.00 0.00 1.00

Ice Mean 35.09 12.1 29.27 11.7 20.83 13.0

Standard error 1.06 1.76 2.24

Median 30.00 20.00 16.00

Bait Mean 23.48 8.1 29.75 11.9 7.77 4.8

Standard error 1.25 2.24 1.65

Median 15.00 20.00 0.00

Food and beverage Mean 26.23 9.1 24.92 10.0 21.56 13.4

Standard error 0.91 1.97 2.24

Median 20.00 20.00 20.00

Daily maintenance & Mean 24.71 8.5 25.31 10.1 18.94 11.8

repair Standard error 1.42 2.86 2.89

Median 10.00 10.00 10.00

Other trip cost Mean 0.39 0.1 1.26 0.5 1.69 1.1

Standard error 0.14 0.55 1.19

Median 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total trip Mean 289.64 249.95 160.58

cost Standard error 6.26 12.86 13.04

Median 250.00 193.00 140.00

A previous study (Hospital, Bruce, and Pan, 2011) estimated the fishing trip costs for the pelagic 

fishery. Table 41 shows the comparison between the two studies. The previous study estimated 

the average pelagic fishery trip cost at $169 based on surveys fielded from 2007 to 2008. When 

adjusted for inflation, this became $198 in 2014 dollars. We estimated the pelagic fishing trip 

cost at $290, a 71% increase over 6 years in nominal values or a 46% increase in real values. 

The largest increase was in boat and truck fuel; a 50% increase in nominal values or a 28% 

increase in real values. Fuel price per gallon increased by about 20% between the two sampling 

periods. Thus, most of the increases in fuel costs were due to the increase in fuel price. Ice, bait, 

and daily maintenance and repair each showed approximately $16 increase in nominal values or 

$13 to $15 increase in real values. Compositions of fishing trip costs were similar. Fuel was the 

most important cost in both studies, followed by ice, food, and beverage. However, fuel costs

comprised less of the total trip costs in this study (59% vs. 66% in Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 

2011), whereas bait and daily maintenance and repair contributed more in this study (4% more 

for each item).
58

Table 41.--Fishing trip costs for pelagic fishery: this study (2013-14 survey values) vs. Hospital, 

Bruce, and Pan (2011, 2007-08 survey values) (mean, standard error, median, and percentage of 

total trip cost).

Variable Study Mean

Standard 

error Median

Percentage 

of total trip 

cost

(%)

Boat fuel Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 99.98 57.80 1000 57.8

This study 146.11 3.43 121 50.4

Truck fuel Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 14.86 0.72 10 8.6

This study 25.88 0.81 20 8.9

Oil Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 2.28 0.69 0 1.3

This study 7.98 0.58 0 2.8

Ice Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 18.74 1.18 20 10.8

This study 35.09 1.06 30 12.1

Bait Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 7.39 1.01 0 4.3

This study 23.48 1.25 15 8.1

Food and beverage Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 17.99 0.97 18 10.4

This study 26.23 0.91 20 9.1

Daily maintenance & repair Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 7.79 3.40 0 4.5

This study 24.71 1.42 10 8.5

Other trip cost Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 - - - -

This study 0.39 0.14 0 0.1

Total trip cost Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 169.03 6.71 147.5

This study 289.64 6.26 250

Fishing trip costs for bottomfish fishery in this survey (Table 42) were comparable with the 

estimates in Hospital and Beavers (2012). The average trip cost in Hospital and Beavers (2012)

was $212, based on bottomfish fishery trips in 2009 and 2010. When adjusted for inflation, their 

average trip cost became $230 in 2014 dollars. The estimated trip cost in this study for 

bottomfish fishery was $250, which was 18% higher than in Hospital and Beavers (2012) in 

nominal values or 5% higher in inflation-adjusted values. The composition of trip costs was 

similar. In Hospital and Beavers (2012), fuel costs (boat and truck) were estimated at $119 in 

nominal values or $134 in real values, and they accounted for 56% of total trip costs; while in 

this study fuel costs were estimated at $132 and accounted for 53% of total trip costs. The 

second most important cost, bait, was slightly lower in this study ($30 vs. $32 in Hospital and 

Beavers (2012) in nominal values or $36 in real values). Ice and food and beverage costs were 

comparable. 
59

Table 42.--Fishing trip costs for bottomfish fishery: this study (2013-14 survey values) vs. 

Hospital and Beavers (2012, 2009-10 survey values) (mean, standard error, median, and 

percentage of total trip cost).

Category Study Mean

Standard 

error Median

Percentage 

of total trip 

cost

(%)

Boat fuel Hospital and Beavers 2012 100.28 4.25 80 47.3

This study 109.29 6.40 80 43.7

Truck fuel Hospital and Beavers 2012 18.97 0.85 15 9

This study 23.12 1.30 20 9.3

Oil Hospital and Beavers 2012 - - - -

This study 7.03 1.10 0 2.8

Ice Hospital and Beavers 2012 27.99 1.65 20 13.2

This study 29.27 1.76 20 11.7

Bait Hospital and Beavers 2012 32.11 2.05 20 15.2

This study 29.75 2.24 20 11.9

Food and beverage Hospital and Beavers 2012 25.29 1.96 20 11.9

This study 24.92 1.97 20 10

Daily maintenance & repair Hospital and Beavers 2012 - - - -

This study 25.31 2.86 10 10.1

Other trip cost Hospital and Beavers 2012 7.25 1.50 0 3.4

This study 1.26 0.55 0 0.5

Total trip cost Hospital and Beavers 2012 211.90 8.88 160

This study 249.95 12.86 193

Table 43 shows the annual fixed costs in 2013 by fishery. On average, the coral reef fishery 

showed higher annual expenditure than the other two fisheries ($6,630 vs. $5,668 in the pelagic 

fishery and $5,864 in the bottomfish fishery). The differences were mainly due to more 

spending on gear replacement and repair and loan payments. There was a large proportion of 

fishermen in the coral reef fishery who identified themselves as commercial fishermen and 

reported higher spending in gear replacement and loan payments than non-commercial 

fishermen.
60

Table 43.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by fishery (mean, standard error, median, and 

percentage of fleet with expenditure).

Fixed cost

% of fleet 

with 

expenditure

Pelagic

Fishery

% of fleet 

with 

expenditure

Bottomfish 

Fishery

% of fleet 

with 

expenditure

Coral Reef

Fishery

Number of 

respondents (n) 709 362 145

Gear replacement/ Mean 94.1 1,699 95.0 1,769 98.6 1,948

repair Standard error 96 132 236

Median 1,000 787 1,000

Boat and trailer repair/ Mean 91.1 1,661 92.5 1,939 97.2 1,891

maintenance/ Standard error 109 187 259

improvements Median 800 814 1,000

Loan payments Mean 15.1 998 14.9 953 18.6 1,581

Standard error 132 194 454

Median 0 0 0

Boat insurance Mean 48.8 437 47.0 362 44.1 361

Standard error 31 32 50

Median 0 0 0

Mooring fees Mean 18.1 425 16.3 360 15.9 365

Standard error 50 60 98

Median 0 0 0

Fees Mean 94.5 397 95.6 424 96.6 414

Standard error 19 27 35

Median 250 250 300

Financial services Mean 5.9 30 7.2 45 9.0 46

Standard error 7 13 17

Median 0 0 0

Other Mean 1.7 20 1.4 11 2.1 24

Standard error 7 6 14

Median 0 0 0

Annual fixed costs Mean 5,668 5,864 6,630

Standard error 248 365 746

Median 3,470 3,600 3,350

Table 44 shows the comparison of annual fixed costs for the pelagic fishery estimated in this 

study versus in Hospital, Bruce, and Pan (2011). Their estimation of annual fixed costs of 

$11,102 in nominal values ($12,843 in 2013 dollars) was substantially higher than our estimation 

of $5,668. The major differences appeared in boat and trailer repair and maintenance. They also 

had a higher estimation in gear replacement and repair. Our estimations were higher for loan 

payments, boat insurance, and fees. There are two possible reasons for the lower expenditures in 

this study: 1) the previous study used in-person interviews with more active commercial 

fishermen who spent more on boat and trailer repair and maintenance than non-commercial 

fishermen, and 2) the fishermen may actually have spent less in repair and maintenance in recent 

years. The latter will need further study. 
61

Table 44.--Annual fishing fixed costs for pelagic fishery: this study (2013 survey values) vs. 

Hospital, Bruce, and Pan (2011, 2007-2008 survey values) (mean, standard error, and median).

Category Study Mean

Standard 

error Median

Gear replacement/repair Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 2,588 264 1,200

This study 1,699 96 1,000

Boat and trailer repair/maintenance Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 6,880* - -

This study 1,661 109 800

Loan payments Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 878 178 0

This study 998 132 0

Boat insurance Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 401 71 0

This study 437 31 0

Mooring fees Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 - - -

This study 425 50 0

Fees Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 240 18 200

This study 397 19 250

Financial services Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 60 24 0

This study 30 7 0

Other Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 55 22 0

This study 20 7 0

Annual fixed costs Hospital, Bruce, and Pan 2011 11,102 704 6,675

This study 5,668 248 3,470

* Sum of two categories: major upgrades and improvements to the boat ($4,912) and maintenance/repair of the boat 

and trailer ($1,968)

When comparing the bottomfish fishery fixed costs estimated in Hospital and Beavers (2012), 

higher expenditure was found in their study ($8,211 in nominal values or $9,063 in 2013 dollars 

vs. $5,864 in this study). The differences were mainly from boat and trailer repair and 

maintenance and the additional categories listed in Hospital and Beavers (2012) including 

electronics, oil and lube, and safety equipment. These comparisons are presented in Table 45.
62

Table 45.--Annual fishing fixed costs for bottomfish fishery: this study (2013 survey values) vs. 

Hospital and Beavers (2012, 2009 survey values) (mean, standard error, median, and percentage 

of fleet with expenditure).

Category Study Mean

Standard 

error Median

Percentage 

of fleet with 

expenditure 

(%)

Gear replacement/repair Hospital and Beavers 2012 1,544 122 600 89.7

This study 1,769 132 787 95.0

Boat and trailer repair/maintenance Hospital and Beavers 2012 3,247 319 1,200 92.7

This study 1,939 187 814 92.5

Loan payments Hospital and Beavers 2012 809 129 0 26.9

This study 953 194 0 14.9

Boat insurance Hospital and Beavers 2012 380 45 0 38.2

This study 362 32 0 47.0

Mooring fees Hospital and Beavers 2012 254 39 0 18.1

This study 360 60 0 16.3

Fees Hospital and Beavers 2012 306 21 200 92.0

This study 424 27 250 95.6

Financial services Hospital and Beavers 2012 197 36 0 33.4

This study 45 13 0 7.2

Other Hospital and Beavers 2012 264 80 0 8.8

This study 11 6 0 1.4

Electronics Hospital and Beavers 2012 702 95 0 41.0

This study - - - -

Oil and lube Hospital and Beavers 2012 320 30 150 87.9

This study - - - -

Safety equipment Hospital and Beavers 2012 187 19 50 60.2

This study - - - -

Annual fixed costs Hospital and Beavers 2012 8,211 493 4,875

This study 5,864 365 3,600

Table 46 shows the itemized expenditures for fishermen who reported non-zero fixed costs for 

particular items by fishery. The loan payments in the coral reef fishery were highest, probably 

due to more commercial fishermen in that fishery. Other categories were comparable across the 

fisheries. When compared with the annual expenditures for bottomfish fishery reported in 

Hospital and Beavers (2012), the larger differences appeared in loan payments, boat and trailer 

repair and maintenance, and other.
63

Table 46.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by fishery (non-zero expenditures) and comparison 

with Hospital and Beavers (2012, 2009 survey values) (mean, standard error, and median).

Fixed cost

This study

Pelagic

Fishery

Bottomfish 

Fishery

Coral Reef 

Fishery

Bottomfish 

Fishery

(Hospital and 

Beavers 2012)

Gear 

replacement/repair

Number of 

respondents(n) 667 344 143 395

Mean 1,806 1,862 1,975 1,722

Standard error 100 137 239 133

Median 1,000 1,000 1,000 800

Boat and trailer repair/

maintenance/

Number of 

respondents(n) 646 335 141 409

improvements Mean 1,823 2,095 1,944 3,480

Standard error 118 199 265 338

Median 1,000 1,000 1,000 1500

Loan payments Number of 

respondents(n) 107 54 27 74

Mean 6,613 6,386 8,492 4,780

Standard error 645 1,027 1,966 575

Median 4,800 4,800 6,000 3,720

Boat insurance Number of 

respondents(n) 346 170 64 169

Mean 896 771 818 989

Standard error 55 53 84 100

Median 600 513 600 600

Mooring fees Number of 

respondents(n) 128 59 23 80

Mean 2,353 2,210 2,302 1,419

Standard error 206 256 442 163

Median 1,652 1,560 1,860 1,150

Fees Number of 

respondents(n) 670 346 140 406

Mean 420 444 429 332

Standard error 19 28 35 22

Median 250 300 300 250

Financial services Number of 

respondents(n) 42 26 13 148

Mean 507 633 512 583

Standard error 94 141 138 99

Median 300 300 325 290

Other Number of 

respondents(n) 12 5 3 36

Mean 1,178 816 1,150 3,199

Standard error 211 328 278 837

Median 1,275 600 1,350 1,160

Electronics Number of 

respondents(n) 181

Mean 1,706

Standard error 209

Median 1,000
64

Table 46.--Continued.

Fixed cost

Pelagic

Fishery

Bottomfish 

Fishery

Coral Reef 

Fishery

Bottomfish 

Fishery

(Hospital and 

Beavers 2012)

Oil and lube Number of 

respondents(n) 388

Mean 364

Standard error 33

Median 200

Safety equipment Number of 

respondents(n) 264

Mean 318

Standard error 30

Median 138

Annual fixed costs Number of 

respondents(n) 709 362 145 437

Mean 5,668 5,864 6,630 8,211

Standard error 248 365 746 493

Median 3,470 3,600 3,350 4,875

This concludes the reporting of the empirical results from our survey. It should provide a high 

level of detail to include in the analysis of regulatory impacts, particularly when combined with 

the more detailed breakdown material in the Appendix B. 

Fishermen’s Comments and Suggestions for How Hawaii’s Fisheries Should be Managed

and Topics for Further Study

The last section of the survey was an open-ended topic to ask for fishermen’s suggestions about

how Hawaii’s fisheries should be managed or topics that they feel need further study. The 

results are grouped into major subjects. Among the 806 respondents, 394 of them (49%) 

provided comments about fishery management or topics for further study. Figure 34 shows the 

frequency distribution of the comments among the 394 respondents. The dark color bars in the 

figure represent the sum of a subject, while the light color bars represent the detailed comments 

about the subject. The most mentioned subject was regulations (by 133 fishermen), including

suggestions for new regulations and changes to existing regulations. Opening Bottomfish 

Restricted Fishing Areas (BRFAs) was the most addressed regulation (by 28 fishermen). The 

second most mentioned subject was FADs, with replacement of missing FADs as the top concern

(by 60 fishermen), followed by general support of FADs (by 28 fishermen) since they help 

attract fish. However, there was also some opposition to private FADs (by 13 fishermen) and 

FADs in general (by 12 fishermen) as they attract and kill small fish. The third most mentioned

subject was allowing an increase in size limit of catch and imposing a catch limit (by 72 

fishermen). Most respondents wanted to impose a bigger size limit for ahi (bigeye and yellowfin 

tuna) which would allow small ahi to grow to a bigger size before being harvested. Other 

subjects included banning nets and traps, concerns about longline fishing pressure on the shared 

stock, imposing more regulations on longline fishing, better overall enforcement of regulations,

improvement in maintenance and management, and concerns about low fish prices and high 

fishing costs.
65

Figure 34.--Frequency distribution for fishermen’s comments.

Fishermen’s comments are also presented by commercial fishermen (including full-time and 

part-time) and non-commercial fishermen (including recreational expense, purely recreational, 

subsistence, cultural). Table 47 shows the top comments by commercial and non-commerical 

fishermen. The most addressed subjects were similar between the two types of fishermen.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

REGULATIONS

Bottomfishing: open BRFA

Bottomfishing: general

Bottomfishing: use close season

Bottomfishing: TAC

Bottomfishing: bag limit

Too many regulations

Charter

Spearfishing

Area closure

Reef fish

Kona crab

Night diving

Purse seine

Regulate imports

Other

FADs

Replace missing FADs

For FADs

Against private FADs

Against FADs

SIZE LIMIT/CATCH LIMIT

Increase size limit

Increase size limit and impose catch limit

Impose catch limit

NETS/TRAPS CONCERNS AND REGULATIONS

Ban nets

Regulations

LONGLINE CONCERNS AND REGULATIONS

Need more regulations

Ban longline

Effects on fish stocks

Too many longliners

ENFORCEMENT ON EXISTING REGULATIONS

MAINTENANCE

MANAGEMENT

Cooperation

General

Sustainable management

ECONOMICS

Price too low

Cost too high

Cost and price

RESEARCH

LICENSE

INFRASTRUCTURE

CATCH REPORTS

EDUCATION

ENVIRONMENT

INVASIVE SPECIES

PROTECTED SPECIES

MISC.

NO COMMENT
66

These included replacing missing FADs and support of FADs, increasing size limit/imposing

catch limits, bottomfishing regulations, nets/traps concerns and regulations, and longline 

concerns and regulations. For commercial fishermen, other important topics included opposition 

to FADs (in general) and private FADs. Non-commercial fishermen were more concerned about 

enforcement of existing regulations, maintenance, and management.

Table 47.--Most-mentioned subjects by fisherman type.

Commercial Fishermen Non-commercial Fishermen

Top concerns

% of 

fishermen Top concerns

% of 

fishermen

FADs: for and replace missing FADs1 22.1 FADs: for and replace missing FADs1 23.8

Increase size limit 19.4 Increase size limit/impose catch limit 14.0

Regulation: bottomfishing 14.4 Nets/traps concerns and regulations 14.0

Nets/traps concerns and regulations 9.0 Regulation: bottomfishing 10.4

Against FADs and against private FADs 8.1 Enforcement 10.4

Longline concerns and regulations 8.1 Longline concerns and regulations 9.1

Maintenance 9.1

Management 7.9 1 These included those who supported FADs and/or those who wanted the missing FADs be replaced.

Appendix Table B40 presents the frequency distribution of comments from all respondents and 

by commercial and non-commercial fishermen. The differences between comments made by 

commercial and non-commercial fishermen mostly occurred where the small boat commercial 

fishermen were in favor of bigger size limits, opening up (removing) BRFAs, and against FADs.

Non-commerical fishermen were more likely to support net and trap bans, better enforcement of 

existing regulations, and were more concerned about sustainable management and overregulation of the fishery. 

DISCUSSION

This report summarizes the results of the Hawaii small boat survey conducted in 2014. With 

approximately half of the active small boat participants responding to the survey, this report 

provides a comprehensive description of the economic and social aspects of Hawaii small boat 

fishery including fishermen’s demographic profiles, vessel characteristics, current fishing 

activity, social aspects of fishing, market participation, and economic costs of fishing including 

fishing trip costs and annual fixed costs. 

Within the fishery, there are various types of fishermen with different fishing motivations. 

Selling fish for income was the primary motivation for full-time and part-time commercial 

fishermen since they sold approximately 70% of their catch. However, these fishermen also 

played important social roles in local community because they kept and gave away a substantial 

amount of their catch. Selling fish was common for the non-commercial fishermen, but to a 

lesser degree. On average, income from fish sold contributed 23% to personal income for all

respondents. Clearly, different types of fishermen had different levels of involvement in fishing, 

such as number of trips, landings, and revenue annually. Variations also existed across islands. 

Participation in the small boat fishery over the past decade has increased, despite the increased 
67

trip costs, primarily due to higher fuel prices. Any potential regulatory changes will have 

varying impacts across fisherman types and islands. With the last comprehensive cost-earnings 

study of Hawaii’s small boat fishery that was conducted almost 20 years ago, this report provides 

an important update on the economic and social characteristics of the fishery, and it conducts a 

comparative analysis of the subgroups of the fishery. This information is crucial for fishery 

managers to evaluate the impacts from regulatory alternatives to the fishery and to various 

subgroups in the fishery.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We want to thank many people who contributed to the success of this study. First and most 

importantly, we would like to thank all 824 fishermen who participated in this study and 

provided us valuable information regarding their fishing activities, income, and fishing costs. 

We particularly appreciate their willingness to provide written comments on fisheries 

management. Without their participation, we could not provide an accurate description of the 

Hawaii small boat fishery. We also want to thank Ed Watamura and Roy Morioka of the 

Waialua Boat Club who allowed us to introduce the survey during their club meeting. Moreover, 

we wish to thank Reginald Kokubun and Alton Miyasaka from the Division of Aquatic 

Resources who helped us at the planning stage of the study and provided the mailing list of the 

fishermen; Justin Hospital and Christopher Hawkins for reviewing and providing feedback on 

the survey instruments and brochure; and Kathleen Uno who designed the beautiful survey 

cover. Last, but not least, we wish to thank our graduate research assistance Jonathan Sweeney 

for his hard work in envelope stuffing, database development, and data entry.
68

REFERENCES

Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian.

2009. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edition. 

 John Wiley & Sons Publishing, Hoboken, NJ. 499p.

Hamilton, M. S., and S. W. Huffman.

1997. Cost-earnings study of Hawaii’s small boat fishery, 1995-1996. SOEST 

 Publication 97-06, JIMAR Contribution 97-314, 102p.

Hospital, J., and C. Beavers.

2012. Economic and social characteristics of bottomfish fishing in the Main Hawaiian 

 Islands. Pacific Islands Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI 

 96822-2396. Pacific Islands Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. H-12-01, 44p. + 

 Appendices.

Hospital, J., S. S. Bruce, and M. Pan. 

2011. Economic and social characteristics of the Hawaii small boat pelagic fishery. 

 Pacific Islands Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI 96822- 

 2396. Pacific Islands Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. H-11-01, 48p. + Appendices.

State of Hawaii.

2013a. Division of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 2013 State of Hawaii 

 Data Book. Online at http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/databook/db2013/

 [accessed 14 August 2015].

State of Hawaii.

2013b. Division of Aquatic Resources. Personal communication. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 

2012. American community survey 5-year estimates, selected economic characteristics: 

2008-2012 Hawaii. Online at 

http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census/acs/ACS2012/ACS2012_5_Year/acs_hi_2012_ge

ographic_5_yr/acs12_hi_5yr.pdf [accessed 14 August 2015].
69

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire
70
71
72

Appendix B. Summary Tables

Table B1.--Distribution of survey responses by most common gear (percentage of responses). Number of 

respondents

(n)

Troll

(%)

Pelagic 

handline

(%)

Bottomfish 

handline

(%)

Spear

(%)

Nets

(%)

Other

(%)

All Respondents 806 65.3 11.5 15.9 1.2 1.4 4.7

By County

 Oahu 292 70.9 3.8 16.1 2.4 1.4 5.5

 Hawaii 290 61.4 24.1 9.0 0.0 1.7 3.8

 Maui 124 52.4 4.0 35.5 2.4 0.8 4.8

 Kauai 94 75.5 6.4 11.7 0.0 1.1 5.3

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 43.9 21.1 24.6 0.0 7.0 3.5

 Part-time commercial 407 61.4 14.3 16.5 1.2 1.2 5.4

 Recreational expense 213 74.6 7.5 12.2 1.4 0.5 3.8

 Purely recreational 86 81.4 2.3 12.8 0.0 0.0 3.5

 Subsistence 27 51.9 11.1 25.9 7.4 0.0 3.7

 Cultural 8 50.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 12.5 12.5

Table B2.--Survey Responses: “How would you describe your race? (check all that apply)”

(percentage of responses)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

(%)

Asian

(%)

Hispanic 

or Latino

(%)

Native 

Hawaiian

(%)

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

(%)

White

(%)

Mixed

(%)

All Respondents 785 0.3 40.8 0.8 15.0 3.1 26.0 14.1

By County

 Oahu 287 0.0 52.8 1.0 11.2 1.7 17.5 15.7

 Hawaii 287 0.4 30.5 0.7 19.1 4.3 32.3 12.8

 Maui 122 0.0 40.3 0.8 11.8 3.4 30.3 13.4

 Kauai 93 1.1 37.0 0.0 18.5 2.2 26.1 15.2

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 55 0.0 33.3 0.0 25.9 7.4 16.7 16.7

 Part-time commercial 402 0.3 39.0 1.3 16.6 3.0 24.9 14.9

 Recreational expense 210 0.5 46.2 0.5 9.6 2.4 27.9 13.0

 Purely recreational 86 0.0 41.2 0.0 10.6 1.2 34.1 12.9

 Subsistence 27 0.0 44.4 0.0 18.5 7.4 22.2 7.4

 Cultural 8 0.0 25.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 12.5 25.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 513 0.4 35.7 1.0 14.2 3.5 30.2 15.0

 Pelagic handline 89 0.0 36.0 0.0 18.0 1.1 31.5 13.5

 Bottomfish handline 124 0.0 62.1 0.8 8.1 3.2 14.5 11.3

 Spear 10 0.0 50.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 20.0

 Nets 11 0.0 27.3 0.0 54.5 0.0 0.0 18.2

By Fishery

 Troll pelagic 727 0.3 39.6 0.8 14.6 3.0 27.1 14.6

 Handline pelagic 289 0.0 36.3 0.0 18.0 5.2 27.3 13.1

 Bottomfish 376 0.0 56.1 0.5 9.8 3.7 16.2 13.6

 Coral reef 146 0.0 39.7 0.7 19.2 4.1 19.9 16.4
73

Table B3.--Survey Responses: “What is your age?” (percentage of responses)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Less than 

25 years 

(%)

25 - 34 

years

(%)

35 - 44 

years

(%)

45 - 54 

years

(%)

55 - 64 

years

(%)

More than 

64 years

(%)

All Respondents 797 0.6 8.5 14.3 21.5 32.4 22.7

By County

 Oahu 288 0.3 8.7 12.8 24.3 28.1 25.7

 Hawaii 287 1.0 9.1 14.3 18.5 33.4 23.7

 Maui 123 0.8 5.7 18.7 23.6 34.1 17.1

 Kauai 93 0.0 10.8 14.0 19.4 40.9 15.1

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 56 0.0 3.6 19.6 19.6 33.9 23.2

 Part-time commercial 403 1.0 9.7 11.7 21.6 32.3 23.8

 Recreational expense 210 0.5 6.2 19.5 23.3 31.9 18.6

 Purely recreational 86 0.0 12.8 10.5 23.3 26.7 26.7

 Subsistence 27 0.0 0.0 14.8 11.1 51.9 22.2

 Cultural 8 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 521 0.6 9.2 15.4 21.3 32.8 20.7

 Pelagic handline 91 2.2 12.1 13.2 19.8 37.4 15.4

 Bottomfish handline 126 0.0 3.2 10.3 19.8 29.4 37.3

 Spear 10 0.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 10.0 10.0

 Nets 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 18.2 18.2 36.4

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 738 0.7 9.2 15.0 22.1 32.1 20.9

 Handline pelagic 292 1.4 9.6 16.8 22.3 33.6 16.4

 Bottomfish 379 0.3 7.1 12.1 21.9 32.5 26.1

 Coral reef 148 0.7 10.1 18.9 26.4 26.4 17.6

Table B4.--Survey Responses: “What was your total household income, before taxes, in 2013, 

including fishing income?” (percentage of responses)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Less than 

$10,000

(%)

$10,000 - $24,999

(%)

$25,000 - $49,999

(%)

$50,000 - $99,999

(%)

$100,000 

or more

(%)

All Respondents 762 2.8 8.8 19.0 40.3 29.1

By County

 Oahu 275 1.8 6.9 15.3 41.1 34.9

 Hawaii 277 4.0 13.0 22.4 38.3 22.4

 Maui 117 0.9 7.7 20.5 38.5 32.5

 Kauai 88 4.5 3.4 19.3 48.9 23.9

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 3.7 13.0 31.5 33.3 18.5

 Part-time commercial 387 3.4 10.3 19.6 39.5 27.1

 Recreational expense 202 1.5 7.4 14.9 43.1 33.2

 Purely recreational 81 3.7 3.7 14.8 35.8 42.0

 Subsistence 25 0.0 8.0 28.0 60.0 4.0

 Cultural 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 494 2.0 7.5 17.6 40.9 32.0

 Pelagic handline 86 5.8 18.6 24.4 36.0 15.1

 Bottomfish handline 123 3.3 4.9 18.7 40.7 32.5

 Spear 10 10.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 10.0

 Nets 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 27.3 9.1

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 706 2.8 8.5 18.1 40.9 29.6

 Handline pelagic 282 3.2 13.1 22.0 38.3 23.4

 Bottomfish 361 3.0 9.1 16.6 41.0 30.2

 Coral reef 146 1.4 8.2 15.1 45.2 30.1
74

Table B5.--Survey Responses: “What is the highest level of education you have completed?”

(percentage of responses)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Less than High 

School Graduate 

(%)

High School 

Graduate 

(%)

Some College 

or Associate's 

Degree 

(%)

Bachelor's 

Degree or 

Higher

(%)

All Respondents 795 4.7 25.5 46.3 23.5

By County

 Oahu 287 3.8 24.0 40.4 31.7

 Hawaii 287 5.6 29.6 42.5 22.3

 Maui 122 4.9 21.3 59.8 13.9

 Kauai 93 4.3 23.7 58.1 14.0

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 55 7.3 40.0 45.5 7.3

 Part-time commercial 402 6.5 27.1 45.3 21.1

 Recreational expense 210 2.4 17.6 51.9 28.1

 Purely recreational 86 2.3 26.7 36.0 34.9

 Subsistence 27 0.0 25.9 59.3 14.8

 Cultural 8 0.0 50.0 12.5 37.5

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 521 4.6 23.6 47.8 24.0

 Pelagic handline 91 7.7 38.5 38.5 15.4

 Bottomfish handline 124 3.2 21.8 45.2 29.8

 Spear 10 10.0 50.0 40.0 0.0

 Nets 11 9.1 27.3 45.5 18.2

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 737 4.2 25.1 46.3 24.4

 Handline pelagic 292 4.5 31.2 45.2 19.2

 Bottomfish 377 2.9 22.0 49.6 25.5

 Coral reef 148 2.7 20.9 46.6 29.7

Table B6.--Survey Responses: “Do you own the boat that you fish on?”(percentage of responses)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Yes

(%)

No

(%)

All Respondents 804 95.3 4.7

By County

 Oahu 292 95.2 4.8

 Hawaii 288 94.1 5.9

 Maui 124 98.4 1.6

 Kauai 94 94.7 5.3

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 56 96.4 3.6

 Part-time commercial 406 94.6 5.4

 Recreational expense 213 96.2 3.8

 Purely recreational 86 94.2 5.8

 Subsistence 27 100.0 0.0

 Cultural 8 87.5 12.5

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 526 94.9 5.1

 Pelagic handline 91 94.5 5.5

 Bottomfish handline 128 96.1 3.9

 Spear 10 100.0 0.0

 Nets 11 100.0 0.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 744 95.0 5.0

 Handline pelagic 293 95.2 4.8

 Bottomfish 381 95.8 4.2

 Coral reef 151 96.7 3.3
75

Table B7.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of time did other people 

used boat without you?” (percentage of responses)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25%

(%)

26%-50%

(%)

51%-75%

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

All Respondents 762 90.8 7.0 1.0 0.8 0.4

By County

 Oahu 275 92.7 5.5 0.7 0.4 0.7

 Hawaii 271 89.3 8.1 1.1 1.1 0.4

 Maui 121 92.6 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0

 Kauai 89 86.5 11.2 0.0 2.2 0.0

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Part-time commercial 383 89.3 8.6 1.0 0.8 0.3

 Recreational expense 204 90.7 6.9 0.5 1.0 1.0

 Purely recreational 81 91.4 6.2 1.2 1.2 0.0

 Subsistence 27 92.6 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0

 Cultural 7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 497 90.3 7.6 0.8 0.6 0.6

 Pelagic handline 86 87.2 8.1 2.3 2.3 0.0

 Bottomfish handline 122 95.9 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.0

 Spear 10 80.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

 Nets 11 81.8 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 703 91.0 6.8 0.9 0.9 0.4

 Handline pelagic 279 89.6 7.5 1.4 1.4 0.0

 Bottomfish 363 91.5 6.6 0.8 0.8 0.3

 Coral reef 145 87.6 9.7 2.1 0.7 0.0

Table B8.--Survey Responses: “What is the length of your boat?” (percentage of responses and 

mean)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

< 16 feet

(%)

16 - 24 feet

(%)

25 - 30 feet

(%)

> 30 feet

(%)

Mean

(feet)

All Respondents 762 3.5 65.1 22.6 8.8 22.9

By County

 Oahu 276 2.9 63.0 21.4 12.7 24.1

 Hawaii 270 5.6 74.1 17.4 3.0 21.1

 Maui 121 0.0 56.2 36.4 7.4 23.9

 Kauai 89 4.5 59.6 20.2 15.7 23.5

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 3.7 38.9 35.2 22.2 25.4

 Part-time commercial 381 3.4 65.9 24.4 6.3 22.5

 Recreational expense 204 2.5 72.1 18.1 7.4 22.7

 Purely recreational 81 4.9 58.0 23.5 13.6 24.1

 Subsistence 27 7.4 81.5 3.7 7.4 20.6

 Cultural 7 14.3 42.9 14.3 28.6 23.9

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 496 2.2 62.1 25.0 10.7 23.7

 Pelagic handline 86 3.5 79.1 15.1 2.3 20.9

 Bottomfish handline 122 3.3 63.9 24.6 8.2 22.8

 Spear 10 20.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 18.7

 Nets 11 18.2 81.8 0.0 0.0 18.4

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 703 3.3 65.0 22.8 9.0 23.1

 Handline pelagic 279 3.9 67.7 21.5 6.8 22.2

 Bottomfish 364 3.3 67.0 20.6 9.1 22.8

 Coral reef 146 7.5 71.9 13.0 7.5 21.7
76

Table B9.--Vessel characteristics by county (mean, standard error, and median). All 

Respondents Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Boat length

(feet)

Number of 

respondents (n) 762 276 270 121 89

Mean 22.9 24.1 21.1 23.9 23.5

Standard error 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7

Median 22.0 23.0 20.0 24.0 22.0

Boat

horsepower

Number of 

respondents (n) 751 272 265 121 87

Mean 216.2 241.0 174.5 233.5 232.4

Standard error 6.7 14.2 6.7 13.6 21.2

Median 180.0 200.0 140.0 200.0 180.0

Age of boat

(years)

Number of 

respondents (n) 711 258 250 115 83

Mean 22.8 23.8 23.2 20.2 22.3

Standard error 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.3

Median 22.0 24.0 23.0 18.0 19.0

Current boat

ownership

Number of 

respondents (n) 729 265 256 118 85

(years) Mean 11.7 13.3 11.3 9.9 10.4

Standard error 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.1

Median 9.0 10.0 8.5 7.0 6.0

Boat purchase

price ($)

Number of 

respondents (n) 717 263 250 115 83

Mean 39,661 46,584 26,883 47,815 42,412

Standard error 1,813 3,849 1,748 4,597 4,217

Median 26,000 34,000 18,000 38,000 30,000

Boat current

market value

Number of 

respondents (n) 700 259 243 109 83

($) Mean 43,039 48,173 32,654 45,232 52,898

Standard error 1,931 4,058 1,898 4,135 6,176

Median 30,000 35,000 24,000 30,000 35,000
77

Table B10.--Vessel characteristics by fisherman type (mean, standard error, and median). All 

Respondents

Full-time 

commercial

Part-time 

commercial

Recreational 

expense

Purely 

recreational Subsistence Cultural

Boat length

(feet)

Number of 

respondents (n) 762 54 381 204 81 27 7

Mean 22.9 25.4 22.5 22.7 24.1 20.6 23.9

Standard error 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.0 2.5

Median 22.0 25.0 22.0 22.0 23.0 19.0 21.0

Boat

horsepower

Number of 

respondents (n) 751 54 373 203 80 26 7

Mean 216.2 274.8 204.4 203.6 286.4 124.3 206.4

Standard error 6.7 26.9 7.5 9.5 39.4 18.3 42.5

Median 180.0 220.0 180.0 180.0 200.0 105.0 200.0

Age of boat

(years)

Number of 

respondents (n) 711 52 347 196 76 26 7

Mean 22.8 25.6 24.1 20.6 21.4 21.7 21.9

Standard error 0.5 2.2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.8 5.6

Median 22.0 26.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 20.5 15.0

Current boat

ownership

Number of 

respondents (n) 729 49 364 197 78 27 7

(years) Mean 11.7 15.9 12.3 10.2 9.8 13.1 11.3

Standard error 0.4 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 2.4 3.6

Median 9.0 14.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 8.0

Boat purchase

price ($)

Number of 

respondents (n) 717 48 367 190 74 26 6

Mean 39,661 57,829 36,158 37,927 55,166 21,427 34,167

Standard error 1,813 9,054 2,098 2,599 10,585 3,243 8,360

Median 26,000 40,000 25,000 27,750 30,000 16,250 41,000

Boat current

market value

Number of 

respondents (n) 700 48 350 189 74 25 7

($) Mean 43,039 63,104 40,337 40,513 58,662 20,232 28,357

Standard error 1,931 7,936 2,279 2,616 11,685 3,130 8,104

Median 30,000 45,000 29,000 30,000 29,500 12,000 25,000
78

Table B11.--Vessel characteristics by most common gear (mean, standard error, and median). All 

Respondents Troll

Pelagic 

handline

Bottomfish 

handline Spear Nets

Boat length (feet)Number of 

respondents (n) 762 496 86 122 10 11

Mean 22.9 23.7 20.9 22.8 18.7 18.4

Standard error 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.8

Median 22.0 23.0 20.0 22.0 19.5 18.5

Boat horsepower Number of 

respondents (n) 751 486 85 122 10 11

Mean 216.2 234.6 172.2 211.8 124.4 95.3

Standard error 6.7 9.3 12.6 12.6 27.7 21.1

Median 180.0 200.0 140.0 200.0 120.0 60.0

Age of boat

(years)

Number of 

respondents (n) 711 467 80 116 9 8

Mean 22.8 21.5 24.9 25.3 20.4 38.0

Standard error 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.1 5.5 7.0

Median 22.0 21.0 24.5 26.0 17.0 35.5

Current boat

ownership

Number of 

respondents (n) 729 477 84 117 10 8

(years) Mean 11.7 10.3 13.7 15.2 7.5 17.3

Standard error 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.0 1.2 5.8

Median 9.0 8.0 11.5 13.0 6.5 12.0

Boat purchase

price ($)

Number of 

respondents (n) 717 464 83 117 10 10

Mean 39,661 44,977 24,135 39,141 18,940 8,680

Standard error 1,813 2,467 2,819 4,297 5,128 2,081

Median 26,000 30,000 16,000 25,000 15,500 6,650

Boat current

market value ($)

Number of

respondents (n) 700 456 75 113 10 11

Mean 43,039 48,959 30,860 38,432 18,900 11,182

Standard error 1,931 2,678 3,581 3,801 5,766 4,445

Median 30,000 35,000 20,000 30,000 14,500 5,000
79

Table B12.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your BOAT fishing trips 

were: Trolling?” (percentage of responses and mean)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25% 

(%)

26%-50% 

(%)

51%-75% 

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of trips 

(Mean)

All Respondents 789 7.0 17.4 25.2 14.1 36.4 58.2

By County

 Oahu 288 8.0 13.9 21.5 13.9 42.7 62.9

 Hawaii 282 3.2 20.9 29.1 14.5 32.3 56.3

 Maui 121 14.9 20.7 27.3 8.3 28.9 47.8

 Kauai 92 5.4 13.0 23.9 21.7 35.9 61.4

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 22.2 25.9 14.8 18.5 18.5 38.1

 Part-time commercial 397 8.3 19.9 25.2 15.6 31.0 54.2

 Recreational expense 210 1.4 12.9 30.5 12.4 42.9 65.6

 Purely recreational 86 3.5 8.1 18.6 9.3 60.5 74.7

 Subsistence 27 11.1 25.9 18.5 11.1 33.3 53.2

 Cultural 8 12.5 12.5 37.5 12.5 25.0 46.2

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 0.0 1.2 22.0 21.4 55.4 77.4

 Pelagic handline 92 12.0 44.6 43.5 0.0 0.0 26.3

 Bottomfish handline 126 19.8 54.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 20.5

 Spear 9 33.3 44.4 22.2 0.0 0.0 15.6

 Nets 10 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 734 0.0 18.7 27.1 15.1 39.1 62.5

 Handline pelagic 292 5.8 25.3 37.3 18.5 13.0 43.2

 Bottomfish 376 7.7 26.3 33.5 17.8 14.6 43.3

 Coral reef 148 12.2 31.8 26.4 13.5 16.2 37.9

Table B13.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your BOAT fishing trips 

were: Handline for pelagic species?” (percentage of responses and mean)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25% 

(%)

26%-50% 

(%)

51%-75% 

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of trips 

(Mean)

All Respondents 789 63.1 15.2 15.0 4.4 2.3 13.7

By County

 Oahu 288 84.7 8.7 4.2 1.0 1.4 5.3

 Hawaii 282 39.7 18.4 28.0 9.6 4.3 24.9

 Maui 121 66.1 16.5 14.9 0.8 1.7 10.6

 Kauai 92 62.0 25.0 9.8 3.3 0.0 9.7

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 42.6 24.1 14.8 7.4 11.1 23.0

 Part-time commercial 397 56.7 16.1 18.9 6.0 2.3 16.7

 Recreational expense 210 68.6 15.7 11.9 2.9 1.0 10.4

 Purely recreational 86 89.5 2.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 3.9

 Subsistence 27 70.4 18.5 7.4 0.0 3.7 9.4

 Cultural 8 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 0.0 20.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 70.1 17.4 12.5 0.0 0.0 8.0

 Pelagic handline 92 0.0 2.2 40.2 38.0 19.6 61.7

 Bottomfish handline 126 73.0 15.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 6.3

 Spear 9 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2

 Nets 10 70.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 734 62.5 16.1 15.4 4.6 1.4 13.2

 Handline pelagic 292 0.3 41.1 40.4 12.0 6.2 36.9

 Bottomfish 376 61.7 21.0 13.0 3.2 1.1 10.7

 Coral reef 148 57.4 25.7 11.5 4.7 0.7 11.0
80

Table B14.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your BOAT fishing trips 

were: Handline for bottomfish species?” (percentage of responses and mean). Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25% 

(%)

26%-50% 

(%)

51%-75% 

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of trips 

(Mean)

All Respondents 789 55.4 19.3 13.8 6.5 5.1 18.1

By County

 Oahu 288 54.2 19.4 15.6 5.6 5.2 19.0

 Hawaii 282 64.5 19.1 9.6 5.7 1.1 11.4

 Maui 121 43.0 9.9 18.2 12.4 16.5 32.8

 Kauai 92 44.6 32.6 16.3 4.3 2.2 17.3

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 40.7 29.6 11.1 7.4 11.1 23.8

 Part-time commercial 397 55.4 18.4 14.4 5.3 6.5 18.6

 Recreational expense 210 55.2 22.9 14.8 5.7 1.4 15.6

 Purely recreational 86 67.4 8.1 14.0 8.1 2.3 14.9

 Subsistence 27 44.4 22.2 7.4 18.5 7.4 27.6

 Cultural 8 62.5 25.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 10.6

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 65.1 22.4 12.5 0.0 0.0 9.1

 Pelagic handline 92 64.1 26.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 7.2

 Bottomfish handline 126 0.0 2.4 25.4 40.5 31.7 68.7

 Spear 9 66.7 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 6.7

 Nets 10 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 734 55.9 20.6 14.0 6.8 2.7 16.3

 Handline pelagic 292 51.4 29.8 12.3 5.1 1.4 13.4

 Bottomfish 376 6.4 40.4 29.0 13.6 10.6 37.9

 Coral reef 148 52.0 23.6 12.8 7.4 4.1 16.1

Table B15.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your BOAT fishing trips 

were: Spearfishing?” (percentage of responses and mean). Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25% 

(%)

26%-50% 

(%)

51%-75% 

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of trips 

(Mean)

All Respondents 789 86.9 10.0 2.4 0.1 0.5 3.0

By County

 Oahu 288 84.7 10.4 3.1 0.3 1.4 4.4

 Hawaii 282 88.7 9.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.9

 Maui 121 84.3 13.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.8

 Kauai 92 91.3 6.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.2

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 85.2 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6

 Part-time commercial 397 84.4 12.1 3.0 0.3 0.3 3.3

 Recreational expense 210 89.5 6.7 2.9 0.0 1.0 3.2

 Purely recreational 86 95.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

 Subsistence 27 85.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 5.7

 Cultural 8 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 90.0 8.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0

 Pelagic handline 92 85.9 10.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.8

 Bottomfish handline 126 84.1 15.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.3

 Spear 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 11.1 44.4 62.3

 Nets 10 70.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 6.3

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 734 87.3 10.1 2.3 0.0 0.3 2.6

 Handline pelagic 292 82.2 14.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1

 Bottomfish 376 85.9 11.7 1.9 0.0 0.5 2.6

 Coral reef 148 39.2 46.6 11.5 0.7 2.0 13.3
81

Table B16.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your BOAT fishing trips 

were: Nets?” (percentage of responses and mean). Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25% 

(%)

26%-50% 

(%)

51%-75% 

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of trips 

(Mean)

All Respondents 789 94.4 3.4 1.1 0.4 0.6 1.7

By County

 Oahu 288 94.8 2.4 1.7 0.7 0.3 1.9

 Hawaii 282 94.0 3.9 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.9

 Maui 121 93.4 5.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.2

 Kauai 92 95.7 2.2 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.6

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 54 83.3 5.6 3.7 0.0 7.4 8.8

 Part-time commercial 397 94.5 3.5 1.3 0.5 0.3 1.5

 Recreational expense 210 97.1 2.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5

 Purely recreational 86 97.7 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7

 Subsistence 27 92.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

 Cultural 8 75.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 6.9

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 95.9 3.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7

 Pelagic handline 92 94.6 4.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.8

 Bottomfish handline 126 98.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

 Spear 9 77.8 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

 Nets 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 75.9

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 734 95.0 3.5 1.0 0.4 0.1 1.2

 Handline pelagic 292 92.1 6.2 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.5

 Bottomfish 376 94.9 4.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.9

 Coral reef 148 77.7 12.8 4.7 2.0 2.7 7.2

Table B17.--Average number of BOAT fishing trips by gear type (exclude 0).

Troll

(Mean)

Pelagic

handline

(Mean)

Bottomfish 

handline

(Mean)

Spear

(Mean)

Nets

(Mean)

All Respondents 21.1 18.8 14.6 9.9 24.5

By County

 Oahu 20.6 15.0 13.2 10.5 20.2

 Hawaii 21.8 22.4 14.1 10.1 42.6

 Maui 15.8 13.3 16.8 5.8 3.9

 Kauai 26.1 10.7 16.3 15.6 4.9

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 44.4 43.4 29.7 14.8 82.2

 Part-time commercial 22.1 20.2 15.5 9.3 11.8

 Recreational expense 18.5 7.6 9.6 11.0 8.7

 Purely recreational 15.3 8.2 10.2 2.2 3.6

 Subsistence 15.4 11.1 14.4 13.5 1.4

 Cultural 8.9 5.0 3.4 1.5 3.3

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 25.7 13.1 8.7 7.4 6.3

 Pelagic handline 12.4 32.8 13.1 14.7 8.1

 Bottomfish handline 8.3 11.0 24.0 7.6 4.0

 Spear 9.2 2.9 10.2 22.8 5.9

 Nets 8.5 7.0 2.5 15.8 86.9

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 21.1 17.2 13.4 9.8 12.1

 Handline pelagic 20.9 18.8 15.0 9.1 13.4

 Bottomfish 17.0 14.8 14.6 9.4 5.8

 Coral reef 18.5 16.2 16.2 9.9 27.5
82

Table B18.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, did you use a green-stick as one of the 

gear types?” (percentage of responses). Number of 

respondents

(n)

Yes

(%)

No

(%)

All Respondents 798 8.0 92.0

By County

 Oahu 291 7.6 92.4

 Hawaii 288 6.6 93.4

 Maui 122 4.1 95.9

 Kauai 91 17.6 82.4

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 56 12.5 87.5

 Part-time commercial 404 9.2 90.8

 Recreational expense 211 7.1 92.9

 Purely recreational 84 4.8 95.2

 Subsistence 27 3.7 96.3

 Cultural 8 0.0 100.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 521 8.4 91.6

 Pelagic handline 93 7.5 92.5

 Bottomfish handline 127 9.4 90.6

 Spear 9 0.0 100.0

 Nets 10 10.0 90.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 740 8.5 91.5

 Handline pelagic 292 10.6 89.4

 Bottomfish 378 9.5 90.5

 Coral reef 150 4.7 95.3

Table B19.--Survey Responses: “If you went spearfishing in the past 12 months, what percent of 

the time did you use scuba gear?” (percentage of responses and mean).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25%

(%)

26%-50%

(%)

51%-75%

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of trips 

(Mean, 

exclude 0)

All Respondents 122 73.0 8.2 4.1 4.1 10.7 59.8

By County

 Oahu 49 55.1 12.2 8.2 6.1 18.4 61.3

 Hawaii 38 84.2 7.9 0.0 5.3 2.6 47.8

 Maui 26 84.6 3.8 3.8 0.0 7.7 62.5

 Kauai 9 88.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.0

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 12 66.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 59.3

 Part-time commercial 60 71.7 6.7 1.7 1.7 18.3 71.4

 Recreational expense 34 73.5 11.8 5.9 8.8 0.0 40.0

 Purely recreational 8 75.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 56.0

 Subsistence 5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Cultural n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 69 75.4 10.1 5.8 2.9 5.8 48.4

 Pelagic handline 15 80.0 6.7 0.0 6.7 6.7 54.0

 Bottomfish handline 24 79.2 8.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 65.2

 Spear 6 50.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 70.7

 Nets n.d. n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 114 75.4 8.8 4.4 3.5 7.9 54.0

 Handline pelagic 53 75.5 11.3 3.8 1.9 7.5 48.0

 Bottomfish 63 74.6 11.1 3.2 3.2 7.9 49.9

 Coral reef 76 60.5 10.5 6.6 6.6 15.8 62.0

Note: n.d. = non-disclosure due to confidentiality concern because number of respondents is less than 3.
83

Table B20.--Survey Responses: “Approximately how many NON-BOAT fishing trips did you 

take in the past 12 months?” (percentage of responses and mean).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

0 trip

(%)

Fewer than 

25 trips

(%)

25-49 trips

(%)

50-99 trips

(%)

100-200 

trips

(%)

Number of 

trips 

(Mean, 

exclude 0)

All Respondents 777 64.5 31.1 3.0 1.3 0.1 16.8

By County

 Oahu 281 66.9 29.2 2.5 1.1 0.4 17.3

 Hawaii 282 66.7 31.2 1.1 1.1 0.0 14.8

 Maui 118 52.5 39.8 6.8 0.8 0.0 16.6

 Kauai 90 65.6 25.6 5.6 3.3 0.0 22.0

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 52 63.5 25.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 27.8

 Part-time commercial 393 69.2 26.7 3.1 1.0 0.0 16.5

 Recreational expense 205 56.1 40.0 2.4 1.0 0.5 16.3

 Purely recreational 84 66.7 31.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 13.7

 Subsistence 27 59.3 33.3 7.4 0.0 0.0 16.4

 Cultural 8 25.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 504 66.1 30.4 2.6 1.0 0.0 15.7

 Pelagic handline 92 66.3 29.3 2.2 2.2 0.0 17.6

 Bottomfish handline 124 60.5 33.9 2.4 2.4 0.8 20.1

 Spear 9 55.6 22.2 22.2 0.0 0.0 24.0

 Nets 10 60.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 722 63.4 32.0 3.0 1.4 0.1 16.9

 Handline pelagic 289 57.8 36.0 3.8 2.4 0.0 17.8

 Bottomfish 371 59.8 33.7 3.8 2.4 0.3 19.0

 Coral reef 146 34.9 52.1 8.9 4.1 0.0 19.3

Table B21.--Gear usage in NON-BOAT fishing trips in the past 12 months (percentage of 

responses). Number of 

respondents

(n)

Rod and reel

(%)

Spear

(%)

Cast/throw net

(%)

Other

(%)

All Respondents 295 84.7 43.4 23.4 5.1

By County

 Oahu 101 86.1 40.6 14.9 6.9

 Hawaii 98 81.6 40.8 28.6 4.1

 Maui 60 86.7 53.3 21.7 5.0

 Kauai 34 88.2 44.1 35.3 2.9

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 24 79.2 54.2 37.5 8.3

 Part-time commercial 131 84.0 47.3 26.7 5.3

 Recreational expense 93 86.0 38.7 17.2 2.2

 Purely recreational 29 89.7 24.1 0.0 3.4

 Subsistence 11 81.8 45.5 27.3 0.0

 Cultural 6 83.3 66.7 83.3 33.3

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 188 84.6 37.8 22.9 4.3

 Pelagic handline 31 87.1 54.8 29.0 0.0

 Bottomfish handline 52 82.7 53.8 19.2 7.7

 Spear 4 100.0 100.0 50.0 0.0

 Nets 4 75.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 280 85.7 43.9 23.9 4.3

 Handline pelagic 125 86.4 50.4 35.2 3.2

 Bottomfish 155 85.2 46.5 26.5 5.2

 Coral reef 97 83.5 71.1 34.0 8.2
84

Table B22.--Average number of NON-BOAT fishing trips by gear type (exclude 0). Rod and reel

(Mean)

Spear

(Mean)

Cast/throw net

(Mean)

Other

(Mean)

All Respondents 12.0 8.7 9.0 7.6

By County

 Oahu 13.7 8.2 10.8 6.0

 Hawaii 10.0 9.2 7.4 11.3

 Maui 10.5 9.2 7.9 6.8

 Kauai 15.5 7.2 11.0 8.0

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 13.8 14.0 14.9 18.8

 Part-time commercial 10.8 8.6 9.2 5.7

 Recreational expense 13.3 8.3 7.4 10.0

 Purely recreational 13.0 5.7 0.0 12.0

 Subsistence 13.3 7.9 6.8 0.0

 Cultural 5.9 4.0 3.4 4.5

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 11.9 8.6 7.7 7.6

 Pelagic handline 11.2 9.3 9.3 0.0

 Bottomfish handline 13.0 8.9 16.7 9.8

 Spear 7.3 14.0 5.3 0.0

 Nets 5.8 3.5 4.3 3.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 12.0 8.7 9.1 7.8

 Handline pelagic 10.6 10.0 8.4 10.7

 Bottomfish 12.8 9.8 10.9 7.6

 Coral reef 10.1 10.2 8.1 6.3

Table B23.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, during what percent of your fishing trips 

did you fish at Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs)?” (percentage of responses and mean).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

0%

(%)

1%-25%

(%)

26%-50%

(%)

51%-75%

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage 

of trips at 

FADs 

(Mean, 

exclude 0)

All Respondents 796 20.0 31.8 20.1 17.7 10.4 39.5

By County

 Oahu 289 20.4 39.4 17.0 15.2 8.0 34.7

 Hawaii 287 17.8 28.9 22.0 20.9 10.5 41.3

 Maui 121 28.9 18.2 15.7 18.2 19.0 50.9

 Kauai 93 14.0 33.3 31.2 15.1 6.5 35.9

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 56 30.4 30.4 17.9 12.5 8.9 37.4

 Part-time commercial 403 19.9 31.5 21.6 18.4 8.7 38.7

 Recreational expense 210 14.3 31.4 20.5 20.0 13.8 42.1

 Purely recreational 84 22.6 34.5 17.9 13.1 11.9 38.2

 Subsistence 27 44.4 18.5 11.1 14.8 11.1 45.7

 Cultural 8 0.0 62.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 31.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 518 11.0 32.4 23.4 20.5 12.7 41.2

 Pelagic handline 93 17.2 20.4 23.7 28.0 10.8 46.2

 Bottomfish handline 127 44.1 37.0 12.6 3.1 3.1 25.0

 Spear 9 55.6 33.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 31.0

 Nets 11 36.4 45.5 9.1 9.1 0.0 22.9

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 737 15.3 33.4 21.6 18.6 11.1 39.6

 Handline pelagic 292 14.7 27.7 24.7 21.2 11.6 42.3

 Bottomfish 377 22.3 35.3 20.2 15.1 7.2 35.5

 Coral reef 151 23.8 35.1 14.6 15.9 10.6 38.0
85

Table B24.--Survey Responses: “How many people in total, including yourself, are on board for 

an average trip?” (percentage of responses and mean).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

One

(%)

Two

(%)

Three

(%)

Four

(%)

Five or 

more

(%)

Number of 

people 

(Mean)

All Respondents 755 20.4 47.2 24.8 6.1 1.6 2.2

By County

 Oahu 274 14.2 47.4 29.9 7.3 1.1 2.3

 Hawaii 271 25.8 47.6 18.8 6.3 1.5 2.1

 Maui 115 14.8 48.7 31.3 4.3 0.9 2.3

 Kauai 89 29.2 44.9 19.1 3.4 3.4 2.1

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 52 55.8 34.6 7.7 0.0 1.9 1.6

 Part-time commercial 374 22.7 48.4 20.6 6.4 1.9 2.2

 Recreational expense 204 11.8 51.5 29.9 6.4 0.5 2.3

 Purely recreational 86 9.3 36.0 43.0 8.1 3.5 2.6

 Subsistence 23 17.4 69.6 13.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

 Cultural 8 37.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 0.0 2.3

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 499 13.6 45.9 31.1 7.6 1.8 2.4

 Pelagic handline 87 27.6 55.2 12.6 2.3 2.3 2.0

 Bottomfish handline 117 35.9 47.9 11.1 4.3 0.9 1.9

 Spear 7 28.6 42.9 28.6 0.0 0.0 2.0

 Nets 10 60.0 30.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.5

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 703 18.5 47.4 26.0 6.4 1.7 2.3

 Handline pelagic 274 24.5 49.3 21.5 4.0 0.7 2.1

 Bottomfish 355 24.8 49.0 20.6 4.2 1.4 2.1

 Coral reef 145 26.2 38.6 24.1 8.3 2.8 2.2

Table B25.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, approximately how many total pounds of 

pelagic, bottomfish, and reef fish did you catch?” (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

None

(%)

1-50 

pounds

(%)

51-100 

pounds

(%)

101-500 

pounds

(%)

501-1,000 

pounds

(%)

More than 

1,000 

pounds

(%)

All Respondents 805 1.9 3.9 5.2 27.7 24.0 37.4

By County

 Oahu 292 3.1 3.8 5.1 27.7 24.0 36.3

 Hawaii 290 1.0 4.5 4.5 29.7 23.8 36.6

 Maui 123 0.8 4.1 5.7 26.8 22.8 39.8

 Kauai 94 2.1 2.1 6.4 23.4 26.6 39.4

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 0.0 3.5 0.0 10.5 1.8 84.2

 Part-time commercial 407 2.2 3.7 5.2 21.4 23.8 43.7

 Recreational expense 212 0.9 3.3 6.6 34.9 27.8 26.4

 Purely recreational 86 3.5 5.8 3.5 51.2 23.3 12.8

 Subsistence 27 3.7 0.0 14.8 25.9 40.7 14.8

 Cultural 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 526 1.5 2.7 6.3 30.8 26.6 32.1

 Pelagic handline 93 2.2 4.3 2.2 20.4 15.1 55.9

 Bottomfish handline 128 0.0 3.9 3.9 22.7 22.7 46.9

 Spear 9 11.1 0.0 11.1 33.3 11.1 33.3

 Nets 11 0.0 9.1 0.0 27.3 9.1 54.5

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 746 1.1 3.6 5.5 27.9 25.1 36.9

 Handline pelagic 295 0.7 2.7 3.4 22.4 22.0 48.8

 Bottomfish 381 0.0 2.9 4.2 25.5 21.8 45.7

 Coral reef 151 0.0 2.6 4.0 20.5 19.2 53.6
86

Table B26.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, approximately how many total pounds of 

pelagic fish did you catch?” (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

None

(%)

1-50 

pounds

(%)

51-100 

pounds

(%)

101-500 

pounds

(%)

501-1,000 

pounds

(%)

More than

1,000 

pounds

(%)

All Respondents 802 7.0 5.9 7.1 29.4 26.6 24.1

By County

 Oahu 291 9.3 5.5 6.2 30.6 28.5 19.9

 Hawaii 289 2.4 5.2 7.3 31.5 25.6 28.0

 Maui 123 13.8 10.6 8.9 23.6 22.0 21.1

 Kauai 93 5.4 3.2 6.5 28.0 30.1 26.9

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 7.0 7.0 3.5 21.1 5.3 56.1

 Part-time commercial 404 8.9 5.0 7.4 22.0 27.7 29.0

 Recreational expense 212 2.8 5.7 7.1 39.2 28.8 16.5

 Purely recreational 86 8.1 5.8 7.0 46.5 27.9 4.7

 Subsistence 27 11.1 11.1 14.8 22.2 33.3 7.4

 Cultural 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 37.5 25.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 525 1.7 3.2 7.0 31.8 30.9 25.3

 Pelagic handline 93 4.3 4.3 4.3 23.7 23.7 39.8

 Bottomfish handline 127 16.5 14.2 11.0 27.6 15.7 15.0

 Spear 9 33.3 0.0 11.1 22.2 33.3 0.0

 Nets 11 45.5 9.1 9.1 9.1 0.0 27.3

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 744 2.4 5.9 7.5 31.0 28.2 24.9

 Handline pelagic 295 2.0 3.7 6.1 26.4 25.1 36.6

 Bottomfish 379 7.7 6.6 7.7 29.0 25.1 24.0

 Coral reef 150 14.7 4.0 4.7 22.7 28.0 26.0

Table B27.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, approximately how many total pounds of 

bottomfish did you catch?” (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

None

(%)

1-50 

pounds

(%)

51-100 

pounds

(%)

101-500 

pounds

(%)

501-1,000 

pounds

(%)

More than 

1,000 

pounds

(%)

All Respondents 800 49.0 16.3 8.9 13.9 6.9 5.1

By County

 Oahu 291 49.1 15.5 8.2 14.8 7.9 4.5

 Hawaii 288 56.6 18.4 7.6 10.1 4.9 2.4

 Maui 122 36.1 11.5 9.8 21.3 9.8 11.5

 Kauai 94 39.4 19.1 13.8 13.8 6.4 7.4

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 26.3 12.3 7.0 10.5 15.8 28.1

 Part-time commercial 403 51.1 14.4 6.9 13.4 8.7 5.5

 Recreational expense 211 48.3 19.9 12.3 14.2 3.8 1.4

 Purely recreational 86 62.8 12.8 10.5 12.8 1.2 0.0

 Subsistence 27 33.3 25.9 11.1 25.9 3.7 0.0

 Cultural 8 37.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 0.0 0.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 522 59.0 16.3 8.4 10.3 3.8 2.1

 Pelagic handline 93 54.8 20.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.4

 Bottomfish handline 127 3.9 11.0 12.6 33.9 19.7 18.9

 Spear 9 44.4 33.3 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0

 Nets 11 63.6 9.1 18.2 0.0 0.0 9.1

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 741 49.7 16.2 9.0 13.6 6.6 4.9

 Handline pelagic 295 46.1 19.3 8.8 12.2 7.5 6.1

 Bottomfish 379 11.6 24.0 15.6 24.8 13.5 10.6

 Coral reef 151 35.8 20.5 10.6 13.9 12.6 6.6
87

Table B28.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, approximately how many total pounds of 

reef fish did you catch?” (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

None

(%)

1-50 

pounds

(%)

51-100 

pounds

(%)

101-500 

pounds

(%)

501-1,000 

pounds

(%)

More than 

1,000 

pounds

(%)

All Respondents 801 50.2 20.2 8.9 12.5 4.7 3.5

By County

 Oahu 292 49.0 19.5 10.6 10.6 6.2 4.1

 Hawaii 289 57.8 19.7 6.2 9.3 4.2 2.8

 Maui 123 39.8 24.4 10.6 20.3 4.1 0.8

 Kauai 92 42.4 19.6 9.8 17.4 3.3 7.6

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 35.1 7.0 8.8 15.8 15.8 17.5

 Part-time commercial 404 51.7 17.8 9.7 11.4 5.7 3.7

 Recreational expense 211 47.4 26.5 8.1 14.2 2.4 1.4

 Purely recreational 86 62.8 20.9 8.1 8.1 0.0 0.0

 Subsistence 27 51.9 29.6 3.7 11.1 3.7 0.0

 Cultural 8 12.5 50.0 12.5 25.0 0.0 0.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 524 59.5 20.8 8.6 8.4 2.3 0.4

 Pelagic handline 93 41.9 21.5 4.3 15.1 12.9 4.3

 Bottomfish handline 127 27.6 20.5 13.4 23.6 7.1 7.9

 Spear 9 11.1 22.2 22.2 22.2 0.0 22.2

 Nets 11 18.2 9.1 0.0 27.3 9.1 36.4

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 742 51.1 21.2 9.0 12.1 4.4 2.2

 Handline pelagic 294 44.6 21.4 7.1 15.6 7.8 3.4

 Bottomfish 378 31.0 25.9 13.5 19.8 6.3 3.4

 Coral reef 151 0.0 29.1 18.5 25.2 15.9 11.3

Table B29.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, how were the catches distributed?”

(percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

I kept all the 

fish I caught

(%)

I kept/

received some 

% of total fish 

caught

(%)

I kept/ 

received 

some % of 

trip revenue

(%)

Don’t know/

different 

every time

(%)

Other

(%)

All Respondents 706 24.9 23.8 6.4 43.9 1.0

By County

 Oahu 263 27.4 22.8 3.8 44.1 1.9

 Hawaii 250 25.2 26.0 4.4 43.6 0.8

 Maui 108 23.1 18.5 12.0 46.3 0.0

 Kauai 80 18.8 23.8 13.8 43.8 0.0

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 43 27.9 11.6 7.0 53.5 0.0

 Part-time commercial 357 21.3 23.0 9.0 45.4 1.4

 Recreational expense 190 19.5 27.4 4.2 48.4 0.5

 Purely recreational 79 48.1 24.1 1.3 26.6 0.0

 Subsistence 25 36.0 24.0 0.0 40.0 0.0

 Cultural 7 28.6 28.6 14.3 28.6 0.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 464 22.8 26.9 5.6 43.3 1.3

 Pelagic handline 81 23.5 16.0 6.2 54.3 0.0

 Bottomfish handline 109 29.4 21.1 9.2 39.4 0.9

 Spear 10 40.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0

 Nets 10 40.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 0.0

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 649 24.3 24.7 6.2 43.8 1.1

 Handline pelagic 254 20.1 22.8 5.9 50.0 1.2

 Bottomfish 328 22.6 23.5 6.7 46.6 0.6

 Coral reef 134 20.1 23.1 6.7 48.5 1.5
88

Table B30.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, how were the catches distributed?” 

Responses for percentage of total fish caught and percentage of trip revenue.

Number of 

respondents

(n)

I kept/

received some 

% of total fish 

caught

(Mean 

percentage)

Number of 

respondents

(n)

I kept/received 

some % of trip 

revenue

(Mean 

percentage)

All Respondents 165 45.5 41 62.9

By County

 Oahu 58 46.3 9 63.8

 Hawaii 65 44.4 10 58.6

 Maui 20 49.5 13 65.0

 Kauai 18 41.8 9 63.7

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 5 19.0 3 90.0

 Part-time commercial 80 37.4 28 64.3

 Recreational expense 51 57.0 8 52.1

 Purely recreational 19 47.0 1 40.0

 Subsistence 6 67.5 0 -

 Cultural n.d n.d n.d n.d

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 123 49.3 22 59.4

 Pelagic handline 13 39.6 5 57.6

 Bottomfish handline 23 32.8 10 78.5

 Spear 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Nets n.d n.d n.d n.d

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 158 45.9 36 61.5

 Handline pelagic 57 41.6 14 62.2

 Bottomfish 75 39.3 21 69.0

 Coral reef 29 42.4 9 64.9

Note: n.d. = non-disclosure due to confidentiality concern because number of respondents is less than 3.

Table B31.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, did you ever sell any of the fish you 

caught?” (percentage of responses). Number of 

respondents

(n)

Yes

(%)

No

(%)

All Respondents 798 82.8 17.2

By County

 Oahu 288 79.5 20.5

 Hawaii 288 85.4 14.6

 Maui 124 82.3 17.7

 Kauai 92 85.9 14.1

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 57 100.0 0.0

 Part-time commercial 404 91.3 8.7

 Recreational expense 210 81.4 18.6

 Purely recreational 86 50.0 50.0

 Subsistence 27 44.4 55.6

 Cultural 8 75.0 25.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 523 83.2 16.8

 Pelagic handline 92 92.4 7.6

 Bottomfish handline 126 77.0 23.0

 Spear 10 70.0 30.0

 Nets 11 90.9 9.1

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 739 83.1 16.9

 Handline pelagic 294 90.5 9.5

 Bottomfish 378 82.0 18.0

 Coral reef 150 88.0 12.0
89

Table B32.--Percentage of value of fish sold from pelagic, bottomfish, reef fish, and other

(percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

Pelagic fish

(%)

Bottomfish

(%)

Reef fish

(%)

Other

(%)

All Respondents 627 62.9 23.3 7.5 6.4

By County

 Oahu 215 59.3 23.5 15.2 2.0

 Hawaii 232 69.5 14.3 5.6 10.6

 Maui 99 53.0 45.1 0.4 1.4

 Kauai 76 63.2 18.1 9.2 9.5

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 56 55.0 28.0 7.4 9.6

 Part-time commercial 342 66.2 22.1 8.0 3.8

 Recreational expense 169 73.0 13.4 5.8 7.7

 Purely recreational 41 66.5 3.2 4.8 25.5

 Subsistence 10 70.8 26.2 0.7 2.3

 Cultural 6 98.9 0.5 0.5 0.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 417 81.7 11.6 2.2 4.5

 Pelagic handline 77 78.8 11.5 3.9 5.9

 Bottomfish handline 93 19.4 70.1 9.9 0.5

 Spear 6 16.0 4.1 71.9 8.0

 Nets 9 6.2 2.7 21.2 69.8

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 586 68.8 21.6 6.0 3.6

 Handline pelagic 252 74.4 18.2 4.7 2.7

 Bottomfish 298 50.6 39.0 6.9 3.5

 Coral reef 129 48.6 19.9 21.1 10.4

Table B33.--Survey Responses: “In the past 12 months, what percent of your personal income 

came from the sale of fish?” (percentage of responses and mean).

Number of 

respondents

(n)

1%-25%

(%)

26%-50%

(%)

51%-75%

(%)

76%-100%

(%)

Percentage of

income from 

sale of fish 

(Mean 

percentage)

All Respondents 644 74.5 12.9 6.8 5.7 23.1

By County

 Oahu 224 77.2 12.1 5.4 5.4 21.9

 Hawaii 241 71.0 12.9 9.1 7.1 25.3

 Maui 98 72.4 15.3 7.1 5.1 23.4

 Kauai 77 79.2 13.0 3.9 3.9 20.3

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 56 25.0 14.3 19.6 41.1 56.8

 Part-time commercial 361 72.3 16.9 8.0 2.8 22.5

 Recreational expense 169 92.9 3.6 1.8 1.8 15.2

 Purely recreational 39 82.1 15.4 2.6 0.0 17.3

 Subsistence 11 81.8 9.1 0.0 9.1 21.3

 Cultural 6 83.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.3

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 424 81.1 10.8 4.2 3.8 19.8

 Pelagic handline 81 59.3 19.8 9.9 11.1 30.5

 Bottomfish handline 95 63.2 14.7 12.6 9.5 29.3

 Spear 7 71.4 28.6 0.0 0.0 19.4

 Nets 10 40.0 20.0 30.0 10.0 39.8

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 597 76.2 12.1 6.2 5.5 22.4

 Handline pelagic 260 67.3 13.8 10.4 8.5 27.2

 Bottomfish 304 72.0 12.8 6.9 8.2 25.0

 Coral reef 131 75.6 10.7 8.4 5.3 23.0
90

Table B34.--Fishing trip costs for most common and second most common gear usage by county 

(mean, standard error, and median).

Total Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Category $ per trip

% of total 

trip cost $ per trip

% of total 

trip cost $ per trip

% of total 

trip cost $ per trip

% of total 

trip cost $ per trip

% of total 

trip cost

Number of 

respondents (n) 1193 428 428 189 141

Boat fuel Mean 130.86 48.7 132.15 50.4 118.29 46.3 165.14 51.3 114.64 45.5

Standard error 2.89 4.37 4.29 9.44 8.14

Median 100.00 120.00 100.00 150.00 100.00

Truck fuel Mean 25.03 9.3 23.44 8.9 27.37 10.7 26.01 8.1 21.88 8.7

Standard error 0.64 0.90 1.25 1.58 1.72

Median 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Oil Mean 7.39 2.7 6.82 2.6 6.37 2.5 13.12 4.1 4.64 1.8

Standard error 0.46 0.67 0.63 1.93 0.73

Median 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00

Ice Mean 32.39 12.1 34.09 13.0 26.32 10.3 35.59 11.1 41.73 16.6

Standard error 0.84 1.37 1.17 2.05 3.50

Median 25.00 30.00 20.00 30.00 30.00

Bait Mean 23.33 8.7 16.45 6.3 30.04 11.8 26.74 8.3 18.36 7.3

Standard error 0.99 0.98 1.94 2.99 2.78

Median 15.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 5.00

Food and Mean 25.31 9.4 23.80 9.1 24.41 9.6 30.35 9.4 25.37 10.1

beverage Standard error 0.77 0.77 1.69 1.92 1.74

Median 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Daily Mean 23.89 8.9 24.66 9.4 22.07 8.6 24.45 7.6 25.88 10.3

maintenance Standard error 1.16 1.87 2.04 2.42 3.87

& repair Median 10.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00

Other trip Mean 0.69 0.3 0.72 0.3 0.94 0.4 0.34 0.1 0.36 0.1

cost Standard error 0.17 0.32 0.33 0.27 0.36

Median 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total trip Mean 268.63 262.12 255.46 321.73 252.12

cost Standard error 5.29 7.31 8.82 16.83 15.54

Median 230.00 239.00 213.80 300.00 190.00
91

Table B35.--Survey Responses: “How were the trip costs distributed among your most common 

and second most common gear type trip?” (percentage of responses).

Number of 

respondents 

(n)

I paid all 

trip costs

(%)

I paid a fixed 

amount

(%)

I paid some 

percentage of 

the total trip 

costs

(%)

Other

(%)

All Respondents 1,182 92.0 0.9 5.8 1.3

By County

 Oahu 422 89.3 1.2 8.8 0.7

 Hawaii 428 92.5 0.9 5.1 1.4

 Maui 187 93.6 0.5 4.3 1.6

 Kauai 140 95.7 0.7 1.4 2.1

By Fisherman Classification

 Full-time commercial 84 95.2 0.0 0.0 4.8

 Part-time commercial 597 94.0 1.0 4.5 0.5

 Recreational expense 326 89.3 0.9 8.3 1.5

 Purely recreational 113 87.6 1.8 8.0 2.7

 Subsistence 38 92.1 0.0 7.9 0.0

 Cultural 13 92.3 0.0 7.7 0.0

By Most Common Gear

 Troll 615 91.4 1.0 6.3 1.3

 Pelagic handline 181 94.5 0.0 3.9 1.7

 Bottomfish handline 241 95.4 0.4 4.1 0.0

 Spear 40 82.5 2.5 10.0 5.0

 Nets 18 88.9 0.0 5.6 5.6

By Sub-fishery

 Troll pelagic 615 91.4 1.0 6.3 1.3

 Handline pelagic 182 94.5 0.0 3.8 1.6

 Bottomfish 256 94.1 0.8 5.1 0.0

 Coral reef 71 85.9 2.8 7.0 4.2

I paid a fixed 

amount of $___

($)

I paid ___ % of 

the total trip 

costs

(%)

Those paid fixed amount 10 111.6

Those paid some percent 66 60.8
92

Table B36.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by county (mean, standard error, median, and 

percentage of fleet trip with expenditure).

Fixed cost item

% of fleet 

with 

expenditure

All 

Respondents Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Number of 

respondents(n) 749 276 266 114 88

Gear replacement/ 93.6 Mean 1,671 1,613 1,711 1,410 2,099

repair Standard error 93 137 184 169 279

Median 800 1,000 700 675 1,000

Boat and trailer repair/ 90.7 Mean 1,635 1,768 1,405 1,910 1,512

maintenance/ Standard error 104 175 175 284 262

improvements Median 750 775 500 1,000 750

Loan payments 15.1 Mean 970 1,024 771 1,080 1,090

Standard error 125 238 168 346 271

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Boat insurance 48.1 Mean 420 628 262 338 299

Standard error 30 62 38 56 70

Median 0 350 0 0 0

Mooring fees 17.9 Mean 414 746 200 202 261

Standard error 48 114 37 64 113

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Fees 94.5 Mean 399 485 318 424 308

Standard error 18 34 27 43 33

Median 250 300 200 250 250

Financial services 5.9 Mean 30 30 17 38 61

Standard error 7 10 7 22 33

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Other 1.6 Mean 19 24 28 0 0

Standard error 6 11 14 0 0

Median 0 0 0 0 0

Annual fixed costs Mean 5,557 6,317 4,713 5,401 5,629

Standard error 238 409 377 559 731

Median 3,364 4,100 3,058 3,375 3,590
93

Table B37.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 for all respondents and by county (non-zero 

expenditures on individual category) (mean, standard error, median).

Fixed cost item

All 

Respondents Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai

Gear replacement/

repair

Number of 

respondents (n) 701 260 251 104 82

Mean 1,785 1,712 1,814 1,545 2,252

Standard error 98 143 193 180 292

Median 1,000 1,000 800 1,000 1,100

Boat and trailer repair/ 

maintenance/

Number of 

respondents (n) 679 246 242 109 78

Improvements Mean 1,803 1,983 1,544 1,997 1,706

Standard error 113 192 190 294 289

Median 1,000 1,000 800 1,000 1,000

Loan payments Number of 

respondents (n) 113 39 35 17 21

Mean 6,429 7,247 5,861 7,243 4,568

Standard error 616 1,309 894 1,693 740

Median 4,680 5,472 4,200 4,422 3,300

Boat insurance Number of 

respondents (n) 360 182 98 50 25

Mean 874 953 712 770 1,053

Standard error 53 85 86 100 171

Median 600 600 500 500 800

Mooring fees Number of 

respondents (n) 134 68 37 18 7

Mean 2,312 3,026 1,439 1,278 3,283

Standard error 198 335 156 305 829

Median 1,588 2,352 1,248 1,000 3,000

Fees Number of 

respondents (n) 708 259 254 109 82

Mean 422 517 333 444 330

Standard error 19 35 28 44 34

Median 250 400 200 300 300

Financial services Number of 

respondents (n) 44 17 12 6 9

Mean 514 490 382 729 592

Standard error 90 129 104 338 277

Median 300 300 300 400 280

Other Number of 

respondents (n) 12 6 6 0 0

Mean 1,178 1,100 1,255 0 0

Standard error 211 234 373 0 0

Median 1,275 1,200 1,275 0 0

Annual fixed costs Number of 

respondents (n) 749 276 266 114 88

Mean 5,557 6,317 4,713 5,401 5,629

Standard error 238 409 377 559 731

Median 3,364 4,100 3,058 3,375 3,590
94

Table B38.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by fisherman type (non-zero expenditures on 

individual category) (mean, standard error, median).

Fixed cost item

Full-time 

commercial

Part-time 

commercial

Recreational 

expense

Purely 

recreational Subsistence Cultural

Gear replacement/

repair

Number of 

respondents(n) 49 356 191 69 24 7

Mean 3,846 1,786 1,511 1,391 1,206 1,404

Standard error 701 137 134 180 336 626

Median 2,000 1,000 800 1,000 600 700

Boat and trailer repair/ 

maintenance/

Number of 

respondents(n) 47 341 182 73 23 7

Improvements Mean 3,686 1,511 1,956 1,726 957 3,330

Standard error 762 114 263 262 185 2,460

Median 2,000 900 1,000 900 500 1,000

Loan payments Number of 

respondents(n) 11 54 33 11 4 0

Mean 10,228 6,483 6,154 4,678 2,355 0

Standard error 2,359 738 1,475 733 683 0

Median 5,532 4,930 4,200 3,600 2,130 0

Boat insurance Number of 

respondents(n) 24 166 102 47 13 5

Mean 1,052 1,008 710 783 551 702

Standard error 207 99 58 89 172 191

Median 630 600 600 600 288 700

Mooring fees Number of 

respondents(n) 14 58 32 24 3 n.d

Mean 2,217 2,145 2,568 2,481 2,680 n.d

Standard error 504 327 362 528 866 n.d

Median 1,617 1,218 1,800 1,960 2,640 n.d

Fees Number of 

respondents(n) 48 360 191 71 24 8

Mean 572 395 441 359 596 337

Standard error 86 21 41 38 205 135

Median 500 250 265 250 350 110

Financial services Number of 

respondents(n) 7 24 10 0 n.d 0

Mean 681 548 192 0 n.d 0

Standard error 240 119 38 0 n.d 0

Median 442 333 175 0 n.d 0

Other Number of 

respondents(n) 0 6 3 3 0 0

Mean 0 1,205 900 1,400 0 0

Standard error 0 273 379 635 0 0

Median 0 1,275 1,000 1,400 0 0

Annual fixed costs Number of 

respondents(n) 53 379 200 77 26 8

Mean 10,617 5,160 5,456 5,187 3,471 5,229

Standard error 1,454 314 433 585 603 2,759

Median 6,300 3,150 3,605 3,550 2,411 2,735

Note: n.d. = non-disclosure due to confidentiality concern because number of respondents is less than 3.
95

Table B39.--Annual fishing fixed costs in 2013 by most common gear (non-zero expenditures on 

individual category) (mean, standard error, median).

Fixed cost item Troll

Pelagic 

handline

Bottomfish 

handline Spear Nets

Gear replacement/

repair

Number of 

respondents (n) 461 74 110 9 10

Mean 1,782 2,296 1,516 1,144 1,611

Standard error 124 321 216 363 657

Median 1,000 1,100 500 500 450

Boat and trailer repair/

maintenance/

Number of 

respondents (n) 443 74 108 9 10

Improvements Mean 1,782 2,259 1,896 983 1,014

Standard error 135 470 291 276 436

Median 1,000 814 800 500 300

Loan payments Number of 

respondents (n) 76 13 16 0 4

Mean 7,254 4,893 4,725 0 3,702

Standard error 861 987 900 0 1,035

Median 4,860 5,484 4,286 0 3,804

Boat insurance Number of 

respondents (n) 264 22 55 5 3

Mean 939 822 682 820 487

Standard error 67 156 94 312 70

Median 600 585 420 500 500

Mooring fees Number of 

respondents (n) 99 7 22 n.d n.d

Mean 2,424 1,306 2,290 n.d n.d

Standard error 250 400 377 n.d n.d

Median 1,560 1,500 2,077 n.d n.d

Fees Number of 

respondents (n) 464 78 110 8 10

Mean 425 359 470 342 354

Standard error 24 42 53 61 100

Median 300 200 283 350 244

Financial services Number of 

respondents (n) 26 8 4 n.d n.d

Mean 548 333 775 n.d n.d

Standard error 132 132 419 n.d n.d

Median 300 228 475 n.d n.d

Other Number of 

respondents (n) 9 n.d n.d 0 0

Mean 1,370 n.d n.d 0 0

Standard error 243 n.d n.d 0 0

Median 1,400 n.d n.d 0 0

Annual fixed costs Number of 

respondents (n) 493 80 118 9 11

Mean 5,830 5,734 5,012 3,042 4,283

Standard error 306 759 533 785 1,160

Median 3,550 3,623 2,825 2,000 5,183

Note: n.d. = non-disclosure due to confidentiality concern because number of respondents is less than 3.
96

Table B40.--Comments by fisherman type (percentage of responses). All

Respondents Commercial Noncommercial

Number of respondents 394 222 164

REGULATIONS 35% 36% 32%

Bottomfishing: open BRFA 8% 9% 5%

Bottomfishing: general 3% 3% 3%

Bottomfishing: use close season 1% 0% 2%

Bottomfishing: TAC 1% 1% -

Bottomfishing: bag limit 1% 0% 1%

Too many regulations 3% 2% 5%

Charter 2% 3% 1%

Spearfishing 2% 2% 1%

Area closure 2% 0% 3%

Reef fish 1% 2% 1%

Kona crab 1% 2% -

Night diving 1% 1% 1%

Purse seine 1% 2% -

Regulate imports 1% 1% 1%

Other 8% 7% 10%

FADs 29% 30% 28%

Replace missing FADs 16% 15% 16%

For FADs 7% 7% 7%

Against private FADs 3% 4% 2%

Against FADs 3% 4% 2%

SIZE LIMIT/CATCH LIMIT 19% 22% 14%

Increase size limit 15% 19% 9%

Increase size limit and impose catch limit 2% 1% 4%

Impose catch limit 1% 1% 1%

NETS/TRAPS CONCERNS AND REGULATIONS 11% 9% 14%

Ban nets 9% 7% 12%

Regulations 2% 2% 2%

LONGLINE CONCERNS AND REGULATIONS 9% 8% 9%

Need more regulations 3% 3% 4%

Ban longline 3% 3% 2%

Effects on fish stocks 2% 1% 2%

Too many longliners 1% 1% -

ENFORCEMENT ON EXISTING 8% 6% 10%

MAINTENANCE 7% 6% 9%

MANAGEMENT 7% 6% 8%

Cooperation 3% 3% 2%

General 3% 3% 2%

Sustainable management 2% - 4%

ECONOMICS 6% 6% 7%

Price too low 3% 3% 4%

Cost too high 2% 2% 2%

Cost and price 1% 1% 1%

RESEARCH 6% 5% 7%

LICENSE 4% 5% 4%

INFRASTRUCTURE 3% 4% 3%

CATCH REPORTS 2% 1% 3%

EDUCATION 2% 1% 2%

ENVIRONMENT 1% 3%

INVASIVE SPECIES 1% 2% -

PROTECTED SPECIES 1% 1% -

MISC. 3% 3% 4%

NO COMMENT 7% 8% 7%
97

Availability of NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

Copies of this and other documents in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series issued 

by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center are available online at the PIFSC Web site 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov in PDF format. In addition, this series and a wide range of other 

NOAA documents are available in various formats from the National Technical Information 

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, U.S.A. [Tel: (703)-605-6000]; URL: 

http://www.ntis.gov. A fee may be charged.

Recent issues of NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–PIFSC are listed below:

NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-60 Stock assessment of the coral reef fishes of Hawaii, 2016.

M.O. NADON

(February 2017)

59 Pacific Islands Regional Action Plan: NOAA Fisheries climate 

science strategy.

J. POLOVINO and K. DREFLAK (Chairs), J. BAKER, S. 

BLOOM, S. BROOKE, V. CHAN, S. ELLGEN, D. GOLDEN, J. 

HOSPITAL, K. VAN HOUTAN, S. KOLINSKI, B. LUMSDEN, 

K. MAISON, M. MANSKER, T. OLIVER, S. SPALDING, P. 

WOODWORTH-COATES

(December 2016)

58 Attitudes and Preferences of Hawaii Non-commercial 

Fishermen: Report from the 2015 Hawaii Saltwater Recreational 

Fishing Survey, Volume 1.

L. MADGE, J. HOSPITAL, E.T WILLIAMS

(October 2016)