Proceedings: WORKSHOP ON MARINE "FOR-HIRE" RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODOLOGY SEPTEMBER 1992

Transcription

1 Proceeding: WORKSHOP ON MARINE "FORHIRE" RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODOLOGY SEPTEMBER 1992

2

3 PROCEEDINGS: WORKSHOP ON MARINE 11 FORHIRE 11 RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODOLOGY conducted by the DAT A MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE of the TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION and the NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE EDITED BY MAURY OSBORN Thi project wa conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Fih and Wildlife Service, and funded by Federal Aid in Sport Fih Retoration adminitrative fund, FWS Grant Agreement No

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v 1. INTRODUCTION Background.... ~... ~ Participant Acknowledgement COALS AND OBJECTIVES DEFINITIONS Forhire component Other definition DESCRIPTION OF GULF OF MEXICO FORHI RE FISHER JES Florida A I abama Miiippi Louiia na Tex a OVERVIEW EXISTING PROGRAMS Wet Coat Steve Crook Ore.gon and Wahington California Eat and Gulf Coat Cuide/Charterboat South Carolina Wayne Walz MRFSS John Witzig NMFS Gulf Coat Harold Bruher Tex a Maury Oborn H eadboat A ti antic and Gulf Coat Gene Huntman Texa Maury Oborn DAT A EL EM ENT S Demographic, Social and Economic Variable Effort Variable Biological Variable Abiotic Variable iii

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 7. METHODOLOGY Logbook Onboard Oberver Roving and Acce Site Survey Telephone Survey Mail and DoortoDoor Survey PROPOSED PROGRAMS Scope Preferred Methodology Guide/ Charterboat Headboat Future Plan Guide/Charterboat Florida Alabama Miiippi Louiiana Texa Head boat Florida, Miiippi, and Louiiana Alabama J Texa FIGURES AND TABLES Figure Table Tab I e iv

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY J. INTRODUCTION The Workhop on Recreational Fiherie Statitic Data Collection held February by the Technical Coordinating Committee Data Management Subcommittee (OMS) of the Gulf State Marine Fiherie Commiion ( GSMFC) identified item for future conideration for long term improvement in the collection of recreational fihery tatitic. One uch item wa the invetigation of improvement in data collection for the forhire fiherie ( headboat and charterboat); therefore, a erie of workhop wa organized for that purpoe. Funding for the workhop wa provided through the GSMFC by the Sport Fih Retoration Adminitrative program adminitered by the U.S. Fih and Wildlife Service. The forhire fiherie are important component of many fiherie, yet they are not urveyed in mot Gulf State intenively enough to produce precie etimate of total harvet and preurel a well a other eential biological ocial and economic data uch that aement of management meaure can be accomplihed. 11. GOAL The goal of the workhop wa to identify data collection need, and to recommend the mot effective method of obtaining thoe data for the forhire fiherie. Recommended method are for long term, routine, tandardized monitoring program to collect information critical for management. The recommended urvey will not accommodate all need or rare event fiherie, thu data that cannot be collected through routine monitoring program hould be collected through hort term pecial tudie. Methodologie were evaluated in term of reliability of the data, the type and level of data that could be collected, feaibility, and cot. The recommended urvey i intended to capture the range of charterboat effort and landingl and i not intended to target one pecie or group of pecie; however I thi type of urvey hould meet the management need of the majority of managed fiherie OBJECTIVES Specific objective of a routine monitoring program for the forhire fihery were defined: 1) to etimate total daylight gro catch I catch per unit of effort ( CPUE) and effort of the forhire fihery at a ubtate level on a monthly bai with the highet attainable level of preciion; and 2) to obtain appropriate ocial and economic data. v

8 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Rationale for Selection The advantage and diadvantage of different methodologie were dicued concerning 1) the ability to collect critical information, 2) whether that information i elfreported by the angler or operator or i oberved directly by the ampler, 3) preence and type of bia, 4) cot, and 5) procedural difficultie. Five general type of urvey method were dicued: logbook, onboard oberver, roving and acce ite urvey, telephone urvey, and mail and perontoperon urvey. Onboard oberver were conidered the bet method in term of the type and quality of data that can be collected; however, they are the mot expenive and in many cae are not feaible. Participant agreed that an acceite urvey i the econdbet methodology and i more coteffective than onboard urvey. Telephone., mail and doortodoor urvey were not conidered appropriate for a routine monitoring urvey of the forhire fiherie. Logbook were conidered to be a poible method for collection of effort data only, if validation tudie are alo ued; they were not conidered adequate for collection of harvet or biological data. B. Preferred Method A complete conenu of all State and Federal repreentative wa not poible. There wa agreement on the "bet" methodologie for each component of the 11 forhire 11 fiherie; however, in ome cae, State repreentative felt that an alternate methodology wa more practical and affordable for longterm monitoring in their State. Guide/ Charterboat The group agreed that the bet method of urveying guide and charterboat wa through intercept urvey of partie completing their trip, with preure etimated by either a) roving count to obtain relative preure; b) phone urvey of operator, rather than client; or c) logbook. In ome State, for ome egment of the fihery uch a guide who launch from their back yard, logbook were felt to be the only practical method to collect both harvet and preure data. Headboat The preferred method i onboard urvey of fihing trip and a phone cenu of operator to etimate preure. If onboard urvey are impoible, acceite intercept hould be ued. The conenu wa that logbook hould only be ued a a lat reort due to the unreliability of elfreported data. C. Scope Survey hould produce daylight etimate only, ince night fihing i a mall component and i logitically too difficult to urvey. Sample ize hould be choen to accommodate monthly etimate to atify current management trategie baed on quota. Acce point where onite urvey hould be conducted include public and private boat ramp, marina and dry torage boathoue. Shorefront reidence with private boathoue, dock or launch area could not be included in a cotefficient manner. Wade/bank acce point are not applicable to the forhire fihery. Tournament angler hould not be included in the urvey, or information for tournament angler hould be kept in a ditinct category. Hitorical data hould be ued to decide whether to tratify the fihery and to elect the bet intercept time. vi

9 D. Eential data element Eential data element to be collected include gro catch; number by pecie releaed alive and dead, and the reaon for releae; length of landed fih; weight for pecified pecie; ex; trip and fihing time; fihing area; gear and bait ued; fihing method (trolling, bottom fihing, etc.); geographic reidence of the angler; pecie targeted; motivation and atifaction; travel and fihing trip cot; year fihed (experience); number of forhire trip made; precipitation, and; water depth and bottom type of the fihing area. It i recommended that a common et of definition and code be developed by the State and NMFS for thee data item to enure comparability of the data. E. Special tudie Special tudie will be needed on periodic, hortterm bae to a) collect data element eential to good fiherie management but that can not be practically collected by the propoed urvey, and b) to identify and quantify gap in the ampling frame o that etimate can be adjuted to repreent total harvet and preure. vii

10

11 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Background The Data Management Subcommittee (OMS) of the Technical Coordinating Committee of the Gulf State Marine Fiherie Commiion ( GSMFC) held a workhop February 79, 1989 in Miami with the following goal: Achieve a cooperative recreational fiherie tatitic urvey program that provide the bet poible data, in the mot cotefficient manner, to atify management need of involved agencie in the Gulf of Mexico. The workhop identified area for future conideration for long term improvement in collection of recreational fihery tatitic. One of thee wa to invetigate improvement in data collection for forhire fiherie ( headboat and charterboat); therefore, a erie of workhop wa organized for that purpoe. The forhire fiherie are important component of many fiherie in term of percent of the total harvet and economic benefit. Although the importance of thee fiherie ha been recognized, they are not urveyed intenively enough in mot Gulf State in a routine, conitent manner to produce precie etimate of total harvet and preure, a well a other eential biological, ocial and economic data. The National Marine Fiherie Service ( NMFS) urvey charterboat l maller boat where the entire boat i hired by a party) through the Marine Recreational Fiherie Statitic Survey ( MRFSS); however, they are exploring alternative method for etimating effort due to the low participation in charterboat fihing by coatal reident. The phone urvey target coatal reident to etimate tot.al trip while mot charterboat angler are from inland area. Gulf headboat (larger veel where individual angler re.erve a pace on the boat) and ome charterboat are urveyed by the NMFS Southeat Region uing logbook and acce ite ampling. Thee program are intended to provide trend data on catch rate a well a ome biological data; however they urvey only a portion of the charter and headboat and do not provide reliable etimate of total effort and harvet. The Texa Park and Wildlife Department ( TPWD) urvey charter boat and bay headboat to etimate total effort and landing, but Gulf headboat urvey were topped in September 1984, ince mot of the effort wa in the Excluive Economic Zone ( EEZ). None of the other Gulf State have monitored the forhire fiherie on a routine, on going bai Participant 1) Maury Oborn, Texa Park and Wildlife Department 2) Joeph Shepard, Louiiana Department of Wildlife and Fiherie 3) Tom Van Devender, Miiippi Bureau of Marine Reource 4) Stu Kennedy, Florida Deportment of Natural Reource 5) Ron Eig, National Marine Fiherie Service 6) Steve Crooke, California Department of Fih and Game 7) Gene Huntman, National Marine Fiherie Service 8) Jon Platt, National Marine Fiherie Service 9) John Witzig, National Marine Fiherie Service 1) Don Hayne, North Carolina State Univerity 11) Andrew Applegate, South Carolina Department of Marine Reource 12) Wayne Walz, South Carolina Wildlife Department 13) Robert Ditton, Texa A&M Univerity 14) Jeff lely, National Marine Fiherie Service 1

12 15) Ron Schmied, National Marine Fiherie Service 16) Jim ZweifeL National Marine Fiherie Service 17) Harold Bruher, National Marine Fiherie Service 18) Eugene Nakamura, National Marine Fiherie Service 19) Lee Trent, National Marine Fiherie Service 2) Alan Collin, National Marine Fiherie Service 21) J. K. Lacey, National Marine Fiherie Service 22) Paul Prita, National Marine Fiherie Service 23) Ron Luken, Gulf State Marine Fiherie Commiion 24) Nancy Marcellu, Gulf State Marine Fiherie Commiion 1. 3 Acknowledgement Invaluable upport in organizing the workhop wa provided by the GSMFC, epecially Ron Luken and Nancy Marcellu. Appreciation i extended to the peronnel of the Panama City NMFS Laboratory and epecially to Dr. Eugene Nakamura for hi hopitality. The workhop benefitted from the input of invited expert in variou field, and we would like to thank thoe individual for their contribution to thi effort. 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of the workhop were to identify data collection need, and to recommend the mot effective method of obtaining thoe data for the forhire fiherie. Recommended method are for long term, routine, tandardized monitoring program to collect information critical for management. The recommendation will not accommodate all need or rare event fiherie, thu data that cannot be collected through routine monitoring program hould be collected through hort term pecial tudie. Methodologie were evaluated in term of reliability of the data, the type and level of data that could be collected, feaibility, and cot. The recommendation are intended to capture the range of forhire fihery effort and landing, and are not intended to target one pecie or group of pecie. The objective of a routine, tandardized monitoring program for forhire fiherie hould be: 1) to etimate total daylight gro catch, catch per unit of effort ( CPUE) and effort of the forhire fihery at a ubtate level on a monthly bai with the highet attainable level of preciion; a) to partition gro catch into number landed, releaed alive, releaed dead, the reaon for the releae, and ue prior to landing at the angler level; b) to determine pecie, ex, and ize/ age compoition of the catch at the angler level; c) to obtain CPUE meaured in manhour fihed at the angler level; d) to allow collection of biological data a needed; and 2

13 2) to obtain ocial and economic data including geographic origin of the angler, pecie targeted, motivation, atifaction, travel and fihing trip cot, year the angler ha fihed, and annual number of forhire trip made. Harvet and effort and biological data are ued by cientit for tock aement and by manager for allocation purpoe. Social and economic data are ued to a) allocate and predict economic impact due to management action, b) monitor and predict public repone to regulation and other management tool, c) deign management program to maximize angler atifaction and educate angler, and d) predict demand for different reource over time. The actual attainable level of monitoring depend on variou factor, including the importance of the fihery, the level of cooperation among Federal and State fihery management agencie, and budgetary contraint. Different level of coverage and preciion engender different level of rik when making management deciion. A deirable level of preciion i defined a a 15% to 2% proportional ta ndard error (the tandard error of an etimate divided by the etimate and multiplied by 1) with an a of.5. The choice of making etimate on a monthly bai wa baed on the current management regime in many fiherie uing quota. If other management trategie are implemented in the future, the level of time to be etimated may not be a critical. The State or ubstate level of etimate depend on the fihery. The determination to collect data on catch at the angler level i due to the need to ae bag limit. The deignation of effort in fihing hour i important for conitent catch rate, ince earch time can vary baed on the level of fih abundance; however, partitioning of trip time into earch and travel time veru fihing time may not be practical or reliable except for onboard urvey or pecial tudie. 3. DEFINITIONS 3. 1 Forhire Component Becaue of difference in definition of charterboat and headboat in variou urvey, it wa decided to develop common definition. Accurate delineation of the variou component of the forhire fihery i important from economic and methodological tandpoint. The Texa Park and Wildlife Department ( TPWD) currently define partyboat (called charterboat in mot other urvey) a a boat carrying 1 or le port angler for a fee, and headboat a carrying greater than 1. The NMFS Southeat Region urvey define headboat a thoe carrying 15 or more people while charterboat carry le than 15 people, except in Louiiana. Louiiana doe not have large headboat but doe have a fleet that meet the Gulf of Mexico Fihery Management Council' reef fih fihery management plan definition of even or more people and thee are included in NMFS headboat urvey. The MRFSS call maller boat charterboat (uually le than ix people). The MRFSS ue an operational definition where charter mean hiring the boat and headboat mean that client pay by the head, rather than a pecific definition in term of number of paenger. Guide boat are conidered charterboat. Florida licene define three categorie of forhire fiherie: a) guide three or le people, motly inhore trip; b) charter/party four to ten people, motly offhore; and c) headboat greater than 1 people, which can be inhore or offhore. The NMFS Southeat Region charterboat urvey alo recognize the guide component a boat under 25 feet which fih State water although they do not collect data on thoe 3

14 boat. (Thoe boat do not generally fih coatal pelagic, o they were dropped from the ampling frame.) The Coat Guard require different licening for even or more paenger. There eemed to be an operational type definition: ome boat, uually maller in length, hire on a perboat bai ( charterboat). Larger boat hire out on a perperon bai ( headboat). The operational definition eemed to be the clearet (per peron v. boat charter) and thee type of forhire fiherie would uually be urveyed differently, i.e. intercept pot are different. They are alo probably different on an economic bai. There i a geographical difference in the way they operate and thu they would be contained in different ampling frame. Headboat are uually more viible becaue of their ize. and advertizing; guide (charter) boat are more difficult to locate and turnover i high. There are no pecified acce point that tand out for guide/charter boat. Some participant felt that how the boat wa hired wa irrelevant; what really mattered wa how many people do they carry becaue that determine how they fih and what they target. That may be important regarding variance etimate. If there i a large number of paenger the boat doe not troll and that make a difference a to the targeted pecie. There wa dicuion that there i overlap, i.e. big boat will drift fih and catch coatal pelagic. However, the economit felt that if you are interviewing individual that pay to go veru a party hiring an entire boat, you might ak different quetion and you may interview the captain in one cae and the paenger in another.. From an economic tandpoint, how the different boat operate on a paenger bai i more important than how they fih. No matter the tandpo'int, economic or biological, it i neceary to get reliable etimate from all component of the fihery. Whatever the ize of the boat, there i overlap of fihing method and target pecie. "For Hire 11 wa defined a any boat guiding one or more port ang.ler for a fee. An operational definition wa adopted: guide/charterboat will mean maller boat where paenger pay for an entire party on a per boat bai and headboat mean larg.er boat where paenger pay on a per peron bai. A methodology baed on type of acceite may reult in plitting boat into different trata baed on where they launch, rather than on operational difference or the number of people carried; however, a long a the boat are covered in one urvey or the other, total etimate of harvet and preure can be made. Different definition for forhire boat/veel were uually baed upon ome phyical criterion, uch a length or number of paenger. However, to allow for conitency in data collection, it wa felt that all parameter neceary to define a forhire boat/ veel by all agencie hould be collected. Thi will enable each agency to ue the data conitent with their hitorical data baeo 3. 2 Other Definition The term in Table 1 were preented by TPWD a adapted from the FAQ and thee term were agreed upon with minor change. There wa ome dicuion of commercial fiher veru port angler in that they can be both, but on different day, depending on their activity on a given day. If it i neceary to keep quota eparately, then no matter what the methodology, each fiherman mut be aked if their intent i to ell their catch. It i a practical conideration, and doe not make the definition wrong. Definition of the component of catch are preented in Figure 1. Thee definition are important when conidering what item different methodologie are able to collect. There wa concern that releaed component hould have three boxe; 4

15 ureleaed alive,.. releaed dead" and "releaed alive but died". It wa agreed to keep 11 releaed alive" and "releaed dead ; releaed alive but died 11 could only be obtained through a pecial tudy and i included in "releaed alive 11 Noncommercial component of a commercial fiher' catch would be conidered a commercial bycatch. It would not how up in commercial channel in mot commercial urvey, although it would in the commercial ampling urvey in Texa. Becaue of the methodologie being conidered, anything above gro catch (for example, cryptic mortality) wa not conidered. 4. DESCRIPTION OF GULF OF MEXICO FORHIRE FISHERIES 4. 1 Florida Of all the tate bordering the Gulf of Mexico, Florida ha the larget number of charterboat (thoe boat which uually retrict carrying capacity to ix paenger plu two crew member) operating in the Gulf. Etimate place the number of operating charterboat in the Gulf between 8 and 1, annually in recent year. A urvey of charterboat fihing in the Gulf of Mexico during 1988 found 971 veel operating for hire, of which 736 (approximately 75%) were operating from port in Florida. Commonly, charterboat are located near tourim center in the tate. Major ite of charterboat activity in Florida are: Key Wet, llamorada, Naple, Fort Myer Beach, Boca Grande, Clearwater, Panama City and Panama City Beach, Detin, and Penacola. Highet number of charterboat in Florida were located in Detin, Panama City/Panama City Beach, and llamorada. Reult of interview of charterboat captain from a randomly elected ample of 25% of Florida charterboat indicate that Florida charterboat made 118,22 fihing trip, carried 472,897 paenger, and averaged 128 chartered trip during The marine fih targeted by Florida charterboat throughout the year wa the mot divere of all the tate bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Over half the charterboat operator in Florida target 12 or more pecie (Holland et al., in pre). Fih targeted mot by Florida charter are grouper, king mackerel, napper, amberjack, dolphin, bonito, hark, cobia, Spanih mackerel, and wahoo. Overall, mot Florida charter targeted grouper, napper, dolphin, and king mackerel. Florida charter dominated fihing effort in the Gulf of Mexico with 84.% of the total Gulf fihing effort pent fihing for targeted pecie. Regionally within Florida, trip chartered from the Panhandle and the peninular Gulf Coat mot often targeted grouper, napper, and amberjack, king mackerel from the Panhandle and Florida Key, and dol'phin from the Florida Key. 4.2 Alabama Alabama ha two type of forhire boat. There i the guide boat which take one to four people in a mall boat, 18 1 to 23 1, fihing in the inhore area (creek and bayou). Thee boat primarily fih for red drum and peckled eatrout. Holland, S. M., Ditton, R. B., and Gill, D. A. (in pre). The U.S. Gulf of Mexico charterboat indutry: activity center, pecie targeted, and fiherie management opinion. Marine Fiherie Review. 5

16 The other type i the charter boat which take ix or more people fihing in the Gulf in either trolling or bottom fihing mode. In the trolling mode Spanih and king mackerel are primary focu. In bottom fihing it i the napper/grouper complex, trigger fih, and amberjack that are fihed for Miiippi Though there i a lack of natural hard bottom in Miiippi' territorial water and only a few artificial reef contructed in nearby offhore area, a urpriingly vigorou charterboat fleet operate from ix harbor in coatal Jackon and Harrion countie. Complete information for 1991 how a total of 42 veel licened a charterboat ( $1 fee) with boat length ranging from 26 to 6 feet. There i no altwater fihing licene in Miiippi and no other fee are required. No head boat or guide boat currently operate. The average number of angler aboard charterboat range from four to ix, excluding captain and deckhand. Typical charter charge $4 for a full day trip and $285 for a half day. The majority of all day charter travel to the hallow water of Chandeleur Sound in Louiiana or to the numerou oil platform off the eat Miiippi River Delta. Half day trip flh nearhore Gulf water outh of the barrier iland chain. Mot charter are booked between May and the end of September with le activity during the winter and the often rough ea of early pring. An informal urvey found 6% of charter are taken by Miiippian with the remaining 4% coming from Alabama, Arkana, Miouri, Louiiana, and Texa Louiiana The forhire fihery in Louiiana ha undergone everal change in the pat ten year. What wa primarily a large boat ( 6 or more paenger) offhore fleet in the early to mid 198' ha become primarily a mall boat { 4 or le paenger) nearhore/ inhore fihery for potted eatrout and red drum. The magnitude of Louiiana' forhire fihery i difficult to determine ince there i no licene requirement in place that would allow eay counting. In the recent pat the Department of Wildlife and Fiherie ha requeted that the Legilature licene charter operator; it ha not choen to do o. The large boat fihery for the mot part i compoed of fulltime yearround fihermen that make daily trip into offhore water. The offhore oil and ga tructure off the coat of Louiiana are their primary fihing location. They engage primarily in bottom fihing for Atlantic croaker, ilver eatrout, red napper, and other tructure aociated pecie. An etimated 25 large boat continue to operate in Louiiana at thi time. Louiiana 1 mall boat fleet i compoed of an etimated 36 fulltime veel and any number of parttime, primarily weekend, veel that pend mot of their time fihing inhore water for potted eatrout and red drum. On occaion, a weather permit, trip are made to nearhore oil and ga tructure. 4.4 Texa Charter boat Texa ha two ditinct component within the charterboat fihery; a) mall, inhore boat targeting red drum and potted eatrout, and b) larger, offhore boat targeting coatal pelagic and reef fih. Charterboat contribute about 1% of the total Texa landing. Texa doe have a guide/ charter licene; 6

17 however, captain fihing in Federal water in the Gulf of Mexico are not required to be licened. Alo, ome of the larger offhore boat are owned by private corporation who ue them to entertain client a well a for charter, and thoe guide are not alway licened. High turnover in the fihery ha been documented and can caue problem in maintaining a complete ampling univere. Charterboat operator are highly mobile and are eaonally involved in the fihery; mot are parttime operator. Guide are located in each of Texa' eight bay ytem and ue maller, trailerable boat and leave from public and private boat acce ite, including dock and horeline adjacent to their reidence. The larger offhore charter boat are uually moored at marina in port cattered throughout Texa' eight bay ytem. Headboat Headboat are relatively table compared to guide/ charter boat and the boat are readily identified. Headboat operator are required to be licened. Generally headboat fih excluively in either the bay or in the Gulf of Mexico; only a few boat fih in both area and then uually only a few trip a year are made to the unconventional area. Some headboat witch their area of pecialization from year to year. Since the early 198 1, about 15 bay headboat and about 22 gulf headboat have operated from the Galveton., Arana, and Corpu Chriti bay ytem, and the lower Laguna Madre. The headboat generally are moored at their own docking facilitie, generally adjacent to a booking office. Bay headboat contribute about 1% of Texa landing and 3% of the preure while gulf headboat contribute le than 1% of the landing and 23% of the preure. 5. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS 5. 1 Wet Coat There i only one category of forhire boat on the wet coat and ize i immaterial. There i a difference in open (per peron) v. charter (per boat) trip Oregon and Wahington Steve Crook Only nonalmon fihery program are addreed. Both Wahington and Oregon have had a voluntary logbook ytem within the pat decade and both were dropped after a few year' experience. In Wahington it covered only Puget Sound; in Oregon it covered the whole coat and addreed the open coat fiherie. In Oregon, repone rate were very poor and neither tate had allocated money to keypunch the data. Wahington had a voluntary program in 1986 and 1987; they worked with the MRFSS and with State ampling program, excluding 1987 and They dropped the program becaue they found that operator underetimated the number of people by half# but doubled catch etimate, while only half the trip were reported. Becaue of the oppoite biae, overall etimate were accurate. Oregon only ampled for pecie compoition and for biological data. They did not try to etimate total harvet of rockfih pecie. Salmon program do etimate harvet, and they have alo etimated Pacific halibut for the lat two year. There were 2 licened guide in Oregon but only half were actively puruing fulltime career in chartering. The remaining half were teacher who charter in the ummer. Wahington had 1 licened guide in Puget Sound. It i not known how 7

18 many were licened outh of Puget Sound; however I mot would have been involved in almon, ince there i little fihing outh of Puget Sound for rockfih California Steve Crook California ha had a mandatory logbook ytem ince 1937 with high penaltie for noncompliance. Skipper mut lit effort (angler and hour fihed) I number of fih by peciel and fihing area by 1 minute grid. In the lat year enforcement iued 1 citationl and revoked one licene. There were about 23 licenee in the lat year, although there i a ixmonth lag on keypunching and figure were not final. They feel the log are excelle.nt for longterm trend due to the longevity of the program and they help to provide data for year when field ampling wa not funded. A knowledge of the fihery i neceary to interpret the trend in logbook; documentation of major hift and change in fiherie i important for undertanding change in trend in logbook etimate over the year. In the late California tudied atea ampling veru logbook and found the ame reult a Wahington. Skipper reported about half the effort and doubled their catch. The information wa never releaed becaue of the delicate political ituation of not wanting to call the captain liar. The atea ampling program cover all of coatal California and i ued to gather biological data. Sampling in central and northern California exclude almon and triped ba. The program wa et up to gather biological information for management, uing a boat trip a the ampling unit. All boat (about 4) are ampled each week, including. gathering data on the number of trip made weekly. Information i alo collected on the length of trip, becaue trip length can give an indication of target pecie. Available trip length are halfday, three quarterday, and allday, and data are tratified accordingly. An attempt i made to ample catch by onboard urvey for 45% of all weekday trip; however, weekend data are not collected. It i etimated that about 4.5% of all trip occur on weekend. Thi fihery target about 16 pecie, including 55 pecie agg.regated under the name rockfih. Quetion and Anwer Q: Were logbook mandatory? A: It i mandatory for all type of charter/ party boat. They only do atea ampling on the charterboat. Q: What doe atea ampling involve? A: They meaure and count a many releaed fih a poible and on the way back, meaure and count landed fih. They do not have time to take otolith or cale. Q: How did the number of cenued trip compare to logbook trip? A: About half of all trip are reported on the logbook. Logbook reporting compliance can be a problem, and can be influenced by the relationhip between the boat operator and ampler. Q: Have you had any indication that a you regulate thee people that compliance rate change? A: Nol they have had intance where they have cloed fiherie or allocated more to commercial fiher and it doen't eem to affect compliance too much. They eem 8

19 to be ued to reporting ince the requirement ha been in place for fifty or more year. Q: I there a reaon why catch i reported accurately but people are underreported? A: Probably to hold their perceived gro income down. They don't report fih accurately; they report twice a many fih a are really caught. The charter boat operator reported about 9% of all paenger but only about 6% of the log were returned o it looked like there were only about half of the number of angler a there really were. They found that kipper overetimated all pecie of fih, not jut the glamour pecie. There i till ome oppoition, motly from new captain. Some kipper threatened to quit reporting when allocation changed, but they didn't. The State jut got the proviion to revoke licene in the lat few year and that ha helped compliance. Citation for not reporting run about $5 per incident, o that can mount up, if aggreively enforced. The ampling frame come from regitered (licened) party boat. It i hard to prove they have not reported; the only way i for a warden to ee them fihing and then for them not to report Eat and Gulf Coat Guide/ Charterboat South Carolina Wayne Walz South Carolina ha been involved with the MRFSS except for a few pecial tudie. They increaed ample ize to get about 1, partyboat interview per year but plan to reduce to about 3 in the future. They looely define charterboat a ix people or le. The State i very intereted in economic, but ha no current plan to conduct a urvey. Intead the big puh right now i for a altwater licene. There i a propoal for licening party boat baed on the number of people they carry, and that will require mandatory reporting. If that bill i paed, ome ort of mandatory reporting or trip record will be implemented NMFS Marine Recreational Fihery Statitic Survey John Witzig and Ron Eig The Marine Recreational Fihery Statitic Survey ( MRFSS) wa initiated by National Marine Fiherie Service in The urvey collect tatitic on marine recreational fiherie a authorized by the Fih and Wildlife Act of 1956 (Section 5[a][4]L the Migratory Game Fih Study Act of 1959 (Title 16, Chapter 9A, U.S. Code) and the Magnuon Fihery Conervation and Management Act of 1976 (Section 33and34[e]; P.L ). The MRFSS conit of two independent but complementary urvey: a telephone urvey of houehold and an intercept urvey of altwater angler. The telephone urvey collect data on marine recreational fihing effort in coatal countie. The intercept urvey collect data on the catch of marine recreational angler. Data from the two urvey are combined to provide etimate of the total fihing effort and catch by marine recreational angler. Total effort i etimated a the number of fihing trip and total catch i reported for each pecie both by quantity and weight. The MRFSS alo provide an annual etimate of the number of marine recreational angler. 9

20 The telephone urvey i deigned a a tratified random ample with the primary ampling unit being a coatal county houehold. A tratum correpond to a State/ ubregion during a 2 month ampling period (wave). A proportional ample allocation baed on the hitorical fihing effort i ued to determine the telephone interview quota for each wave and State. Allocation at the county level are baed on the ratio of the quare root of the number of houehold in each county to the um of the quare root of the number of houehold in all countie in the dialing area in the tate. Telephone ampling effort i directed only at houehold located in coatal countie, generally countie within 25 to 5 mile of marine water. Houehold within defined dialing area are contacted at random at the end of each wave. Telephone interview are conducted with marine angler and cover only fihing activity in the previou 2 month. Data obtained from the telephone urvey include the number of angler per houehold and the number and mode of fihing trip taken during the previou 2 month. The intercept portion of the MRFSS conit of onite interview of marine recreational angler. The intercept urvey i deigned a a tratified random ample with the primary ampling unit being a fihing tripo A trata correpond to a fihing mode during a 2 month ampling period. Three mode of fihing activity are ampled: hore (beach/bank ite and from all manmade tructure uch a pier, jettie, bridge, etc.), party or charterboat, and private or rental boat. Data collected include information only regarding the fihing trip jut completed (e.g., how long the peron had fihed, what gear wa ued), elected demographic information (tate and county of reidence) followed by an examination of the repondent' catch. Length and weight data are recorded for a ample of each pecie in the repondent' catch. Intercept ampling in the Gulf of Mexico i conducted continuouly in ix 2month ampling period from January through December. The allocation of intercept interview i baed on MRFSS reult from the previou three year with ample allocation for each State being in proportion to the average of the etimated number of fihing trip from the previou three year. The tratified deign of the urvey allow differential ample allocation at the mode level with the hore mode receiving approximately one third of the allocation baed on a proportional ampling cheme. The allocation of interview by fihing mode and wave i baed on empirical data and previou Marine Recreational Fihery Statitic Survey reult. Complete coatwide ite lit are created and ite aignment are elected baed on hitorical information on itepecific fihing activity. Sampling i cheduled to cover all weekday, weekend and holiday. It i difficult to obtain precie etimate of fihing effort for the charterboat fihery due to the relatively low fihing activity of coatal county reident in thi mode. Generally le than 2% of all houehold contacted in the telephone urvey have been active in the charterboat fihery. The prevalence of charterboat fihing activity varie coniderably by time of year and geographic location. Obtaining precie etimate of fihing effort for a fihery with a uch a low prevalence by ue of randomdigit dialing method would require unrealitically large ample ize. Statitical method of imputing effort value for the charterboat fihery have been ued to reduce the effect of mall ample ize. Thee method, however tend to mak the yeartoyear change in the fihery. 1

21 Currently about 8, intercept interview and 28, telephone interview are conducted annually from Wet Florida through Louiiana. Of the 8, intercept interview about 1, are conducted in the charterboat tratum. The following are ome general comment regarding the MRFSS: 1. Having a low fihing prevalence for the charterboat fihery among coatal county reident doe not reult in a biaed etimate. Etimate baed on the telephone urvey are till unbiaed; they jut may not be very precie. 2. Fluctuating effort etimate are due in part to demographic and ociological factor. See comment in the recent MRFSS publication under outlier. 3. Untable expanion factor are due in part to the ampling protocol which allow all individual on a boat to be interviewed. Thu in many cae the MRFSS ample boat trip rather than individual fihing trip. It i not unuual for all individual on a boat to be from outoftate and ince the prevalence of charterboat fihing by coatal county reident i low, high expanion factor and thu unrealitically high effort etimate may reult. Ue of hitorical data to compute expanion factor for the noncoatal and outoftate component of the charterboat fihing effort have mitigated the effect of cluter ampling of fihing trip in thi mode. 4. Refual to participate in the telephone urvey ha remained fairly contant at 5 to 7%. Some tate uch a New Jerey have a omewhat higher rate. The belief that telephone urvey are becoming more difficult to conduct due to the proliferation of anwering machine and urvey aturation i not upported by MRFSS data. It i poible that it will become more difficult to conduct telephone urvey but that ha not yet occurred. 5. In 1991 each telephone urvey interview cot $ NMFS Gulf Coat Harold Bruher Since 1975, with the exception of one year, all NMFS Southeat Regional urvey looked primarily at relative CPUE, motly for allocation purpoe. Thee urvey tarted in Dade County to etimate catch per unit of effort for king mackerel. Initially, daily potcard quetionnaire were ued which targeted private boat, charterboat, and headboat, with a prize ytem to reward thoe who participated. Subequently, private boat and headboat were dropped and only charterboat (le than 25 feet in length and carrying le than 15 paenger) were ampled. Thi wa done primarily becaue there wa a well known ampling univere with relatively few acce point and high fihing intenity. Alo ampling cot are retatively tow, repone are generally good, and CPU E conitent. The coatal pelagic complex of fih pecie wa the primary target group. In 1976, potcard quetionnaire were dropped and logbook were ditributed to elected charterboat captain in Florida, Alabama, and Miiippi. Louiiana had a lottery ytem, and Texa conducted their own urvey. After a brief interruption in the urvey, NMFS began urveying charterboat in 1982, contracting with 11

22 charterboat captain to fill out logbook for the um of $1 per month. Five area were targeted (northwet Florida, outhwet Texa, outh Florida, North Carolina, and Louiiana) with two captain per area cooperating. At that time, compliance with the logbook wa etimated to be 9%. In 1983, the urvey wa expanded to 15 area with an etimated 99% repone rate. In 1984 the urvey wa reduced to uing 8 to 1 charterboat due to budget contraint; however, in 1985 the full urvey wa again implemented, uing three charterboat per urvey area. The repone rate for 1984 and 1985 were 99% and 94%, repectively. In 1986, a voluntary logbook program wa initiated.. with logbook ent to over 9 captain. Only 564 captain reported at leat once, which tranlate to a 58% repone rate. In 1987, mandatory reporting wa implemented, and repone rate dropped to 23%, becoming le toward the end of the year. In 1988 the urvey wa dicontinued, to allow time for retructuring. In 1989 the voluntary logbook urvey wa again initiated, uing 112 charterboat with a 67% repone rate. By 199, 123 captain were cooperating. It i felt that education of the charterboat captain toward the need for and benefit to be realized from reliable data from their fihery will reult in a greater degree of cooperation and a better data bae. During 1989 and 199, captain were aked why they did or did not deire to participate in logbook reporting. The following reaon were given for not participating: 1) upet with federal fihery regulation, 2) do not fih enough, or 3) fih in bay, not in the Excluive Economic zone. Captain who agreed to participate did not offer an explanation a to why they were willing to participate. The urvey wa not originally deigned to etimate total landing, and uch etimate are highly biaed due to ampling only the mot active or intereted captain. Due to changing management need, there ha been an attempt to quantify the univere to identify biae and major hift in the indice. The data are primarily ued for tock aement purpoe, bag limit impact, and migration information. It i agreed that the urvey could be integrated with other effort; however, the urvey manager feel it i important to maintain the integrity of the time erie. Quetion and Anwer Q: What about' compliance and writing out of variou reef pecie? A: They feel compliance i good, although the form have not alway lited the ame pecie. If you get landing change you do not know if it wa not caught or wa jut omitted in previou year. Motly they get trolling boat; they don't have a lot of reef pecie caught. With paage of the licene law, they have mandatory reporting and they are evaluating what to require. Repone have alo depended on viibility and communication with agent. Q: What about impact of quota? A: You'd be urpried. Some of the captain like limit becaue it limit their fihing time. They have looked at the data to ee if captain were going to ubtitute pecie. For example, for king mackerel, vermilion napper were a ubtitute. When they caught the bag limit, they would hift to bottom fihing intead of trolling for other pelagic. 12

23 Q: I there correlation of target pecie and how they ay they are fihing? A: Some captain check all fihing type; many are very opportunitic. Q: Do they collect weight data (to Bruher)? A: Ye, although the weight are etimated by pecie. Q: There i confuion whether the urvey i mandatory. A: Technically mandatory reporting i in effect but they are electing who they want to repond. They ak who i willing to repond within their criteria. Mandatory reporting without enforcement will not work. Q: Stu Kennedy brought up their mandatory requirement and what will be required then. For Florida, with paage of their fihing licene, that law made reporting mandatory. He want idea on what hould be made mandatory and how it will impact other urvey. He aume it cover all fihing area if you are licened in Florida. A: Bruher noted that in 1982 they paid $1/ month; that went down to $5/ month. Jeff lely commented that education i critical; their bet repone i in the Panama City area becaue of the eae of communication. He alo noted that travel requirement will retrict their ability to repond to captain' requet. Bruher recommended that they adhere to federal reporting requirement o ytem in place are not proliferating and tay conitent. Stu agreed in the long run that would be nice. Right now he i in between getting baeline level of information in effort; at the top he i getting information on all the pecie in the fihery. Hi feeling i that mandatory reporting hould be acro the board. Q: What i the motivation of participant? A: Bruher feel that many of them know the importance of the information to fihery manager. Gene Nakamura noted that when mandatory enactment take effect, NMFS will not be able to pay for repone. Ron Luken commented that he know of a captain who repreent a lot of people who aid that with mandatory reporting he would lie. That i one reaon NMFS choe to keep voluntary reporting. Luken uggeted uing the exiting network of marine agent and educational agent to improve communication. Q: Have you ever compared your reult with the MRFSS? A: They have had validation of pecie compoition uing MRFSS, in a pecial tudy of a mall area where MRFSS interviewer recorded veel name. The major pecie were in the ballpark; wherea minor, low value pecie did not match at all. They alo looked at bag limit data and that matched very well. Q: I there a honvoluntary option? A: Not the way the law i worded. Q: What happen to a captain who doe not comply? A: They could loe their licene, even for falification. Ha anyone tried buine audit to verify that at leat they are reporting all their trip? Q: When the captain apply for their licene in Florida, what information i required? A: Virtually nothing. The licene i one of thoe thing you keep fighting for but when you finally get it; it doen't look like what you aked for. You take what you can get. They feel lucky to have at leat 1% of the name and addree of people in the buine. For the recreational licene they only get 1 in 1 on their urvey card. They do get name, addre and veel documentation or FL number, o they hope they can track it from that point. They have acce to boat regitration file 13

24 and reource ue licenel but there i no common thread linking thoe file that i keypunched correctly. When you try to track people you don't get good matche againt what i put on the form and what people enter on the licene. We hould not give out licene until the veel number i validated and we know it i a real veel number. Q: Are you limited by the legilation a to what you can ak them to put on the application? A: No. Texa ha it a a bonded licene. In Florida I it i at the county government level. Either way you have problem with having no control over the people reponible for filling out the licene form Texa Maury Oborn Texa began urveying charterboat ( 1 angler or le) in 1978 including mall inhore boat targeting red drum and potted eatrout and larger offhore boat targeting coatal pelagic and reef fih. Beg inning September an inventory of licened and unlicened guide wa et upl and operator were contacted by phone to try to arrange dockide ampling at the end of their trip on randomly elected urvey day. Some boat, owned by private corporation who ue them to entertain clientl may alo do other charter; thoe guide are not alway licened. The ampling frame included checking telephone book ad and contacting marina operator. High turnover in the fihery caued problem in maintaining a complete inventory. During the ummer of 1979, 232 urvey day were randomly elected. Operator were called ahead of time to ee when they planned to return to the dock, and interviewer made an effort to interview them on their return. Only 73 interview were accomplihed. Percent mean error for the ummer etimate in 1979, 1981 and 1982 ranged from 23% for effort and 413% for landing. Texa did not make trip etimate the firt year of the urvey; the primary aim wa to get CPUE. Beginning with the ummer of total trip were etimated by contacting each operator at the end of the umme r and aking the total number of trip made. Total harvet wa calculated by multiplying the number of trip by the mean catch per trip. That urvey wa dicontinued becaue of numerou problem. Contacting operator wa difficult becaue of their high mobility and eaonality; mot were parttime operator. During the ummer tudie, nine of the captain in the Galveton area and 29 captain in the Arana/ Corpu Chriti area were never contacted. Captain fihing in the Gulf of Mexico and buinee that hired captain to take company peronnel and/ or client fihing were not required to obtain a guide licene and were hard to maintain in the inventory. Owner/ captain noncooperation wa believed to be a problem ince many captain did not return when they told u they expected to. Beginning May charterboat were incorporated into the privateboat acce point urvey with no increae in ampling effort. Thi wa made poible by including marina and boathoue in the boat acce inventory (which previouly included only boat ramp) and by aigning. partie unique activity code which allowed data to be extracted for eparate etimate in ditinct trata. Boat acce ite were choen uing nonuniform probability random ampling baed on relative preure for each ite calculated for all fihing activitie in all area (bay, pae, territorial ea ( TTS) and Excluive Economic Zone ( EEZ)). Thi may reult in higher variance than would be achieved by complete tratification but reult in major gain in efficiency. Over 1, urvey day were conducted each year; partyboat 14