Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
1
Introduction
Recreational fisheries are an important and growing component of
many marine fisheries. Data about the numbers and kinds of fish taken
through recreational fishing are essential for fisheries management. In
recent years, recreational fisheries have been monitored less rigorously
than commercial fisheries. But as concerns about overfishing have
grown, more attention has been turned toward the possible impact of
marine recreational fishing and the proportion of fish taken by each
sector (e.g., National Research Council, 1999, 2000; Lucy and
Studholme, 2002; Coleman et al., 2004). This, in turn, has led to greater
demands for timely, accurate recreational fishing data and scrutiny of the
methods used to collect these data.
According to the best available estimates, approximately 14 million
anglers made almost 82 million fishing trips along the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Gulf coasts (excluding Texas) in 2004 (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 2005a). While each individual angler
typically harvests a small number of fish, collectively these sport
fisheries can take a significant fraction of the yearly catch. For example,
in 1999, recreational fishing accounted for 94 percent of the total catch
of spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), 76 percent of striped bass
(Morone saxatilis) and California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher),
and 60 percent of king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) (Figure 1.1).
Recreational catch continues to grow for several important fisheries; the
recreational catch of summer flounder and Pacific halibut increased 40
fold in less than 20 years (Coughenower and Blood, 1997). Recent
scientific papers (e.g., Coleman et al., 2004; Cooke and Cowx, 2004)
provide data that suggest recreational fisheries are a more significant
factor in the exploitation of fish stocks than previously believed.
Considering the potential contribution recreational fishing has to total
15
OCR for page 16
16 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
Striped Bass
Red Drum
Bluefish
Dolphinfish
Spotted Seatrout
Summer Flounder
Atlantic Croaker
Sheephead
King Mackerel
Yellowfin Tuna
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Commercial Recreational
FIGURE 1.1 Top Ten Recreational Species Versus Commercial Harvest
for 2004. Comparisons between the top ten species in descending order
of abundance by weight for U.S. recreational fish harvests and
commercial landings. The figure does not include data for Alaska and
Texas because no NMFS recreational surveys are conducted in those
states (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005a).
catch, it is clear that accurate monitoring of catch from both recreational
and commercial fisheries is needed to ensure that total catch does not
exceed the total allowable catch calculated to maintain a sustainable
population.
Nationally, recreational catch is monitored primarily (but not
entirely) through the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS), which was implemented by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration (NOAA) in 1979 to obtain standardized and comparable esti-
mates of participation, effort, and catch by anglers in U.S. marine waters
(Essig and Holliday, 1991; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, 2005b). In addition, there are several state programs, operated
instead of or complementary to the MRFSS, which are discussed in
Chapter 3. The stated purpose of the MRFSS is to establish a reliable
OCR for page 17
INTRODUCTION 17
database for estimating the impact of marine recreational fishing on
marine resources. According to the MRFSS, "[t]he program's mission is
to provide accurate, precise, and timely fisheries-dependent information
for U.S. marine waters through the coordination and administration of
recreational fisheries surveys nationwide" (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 2005b). However, many now argue that
recreational data collected through the MRFSS and other recreational
fishing surveys are being used for management decisions in ways that
exceed their intended design and purpose (Box 1.1).
As exploitation levels of the nation's fisheries have increased,
managers have begun (of necessity) to manage stocks more actively.
This has resulted in the close monitoring of catch; more frequent closings
of fishery areas and shortening of seasons; more stringent size limits; and
for anglers, more detailed, species-specific bag limits. Compared to only
10 years ago, recreational fisheries data are now incorporated into more
fisheries management plans and stock assessments of the regional fishery
management councils. Currently, many recreational fisheries are man-
aged on annually monitored quotas, and some are even managed using
in-season quotas. This type of recreational fisheries management requires
data to be collected and analyzed in the span of weeks instead of
months--the amount of time it has traditionally taken to collect and
process recreational data. Other recreational fisheries require monitoring
and management on finer geographical scales. For example, the quota for
the striped bass stock on the east coast is divided among states, and each
state is required to report its respective catch. This is also true for king
mackerel.
As these new needs have arisen, some of the challenges have been
met with changes to the MRFSS, and in some cases, new surveys have
been implemented to provide some of the necessary data (see Appendix
C). However, concern remains that the data currently being collected
through recreational fishing surveys are not precise, robust, or timely
enough for the various scales employed in fisheries management. The
mismatch between the data required and the data delivered has prompted
substantial commentary on and criticism of the program. In addition,
there are occasions when the estimates of total catch vary widely
between years, leading to significant changes in the management
restrictions implemented, again eliciting questions and criticisms from
recreational anglers and commercial fishermen.
The data produced by these surveys are subjected to considerable
scrutiny, but there is a lack of confidence within some elements of the
angler community regarding the accuracy of total removal estimates of
OCR for page 18
18 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
Box 1.1
Users of the MRFSS Information
The MRFSS information is used by a variety of different groups. The
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, amend-
ed in 1980, and now the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (P.L. 94-265) gives much fishery management respon-
sibility to eight regional fishery management councils. In addition, there
are three marine fisheries commissions--the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission,
and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission--which have vari-
ous degrees of management and regulatory authority. There are four
international commissions that make management recommendations to
their governments, including the U.S. government, for implementation:
the Pacific Salmon Commission (United States and Canada), the Inter-
national Pacific Halibut Commission (United States and Canada), the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (United States and 14 other
member countries), and the International Commission on Conservation
of Atlantic Tunas (United States and 40 other member countries). (The
Great Lakes Fishery Commission [United States and Canada] does not
take part in or use the MRFSS.) The commissions manage species that
are recreationally important. The coastal states have fishery manage-
ment agencies with jurisdiction in state waters (usually to three nautical
miles offshore but nine nautical miles for Texas, Florida, and Puerto
Rico). Other users include fishing organizations, environmental groups,
various industry groups, and individuals. All these groups use data from
the MRFSS and other sources to make decisions concerning their
various activities.
recreational fish catch. This has resulted in reduced angler cooperation
with the data-collection surveys (because participation is voluntary) and
in disagreements about proposed management actions. On some occa-
sions, these disagreements have resulted in lawsuits against NMFS.
Some user groups have even generated alternate surveys in attempts to
illustrate shortcomings of existing surveys or to provide a more appro-
priate design for local circumstances.
This report will demonstrate that achieving valid and reliable
recreational fishing estimates in the future will require much better
cooperation between agencies; the redesign of some existing surveys; the
creation of new surveys; and, most important, increased funding to make
the above practicable.
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION 19
WHAT DATA ARE COLLECTED FROM ANGLERS
Usually, recreational surveys at large spatial scales measure angler
effort (E) using one survey (e.g., telephone survey) and measure catch
per unit effort (CPUE) using a separate survey (e.g., angler interview). If
E and CPUE are known, one can calculate total catch (C) as:
C = E ×CPUE
There are three different categories of catch: catch available for
inspection during the onsite interview (A); catch unavailable for inspect-
tion because it is filleted, discarded dead, or refused for inspection (B1);
and catch released alive (B2). For each angler trip, total catch is defined
as A + B1 + B2, and landed catch, or harvest (H), is calculated as A +
B1. For management purposes such as quota monitoring, the total
number of fish taken by anglers is recorded as harvest; catch released
alive is not factored in.
For stock assessment purposes, an additional fraction of the catch
released alive that subsequently dies is estimated using a "hooking"
mortality (MH). This enables the estimation of total recreational fishing
removals (R):
R = A + B1 + (B2 × MH)
Catch, harvest, and total removals are estimated by species for specific
spatial regions and temporal periods, with the spatial and temporal scale
requirements depending on the management needs for that species.
Further, catch is assigned to age or size classes based on biological
sampling of the catch.
HOW CATCH IS ESTIMATED FROM
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY DATA
The data produced by surveys of anglers are used to provide infor-
mation for stock assessments and to support management decisions. An
accurate estimate of total removals is the most critical piece of infor-
mation needed for marine fisheries management (Gulland, 1983; Pauly,
1998; Watson et al., 2000), but other estimates also are required, includ-
ing effort expended; species targeted; geographical allocation of land-
OCR for page 20
20 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
ings; and the species, age, and size composition of the catch. In addition
to quota monitoring and stock assessments, recreational data are also
important for social and economic studies that help to determine current
socioeconomic impacts of fishing participation and help to evaluate the
effectiveness of current and potential fishery management actions.
However, economic and social data generally are not collected in the
same consistent, annual approach as catch and CPUE data.
WHY RECREATIONAL FISHING DATA
ARE DIFFICULT TO COLLECT
While there are problems with commercial catch statistics, such as
lack of mandatory reporting requirements for some fisheries and
incorrect reporting, in general, it is more straightforward and less
complex to collect catch statistics for the commercial sector than the
recreational one. Commercial fisheries catches are usually landed at
specific points where dealers are located. At these places, catch is
weighed and recorded, providing an opportunity to monitor this catch
through dockside landing receipts. Since both the dealer and the
fisherman record and submit the data collected, there is a useful
redundancy in the data that facilitates error checking and quality control.
More specific effort and discard information is often documented
through mandatory logbooks and observer programs. Furthermore, the
universe of known fishermen in the commercial sector is defined through
required commercial licenses. All of these facts align to provide rela-
tively reliable and timely estimates from the commercial sector.
Conversely, the participation base for the recreational fishery is
considerably more numerous, diverse, and diffuse than that for com-
mercial fisheries. In addition, anglers access fisheries in numerous
modes1 so there are not limited access points analogous to processing
facilities at which to intercept anglers. The nature of the participants is
also different. Many anglers are infrequent participants in the fishery and
may be less amenable to survey coverage.
The goal of monitoring all different modes, locations, and species
involved (e.g., charter boats versus private boats, offshore versus near-
shore species, fisheries with temporally or spatially restricted fishing
1 The type of place or platform from which marine recreational fishing occurs,
including fishing from boats sailing from harbors, marinas, and private docks
and from shore on piers, jetties, and beaches.
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTION 21
seasons) is a lofty one. Indeed, recreational surveys may be the most
complex national surveys currently conducted. With so many complex-
ities, accurate estimation of total catch is very expensive. Current meth-
ods circumvent some of this expense by making unverified--and, in
some cases, unverifiable--assumptions about angler behavior. The
extent to which these assumptions adversely affect the estimates is not
currently known and will need to be evaluated.
The When and Where of Data Collection
The current management framework for marine recreational fisheries
is highly diverse, depending on species and region. The temporal spec-
trum of management actions runs from in-season to annual to multi-year,
all of which require different data collection and processing strategies.
In-season management obviously requires the most timely data provision
to avoid quota overruns. In fact, this approach has been implemented
previously for some species and then abandoned due to the lack of
estimates of sufficient precision at the appropriate temporal and spatial
scale (e.g., red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico).
The spatial scale for management extends from local to regional2
and national to, occasionally, international. In addition, species may be
managed individually or jointly with co-occurring species. The adequacy
of a particular survey design for supporting a particular temporal scale of
management (in-season, annual, or multi-year) may require a similarly
resolved spatial scale. As finer management scales are created, sampling
strata that were previously combined to create a mean estimate on a
larger scale must now stand alone. This means a larger sample size from
each stratum is needed to achieve reasonable precision of the estimates
within each stratum. This requires evaluation and revision on a continu-
ing basis.
2 The committee uses the term "regional" to represent scales that are smaller
than national but larger than state, and consequently, there will be some
association of this scale with the jurisdictions of regional councils and multi-
state commissions. In some instances, however, the context could be interpreted
more broadly.
OCR for page 22
22 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
The Who of Data Collection
Recreational fisheries surveys involve the interaction of two large
and diverse groups of people: the fishing community and the survey
organizations. The recreational fishing community can be usefully
divided into two populations based on the mode of fishing. The first
includes anglers who fish from shore, docks, and private (i.e., not for-
hire) boats. The second, the for-hire sector, is comprised of anglers who
fish from head boats, charter boats, and guided boats.3 The issues that
impact sample design are different for the two populations. They differ in
total numbers of participants, the ability to access the anglers for
interview, the frequency of fishing activity, and the skill of each type of
angler. Typically, these two populations are sampled separately with the
for-hire sector often sampled using a boat directory telephone survey.
Organizations tasked with gathering the data for these angler surveys
vary across regions and states; this can contribute to variations in the
quality and quantity of the data collected. NMFS conducts the MRFSS
through contracts to private companies that complete the telephone and
intercept interviews. Some state agencies have taken on the responsibility
of conducting intercept interviews, using state personnel to collect the
catch data for each angler, while contractors continue to conduct the
telephone interviews. Still other states carry out all aspects of survey
implementation (e.g., Texas, California, Oregon, Washington); in Cali-
fornia, Oregon, and Washington, the survey activities receive partial
funding from NMFS. The degree to which the regional fisheries
commissions are involved in survey implementation and data collection
varies as well. The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission serves as
the contractor for the intercept portion of the MRFSS in that area; where-
as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is involved in survey
design and data handling for its area but is not involved in the actual
conduct of the data collection. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission (PSMFC) coordinates sampling in California, Oregon, and
3Head boats, also called party boats, take large groups of anglers (sometimes as
many as 100) on fishing trips; the groups usually are not pre-formed. Charter
boats (also occasionally called party boats) take smaller groups of anglers,
usually four to eight, most often in pre-formed groups. Guided trips are trips in
which a guide takes one or two anglers in a smaller boat. These different
categories operate under different U.S. Coast Guard and state license require-
ments. Throughout this report, these sectors are collectively referred to as the
for-hire sector.
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION 23
Washington between the states and NMFS, with a NMFS contract and
state funds. The sampling programs are a mix of state and PSMFC
samplers and supervisors. PSMFC maintains the catch and effort
database for the three states with the online Recreational Fisheries
Information Network (RecFIN). RecFIN is used by the states and the
Pacific Fishery Management Council to monitor and manage the fish-
eries under their purview. The RecFIN database is also available for
access by recreational fisheries constituents and the public. Clearly,
agency cooperation and coordination is crucial to producing consistent
and useful data and estimators.
The Cost of Data Collection
The amount of data collected is limited most often by cost. Each
telephone call made and each intercept survey conducted has a specific
price tag associated with it depending on labor costs of the surveyor and
the amount of training that person needs to conduct the survey properly.
In 2004, the annual operating budget for the MRFSS was approximately
$7.2 million. In addition, many states have chosen to supplement existing
surveys with additional funds, increasing the overall sample size to
achieve specific state goals. For example, North Carolina dedicates
approximately $260,000 per year in additional funds to supplement the
MRFSS sampling. Most often, additional money is expended because of
the need for more accurate or precise estimates to better manage the
resources. The cost of the data collection should always be weighed
against the benefit of having more information. This committee cannot
judge how much federal money should be spent on any endeavor, but
one important aspect of the research it recommends in Chapter 6 would
be to identify the financial costs and benefits in terms of various
improvements in the survey.
SCIENTIFIC ISSUES AFFECTING SURVEY DESIGN
For all surveys, there are concerns that must be addressed adequately
to foster confidence in the generated estimates. Primary among these are
the statistical concerns of precision and bias. (See Box 1.2 for a few
relevant statistical definitions; see Chapter 3 for more detailed discussion
of these statistical issues.) Inadequate precision can be addressed in a
straightforward manner by increasing sample size or by otherwise
OCR for page 24
24 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
increasing the efficiency of the sample design. Bias is more difficult to
identify and reduce. It typically cannot be measured from the sample
itself and cannot be reduced without changes in the way the sample units
are selected or the way measurements are taken from those units.
In an ideal survey, the target population units are identified in a
frame, a sample is selected from the frame, and the selected units
respond with accurate information. Unfortunately, errors can arise at
each step in this process. Groves et al. (2004) classify errors as either
errors of representation or errors of measurement.
Errors of representation are those that arise due to problems that
prevent the sample from representing the population accurately. These
errors can lead to bias in the estimates if the excluded population units
differ from the included ones. In fisheries surveys, these errors include
the following:
· Coverage error occurs when the sampling frame does not match
the target population perfectly, due to duplications or under-
coverage. Duplications occur when the frame lists a target unit
more than once, such as a fishing household with more than one
telephone line. Undercoverage occurs when the sampling frame
does not include all the units belonging to the target population.
This occurs when not all sampling sites are included in the frame
or only coastal households are included in the telephone sampl-
ing frame.
· Nonresponse error occurs when some sampled units do not
provide data, either because they are not located (e.g., not at
home in telephone survey), or they refuse to participate (e.g.,
will not allow counting or measurement of fish in intercept
survey).
Errors of measurement in fisheries surveys include the following:
· Respondent error occurs when the respondent cannot or will not
supply accurate information. Examples of this in fisheries survey
include prestige bias (i.e., the tendency for respondents to answer
in a way that makes them feel or look better) and recall bias (i.e.,
the inability to accurately remember previous events).
· Interviewer error occurs when interviewers introduce error into
the data they collect. For example, such an error would occur if
OCR for page 25
INTRODUCTION 25
Box 1.2
Essential Statistical Properties
Bias: The deviation of the expected value (mean) of a statistical esti-
mator from the quantity it estimates. Bias can arise if some units in the
population have no chance of entering the sample (e.g., anglers fishing
from private land who are not encountered in the intercept survey.) Bias
also can arise from inaccurate measurements made on those who do
enter the sample, such as incorrect recall by respondents. Bias usually
cannot be assessed from the sample itself. If it can be assessed, it
usually requires a special study outside the sample.
Variance: The expected value of the squared difference between a
statistical estimator and its mean, reflecting the estimator's tendency to
differ from sample to sample. An estimator with low variance is said to be
precise. Variance usually can be assessed accurately from the sample
itself. Estimators typically are reported with an associated variance that
has been computed from the sample.
Mean Square Error (MSE): The expected value of the squared
difference between a statistical estimator and the quantity it estimates.
MSE can also be computed as bias squared plus variance. Note that an
estimator can be accurate (low bias) but not precise (high variance) or
vice versa, but an estimator with low MSE is both accurate and precise.
In this report, "sources of error" refers to MSE: bias, variance, or both.
Accuracy: An accurate estimator has a small MSE. This implies that it
has little or no bias and a small variance. Sometimes the term "accuracy"
is used narrowly to imply low bias only. Note that highly inaccurate
estimators are not useful, regardless of their precision. For example, an
estimator of harvest that ignores the data and is given as -5 fish every
year is perfectly precise (zero variance) but very inaccurate.
the data collectors incorrectly identified a fish species in the
intercept sample.
Other issues that need to be addressed in assessing estimates made from
a sampling design are whether the sampling and measurement are being
conducted as designed and whether the estimation procedure is matched
appropriately to the sample design. For example, are the inter-viewers in
the intercept surveys being trained and monitored so that they collect
data from a probability sample of anglers? Are the data collected
appropriately weighted and combined to take into account the complex-
ities of the probability design?
OCR for page 26
26 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
EXISTING SURVEYS
There are several different survey methods currently being employed
throughout the United States to monitor marine recreational fishery catch
and effort. Primarily, these efforts are conducted and funded by NMFS,
but there are many federalstate cooperative programs as well. While the
MRFSS has been the predominant survey nationally, some states have
never been a part of this program. For example, as alternatives to the
MRFSS, Texas has conducted the Texas Marine Recreational Fishing
Survey since 1974, and Alaska conducts the Alaska Sport Fish Statewide
Harvest Survey. These states generally compile recreational fishing data
for summary reports, but the data are not submitted to the MRFSS for
inclusion in the national database. And while the MRFSS is still a major
survey for some regions, fisheries managers in each region (e.g.,
Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts; Hawaii; Alaska) all use a different
combination of methods.
Currently, there are at least 13 component surveys conducted by
federal or state agencies (Figure 1.2 and Appendix B), largely funded
through the MRFSS, that produce data that are compatible with the
overall MRFSS goals but that may have significantly different
methodologies and statistical properties. The number of surveys has
grown as more or better data are needed for a particular sector or
geographical area. For example, all states along the west coast have
implemented individual surveys that replace the national MRFSS
program due to their needs for better assessment data, such as for
managing groundfish on an in-season basis. Generally, the MRFSS has
worked with partner agencies to develop these supplemental surveys.
Because data must be comparable across all surveys for national
estimates, NMFS works with the states and the regional fisheries
commissions to plan new surveys, test new designs, benchmark data, and
analyze and manage collected data.
As mentioned previously, most recreational surveys are designed
with two separate components that are then combined to estimate total
catch. For the MRFSS, these two complementary surveys are the access-
point angler intercept survey used to determine catch rate and species
composition and the coastal household telephone survey used to deter-
mine fishing effort. The Puget Sound Sampling Program in Washington,
the Shore and Estuary Boat Survey in Oregon, and the California Rec-
reational Fisheries Survey (CRFS) are also telephoneaccess surveys;
however, the details of survey design are quite different. Alternately, the
OCR for page 27
INTRODUCTION 27
FIGURE 1.2 Many different surveys nationwide are used to estimate
recreational catch and catch per unit effort (CPUE) data. The MRFSS is
used along the eastern seaboard and the Gulf coast, but this survey has
been replaced in each of the west coast states with surveys that are
more tailored to state management needs. The MRFSS includes an
access-point (onsite) intercept angler survey, a telephone survey
(offsite), and the For-Hire Survey, which includes on- and offsite
components, and occasionally, observers. An overlap of surveys exists
in several states and regions. For example, the For-Hire Survey and the
Party Charter Survey are both used in California to measure the for-hire
sector. The Large Pelagic Survey is administered along the mid- and
north Atlantic coast, as well as the For-Hire Survey and the MRFSS.
(Since this map does not show all existing surveys, a more complete list
is available in Appendix B.)
Oregon Recreational Boat Survey and the Ocean Sampling Program
(Washington) can be categorized as an accessaccess survey, as are the
private boat and artificial structure mode sampling components of CRFS,
where boat counts at a specific location are used to determine effort and
OCR for page 28
28 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
the access-point intercept is used to gather catch rate and species infor-
mation.
Due to the diversity of fishing modes and the nature and motivations
of the angler population participating in each of these modes, no single
survey methodology is likely capable of adequately capturing all the
needed data. Recognizing these issues, both the MRFSS and state
agencies have augmented the telephoneaccess surveys with more
focused surveys to deal with these other fishing modes. For example, the
MRFSS For-Hire Survey was designed in 1995 and has now been
implemented nationwide (except for Texas, Alaska, Oregon, Wash-
ington, and Hawaii) to provide adequate coverage of the guided trip,
head boat, and charter boat sectors. Some species of interest, such as
salmon, halibut, bluefin tuna, and marlin, require catch card reporting,
which results in catch information for those species, depending in part on
how many cards are returned. Further, other rare event species that were
typically undersampled in the MRFSS are now targeted with the Large
Pelagic Survey.
NMFS, the regional fisheries commissions, and the states have made
many advances that have improved recreational fishing surveys in recent
years. However, many of the improvements have been made piecemeal
as issues or demands arise. Because the context for marine recreational
fisheries management has changed for the reasons noted earlier and
because these other advances have occurred and other survey approaches
have been developed, it is appropriate now to critique the entire concept
of a MRFSS or MRFSS-like effort. The goal is to provide recommen-
dations, developed in the following chapters, to facilitate future progress.
COMMITTEE APPROACH AND REPORT ORGANIZATION
To address questions about the MRFSS and other surveys, NMFS
asked the National Academies to assemble a committee to (1) review
current survey methods used by existing federal and state cooperative
programs to estimate marine recreational fisheries effort, CPUE, and
catch and (2) make recommendations for possible improvements to
current surveys and possible implementation of alternative approaches.
(See Box S.1 for the committee's full statement of task.)
The Committee on the Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey
Methods, composed of experts in survey design and statistics, biological
statistics, fisheries management, and recreational fisheries economics
and sociology, met five times over the course of the study (March 1011,
OCR for page 29
INTRODUCTION 29
2005, in Washington, DC; May 1921, 2005, in San Francisco, CA; July
79, 2005, in New Orleans, LA; September 2224, 2005, in New York,
NY; and October 2628, 2005, in Tampa, FL). At each meeting, there
were one or more public sessions during which the committee heard
from federal and state government officials (including NMFS officials),
anglers, representatives of fishing organizations, representatives of other
nongovernmental organizations, and members of the public. (These
presenters are listed in the acknowledgments section in the front of this
report.) The presentations and written information provided at those
meetings and at other times, along with various sources of published and
unpublished literature, were taken into account as the committee arrived
at its findings and recommendations.
The committee took the approach of discussing some of the major
design issues or data needs associated primarily with the MRFSS but that
also occur in some of the other regional or state surveys. The report
structure is defined by these issues and not by the surveys themselves.
The report focuses on marine (and not freshwater) recreational fishing
because that is the interest and purview of NMFS.
This report presents general issues and problems with current survey
methods and designs in Chapter 2, and Chapter 3 reviews sample design
concerns and presents alternative survey methodologies that can be used
to improve recreational fisheries data. Subsequent chapters discuss how
recreational data are used in stock assessments and some of the issues
that need to be addressed if these data continue to be an essential
information source for future assessments (Chapter 4) and how new
survey methods are needed to collect better quality or more useful data
on the human dimensions of recreational fisheries (Chapter 5). Chapter 6
discusses methods for establishing a program structure that may allow
for continued improvements in recreational fishing survey methods. The
report concludes with a discussion of methods to improve communi-
cation and enhance confidence in the national and state survey programs
(Chapter 7). Additionally, case studies of three recreational species and
their associated survey and management methods are used throughout
the report to highlight specific issues; the full details of these examples
can be found in Appendix C.
OCR for page 30
Representative terms from entire chapter:
telephone survey
