National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Summary

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is responsible for collecting information on marine recreational angling. It does so principally through the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), a survey program that consists of an in-person survey at fishing access sites and a mail survey, in addition to other complementary or alternative surveys. Data collected from anglers through the MRIP supply fisheries managers with essential information for assessing fish stocks. In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC; now referred to as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or “the National Academies”) provided an evaluation of the MRIP’s predecessor, the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). That review, Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, presented conclusions and recommendations in six categories: sampling issues, statistical estimation issues, human dimensions, program management and support, communication and outreach, and general recommendations.

After spending nearly a decade addressing the recommendations, NMFS requested another evaluation of its modified survey program (MRIP). This report, the result of that evaluation, serves as a 10-year progress report (Box S.1). The committee met on four occasions, in Washington, DC; Charleston, South Carolina; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Irvine, California. At each meeting, the committee heard from state and federal employees as well as regional stakeholders. The committee also received written input from stakeholders during the study process. The resulting report recognizes the impressive progress that NMFS has made, including major improvements in the statistical soundness of its survey designs. It also highlights some remaining challenges, and provides recommendations for addressing them. This report principally focuses on the Fishing Effort

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Survey (FES) and the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS) that form the backbone of the MRIP, but recognizes the role that other survey programs play in the MRIP and discusses them as they relate to coordination, certification, continuity, and other important aspects of the MRIP.

FISHERIES SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT

Recreational fishing is a favorite pastime in the United States. Recreational anglers throughout the nation fish from beaches and piers, as well from private, rental, or charter boats. Although recreational anglers each may take only a small number of fish, collectively, they can have a significant impact on the overall abundance of a stock. In some fisheries, the recreational catch exceeds the commercial catch.

Several attributes of recreational fisheries make them difficult to assess. Recreational fisheries include a large number of participants using many fishing modes at or from many diverse access points. Some recreational anglers travel great distances to fish, while others fish from their private property. Some anglers often fish, while others seldom fish. These characteristics make recreational anglers difficult to characterize and monitor. To further complicate matters, recreational anglers release some of their catch, and because discard mortality is difficult to assess, the overall impact on fish stocks also is difficult to assess.

MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES STATISTICS SURVEY

In 1979, NMFS established the MRFSS as a national program for gathering standardized and comparable data on marine recreational fisheries in the United States. The MRFSS primarily consisted of two independent but complementary surveys, a coastal household telephone survey using random-digit dialing to sample potential anglers, and an in-person intercept survey that sampled anglers where they completed their fishing trips.

Data collected from telephone surveys were used to produce estimates of effort (i.e., number of angler trips taken), and data collected from intercept surveys were used to establish estimates of catch per unit effort (CPUE). Estimates of total catch are derived using the product of effort and CPUE. Catch estimates are crucial for stock assessment and management (i.e., to avoid overfishing or to rebuild overfished stocks).

In addition to the telephone and intercept surveys, the MRFSS program allowed for alternative or supplemental region-, state-, species-, or sector-specific surveys. Alaska has never been part of the MRFSS program, and Texas has not been since 1985; both conduct their own surveys.

Since the MRFSS was established, the context for conducting marine recreational fishing surveys has changed. Demand for active management on narrower temporal and spatial scales has increased, and the mix of recreational and com-

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

mercial fishing has changed for some species and regions. By the early 2000s, many anglers, managers, and fishery scientists were concerned that the use of data produced by the MRFSS in management exceeded the original design and purposes of the MRFSS. Specifically, they were concerned that the precision, robustness, and timeliness of data were misaligned with management needs. Social and technological changes were also impacting the surveys’ effectiveness and efficiency.

The conclusions and recommendations from the 2006 NRC report called for a considerable redesign of the survey program to reduce bias, increase efficiencies, and allow for greater stakeholder relations. However, the 2006 report also acknowledged the considerable complexity and challenges associated with such changes and supported making additional resources available for this purpose. In 2007, Congress called for implementation of the recommendations in the report to the extent feasible.

MARINE RECREATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAM

Since 2007, NMFS has worked to improve the survey program by transitioning from the MRFSS program to the MRIP. Like the MRFSS program, the MRIP is composed predominantly of an intercept survey (APAIS) to gauge CPUE and a separate offsite effort survey (FES) to determine effort. However, both surveys have undergone significant changes in terms of methodologies and statistical analyses. For example, the offsite FES has been transitioning from the telephone survey to a mail-based survey that employs address-based sampling.

The MRIP also funds a variety of region-, state-, species-, and sector-specific surveys that either supplement or serve as alternatives to the APAIS and FES (see Figure S.1). NMFS has had to consider how to continue to provide flexibility for these other surveys, which are tailored for specific circumstances, while retaining sufficient data consistency to maintain a national perspective.

Fishing Effort Survey

Sample Design and Data Collection

Fishing effort has historically been estimated with data collected from the telephone survey. The 2006 report cited a growing number of issues affecting the bias and precision of estimates. These included potentially low data quality because of undercoverage bias from increasingly fewer households having landline phones, in addition to already low response rates, which were projected to further decrease over time. That report suggested a national angler registry as a possible solution, because it could serve as a list from which to sample (also referred to as a sample frame).

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Image
FIGURE S.1 A visualization of where various recreational fisheries surveys are implemented within the United States. Most are at least in part supported by the MRIP. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department survey and both surveys conducted in Alaska, however, are not supported by the MRIP funds. Represented in the individual circles (from left to right) are Alaska, Guam and Samoa, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. SOURCE: NMFS, 2014a.

The 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required NMFS to create the National Saltwater Angler Registry (NSAR). The statute and regulations provide an exemption for states with saltwater license registries. State license frames could serve to meet federal requirements. Pilot studies conducted by NMFS indicated that the NSAR is not an ideal sample frame, however, because most states have exemptions in their license requirements, and therefore, coverage is not uniform. Instead, NMFS developed an innovative mail survey that uses address-based sampling enhanced by the NSAR to improve effectiveness and appropriateness of fishing effort estimation. A pilot test with this frame resulted in impressive improvements over the telephone survey used in the MRFSS, and the committee commends NMFS’s innovative use of the registry. This important shift from a phone survey to a mail survey also addresses societal trends such as the increasing reliance on cell phones and declining use of landlines. The enhanced sampling frame enabled a direct link to coastal households through geolocation information. Additionally, this new approach provides another level of stratification for sampling associated with license status (Yes versus No/Unknown). The methodologies associated with the current FES, including the address-based sampling mail survey design, are major improvements from the original Coastal Household Telephone Survey.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Survey Material

The mail survey includes a relatively short questionnaire, a cover letter, frequently asked questions, a prepaid return envelope, and a small cash incentive. The questionnaire contains 10 household-wide questions regarding whether anyone in the household has been fresh- or saltwater fishing in the past 12 months and other household details. Six questions regarding demographics, whether they saltwater fished from shore or boat, and the number of days fished by location in the designated preceding 2-month period are asked of at most five individuals within the household. Adding a question on the use of public versus private access points may help discern whether fishing behavior at private sites varies from those at public sites.

Recommendation: NMFS should conduct pilot studies to determine the optimal method for collecting accurate information on total catch differences between public- and private-access sites. For example, NMFS could add a question to the Fishing Effort Survey questionnaire about angler use of private sites or public access sites. Geographic maps used to identify public access sites within the state could be used to distinguish public access from private sites.

The 2-month recall period was set for consistency with the periods covered by the intercept survey. Several factors, however, determine the anglers’ ability to recall the number of fishing trips and the number and types of fish caught.

Recommendation: NMFS should consider evaluating a prospective data-collection methodology, such as asking people in advance to document fishing trips planned over the next 2 months, to reduce concerns about angler recall.

Data Quality

Changes in fishing effort trends may suggest problems with nonresponse bias or quality of the responses, or could indicate actual change over time. However, without additional data, explanations can only be speculative.

Recommendation: As recommended in the 2006 report, NMFS is encouraged to continue research on survey panels, where a portion of the sampled households is retained for one or more interviews, for the Fishing Effort Survey alone or for an effort-catch combined study. The purpose of the survey panel would be to assess trends and any anomalies in those trends, to assess any improvements in data-collection efficiency through increased participation, and possibly to lower measurement

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

error associated with, for example, trip recall with a more engaged sample of anglers.

Web questionnaires and cell phone applications may be a viable option to increase production of fishing effort estimates with data that are evaluated in real time.

Recommendation: As recommended in the 2006 report, electronic data collection should be further evaluated as an option for the Fishing Effort Survey, including smartphone apps, electronic diaries for prospective data collection, and a web option for all or just panel members.

Missing responses also lower the quality of the fishing effort estimates. Missing items from an otherwise complete questionnaire can be addressed with imputation, where the missing value is replaced with a valid response using a defined model. In addition, as an enhancement to the standard FES design, NMFS could evaluate a nonresponse follow-up, where a random subsample of nonresponding households is recontacted using, for example, an additional incentive to improve response and to evaluate nonresponse bias.

Recommendation: NMFS should consider conducting targeted annual nonresponse studies as a standard component of the MRIP. The purpose of these studies would be to continually monitor correlates of nonresponse and nonresponse bias to control its damaging effects on data quality.

Weighting and Estimation

The FES weighting methodology includes key components to reduce sampling and nonsampling errors in the estimates. NMFS could additionally evaluate a separate unknown-eligibility weight adjustment for nonresponding households. Furthermore, collaboration with other federal agencies to obtain estimates of anglers to enhance the poststratification methods can improve data quality.

Precision for estimated fishing effort in the FES is calculated with methods that only account for a portion of the adjustment applied to the analysis weights. Thus, the sampling variance for the estimates may be too small.

Recommendation: Other variance estimation methods should be evaluated for fishing effort estimates to account for weight adjustments, especially those associated with nonresponse. These include replication methods and the so-called reverse approach.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Access Point Angler Intercept Survey

The second component of the MRIP is the APAIS. Although the MRFSS also relied on an intercept survey, it lacked a proper statistical foundation. The APAIS is also an onsite survey, but it accounts for the probabilistic aspects of the intercepts such that the onsite surveys now have a solid statistical basis.

Data Collection

The two main data-collection tasks of the APAIS are counts of completed angler fishing trips and angler-intercept interviews. The angler interviews are obtained by intercepting marine recreational anglers at shore or boat access points after they have been fishing. Interviewers obtain information about the completed trip, including fishing locations, the species and number of fish caught, the gear used, and the length of the trip. Interviewers have the opportunity to observe, weigh, and measure the length of the catch, also confirming species identification. Sampling in the party (or head) boat mode may include having observers on the boats. The interviewers obtain some demographic data about the anglers and record the number of fish that were released and not landed. Interviewers are instructed to count all anglers completing their trips, even those that are not interviewed.

The APAIS sampling frame and site registry are major improvements from the MRFSS. Each interviewer’s assignment now consists of a fixed time interval at a particular site, with the frequency of sampling that time and place being dependent on the historical number of trips, such that the busiest sites and times are sampled with the greatest frequency. Interviewers attempt to obtain the largest possible number of completed interviews for a given assignment. In a major improvement over the MRFSS, the MRIP interviewers are strictly scheduled, all time periods of the day are eligible to be sampled including nights, and there are no caps on the number of interviews that samplers should take. Interviewers are no longer allowed discretion of which sites to sample. Additionally, field staff visit sites and update the site registry periodically to ensure that the registry is current and covers all public sites.

Some data are missed, because some anglers refuse to be interviewed or refuse to answer particular questions, or because of language barriers. Anglers might also be missed if there are too many at the access point at the same time for all to be interviewed. Collecting as much information as possible about these nonresponding anglers may help explain refusals and address concerns that such parties have a different CPUE than the responding anglers. As was noted in the 2006 report, because private access sites generally cannot be sampled, the use of CPUE from public-access sites for the calculation of total catch rests on the strong assumption that private-access CPUE and target species do not differ from public access. As noted above, NMFS could add a question to the FES to ascertain public or private access.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Survey Material

Each interview is conducted with a scripted questionnaire that records catch, release, and trip information. The responses are mostly recorded on paper then subsequently coded and entered into a database to be quality controlled for out-of-range answers. The committee sees value in moving to electronic recording of these data, which will improve acquisition time for managers and permit immediate quality control of input. Some anglers are also eager to input their data to the MRIP regardless of whether they are intercepted. Although this is admirable, such nonprobabilistic sampling can be highly unrepresentative of the general angling public and hence statistically problematic. The MRIP and its consultants have investigated approaches that might help resolve the considerable statistical difficulties in using such data, and the committee encourages continuation of this endeavor into the future.

Because onsite interviews are conducted in person, there is opportunity to clarify the questions asked of anglers. Moreover, the interviewer observes the catch and the number of trips so there is no problem with recall bias as there is in the FES. However, this also means that the interviewer is the public face of the MRIP. With oversight by NMFS, interviewer training is largely done by state partners, and along the Atlantic coast, by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. State agency personnel now conduct interviews, thus enhancing confidence in this component of the survey. Still, good interview training is critical.

Data Quality

The statistical soundness of the intercept survey has been considerably strengthened since the 2006 review due to the previously discussed improvements to data-collection methods. The APAIS also provides valuable information on the number of anglers that are intercepted who reside in noncoastal households. These data are used to scale up the effort estimates from the FES. Still, challenges remain, including difficulty in estimating the number, species, and fates of fish released rather than landed, and the difficulty of dealing with private-access sites, which cannot be sampled and therefore must be estimated. Generally, the statistical validity of the survey can be further strengthened through additional analyses, obtaining some small amount of additional information in the interviews, and improving methods for estimation and validation of the numbers, species, and fates of fish discarded by anglers.

Weighting and Estimation

With the new APAIS design, the inclusion probabilities corresponding to angler trips can be easily computed. The weights used in the estimation procedures

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

are obtained as the inverse of the inclusion probabilities. The resulting point and variance estimators are, to a good approximation, design unbiased.

FRAMEWORK FOR CONTINUED SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION, REVIEW, AND CERTIFICATION

In addition to providing specific recommendations for improving the effort and intercept surveys, the 2006 report identified the need for an improved framework for continual scientific evaluation, review, and certification of the methods, protocols, and procedures used for data collection. NMFS has made substantial progress toward such a framework. As the MRIP’s focus evolves from developing and testing survey improvements to increasingly putting new methods to practice in the field, the timeliness of the survey review and certification process could benefit from additional attention.

Capacity and Scientific Evaluation

The 2006 report recommended that a survey office devoted to the management and implementation of marine recreational surveys be developed. Since 2006, the number of MRIP staff has increased from 6 to 12 full-time staff. The program has also invested in formal training of existing staff, including providing opportunities to earn advanced degrees or take courses in topics such as survey methodology. The MRIP’s staff expansion appears to have greatly increased its ability to expand technical support and achieve better regional coordination.

The MRIP has benefited greatly from the independent research group of statisticians and survey methodologists who not only assess the general adequacy of the MRIP but also provide technical advice to regional and state programs. If NMFS is able to expand the existing capacity in this pool of consultants both in number and in expertise (e.g., experts in cognitive issues, including angler recall), duplication of effort would be reduced and the provision of technical and scientific support would be facilitated. In addition, the MRIP certification process would be streamlined. Any such group would further benefit from being periodically refreshed to include new researchers with a variety of interests and expertise.

The MRIP has either organized or been involved in the organization of several workshops or symposia, which have been attended by highly trained statisticians and fishery scientists. These meetings have facilitated review and discussion of MRIP issues by a broad range of experts, promoting an exchange of ideas, and giving MRIP technical staff, as well as regional and state partners, an opportunity to explore a variety of recreational fisheries issues under different scenarios. The committee commends the MRIP for this outreach.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Pilot Projects

In 2008, the MRIP established a pilot studies program for developing, testing, reviewing, and eventually certifying new sampling and estimation procedures to be applied under the MRIP umbrella, mostly in collaboration with state and regional partners. The MRIP pilot studies program is implemented in three concurrent phases: (1) evaluation of current methods, (2) innovation to identify and test new methods, and (3) implementation of proven methodologies. The MRIP Operations Team solicits and reviews research proposals and provides recommendations for funding. The program constitutes an appropriate and effective mechanism for providing highly specialized technical and scientific support toward the development, review, and certification of surveys.

Use of New Technology

Traditionally, recreational fishing survey responses have been recorded using paper-and-pencil survey forms. However, recently there has been a great deal of interest in the recreational fishing community in identifying scientifically sound, statistically robust methods for using electronic reporting (e.g., using smartphones and tablets). These new technologies could potentially improve the timeliness and accuracy of data and reduce costs and paperwork burdens.

Electronic data collection could be integrated into the MRIP in four separate and distinct ways:

  1. Use of electronic logbooks by the for-hire sector,
  2. Enabling interviewers to capture and submit data electronically,
  3. Allowing anglers to self-report data electronically, and
  4. Using electronic monitoring to validate self-reported data.

Evaluation and testing of new technologies for MRIP fisheries data collection is being accomplished through several MRIP-funded pilot studies, often structured according to Regional MRIP Implementation Plans. Despite these efforts, for portions of the private angler and for-hire sectors that implementation of electronic reporting is not occurring fast enough.

Recommendation: The MRIP should develop a strategy to better articulate the complexities, costs, and timelines associated with implementing new and emerging technologies in recreational fisheries data collection and monitoring. This communication strategy should not only focus on regional partners but also address questions and concerns expressed by private anglers and for-hire operators. It should involve both the MRIP communications team and the NMFS Office of Communications.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

MRIP Certification Process

By developing a certification process, the MRIP made substantial progress toward implementing key relevant recommendations of the 2006 NRC report. The MRIP has invested in the development of a well-structured process for continued scientific evaluation, review, and certification of the recreational fisheries surveys. This certification process provides a framework for maintaining a national perspective for recreational fisheries data collection and for evaluating whether the regional and state efforts meet the basic MRIP requirements for stock assessment and management. Furthermore, it affords a mechanism for providing highly specialized technical and scientific support for the development, review, and certification of regional- or state-specific surveys and enhances the MRIP’s ability to address regional and state needs for stock assessment and fisheries management. Although the MRIP’s partners indicate they are appreciative of this increased capability and support, some are concerned about the timeliness of the review and certification process and the uncertainties associated with additional funding needs for implementation of survey improvements required for the MRIP certification.

DEGREE OF COORDINATION

The multijurisdictional nature of marine fisheries management, which in most regions of the country involves not only regional fisheries management councils but also multiple states and institutions, presents significant coordination challenges to data collection, data management, stock assessment, and ultimately fisheries management. To collect recreational fisheries data that meet required standards for assessment and management in this complex, multijurisdictional system, the MRIP surveys are conducted in cooperation with a variety of regional and state agencies as well as other institutional partners. In addition, U.S. marine recreational fisheries show wide-ranging regional differences, and in many cases differences among various fisheries within each region. These differences can be attributed to several factors, including the amount and shape of the coastline and other ocean features, species composition and diversity, and socioeconomic and demographic factors. Accommodating these regional differences requires the MRIP to adopt an implementation approach that incorporates the flexibility required to address unique regional and state needs while at the same time maintaining the standardization and national-level cohesion recommended by the NRC report.

Despite the lingering public perception of a centralized, top-down implementation approach the MRIP has been responsive to regional and state needs. Progress has been achieved in expanding and strengthening coordination and the provision of financial, logistical, and technical support to state partners, in part through regional Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions and their associated Fisheries Information Networks and the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Program. As a result, the program has evolved to become a compilation of regionally based data-collection programs and is better prepared to address data needs at regional and state levels.

However, challenges remain. Some state needs—for example, development of catch and effort estimates at small spatial scales for assessment or management of state-managed species, or in-season monitoring of compliance with Annual Catch Limits—have been difficult to address. This is particularly true when they require a disproportionate increase in sampling effort and become cost prohibitive, or are so specialized that they become difficult to integrate into the standard MRIP. The Pacific Coast states (Washington, Oregon, and California) are currently working with the MRIP to certify their surveys, and continued coordination, technical support, and integration of Pacific Coast state surveys into the MRIP framework are warranted. Furthermore, flat or reduced funding has made implementation of recommended survey improvements difficult. If this problem persists, advances in the states’ sampling programs through the MRIP certification process potentially will be at risk.

At a regional level, increased coordination with the fishery management councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) would provide increased opportunities for identifying and addressing data needs for stock assessment and management. Closer coordination with the SSCs would provide the MRIP with an additional avenue for communicating with the councils.

It is also worth noting that the timeliness of MRIP support is also dependent on capacity and funding.

COMMUNICATIONS

Overall, the MRIP has made significant advances in improving its communications and outreach strategy since the NRC’s 2006 report. Perhaps its strongest advances have been with its website and its communications with some of its data-collection partners, such as the regional Interstate Marine Fishery Commissions and state fishery agencies. Its communications with some other groups, most notably anglers, but also some stock-assessment and management groups, have been less successful.

The MRIP’s purpose is to estimate catch in recreational fisheries. Because fisheries management is a complex, multistage process involving many agencies and stakeholders, the MRIP should not be held responsible for explaining all facets of fisheries management.

Recommendation: NMFS should develop and lead an integrated communications strategy involving state and federal partners to explain and seek support for the management of the nation’s fisheries within which the role of the MRIP is clearly defined. The MRIP Communications Plan should be an element—albeit for species in which removals are

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

dominated by recreational fisheries, an essential component—of such a broader, integrated overall communications plan.

The MRIP’s communication efforts are guided by their Communication and Education Team and three NMFS staff (two full-time equivalents), who are tasked with the development, implementation, and coordination of the MRIP’s communications strategy nationwide. The success of the MRIP depends on clear, accurate, and timely communications and on engaging all the various stakeholder groups, including anglers. Therefore, the MRIP would benefit from additional staff resources in this area.

Strategic Communications Plan

Three aspects of the 2016 MRIP Strategic Communications Plan were particularly striking to the committee. First, according to the plan, NMFS views the MRIP as a combination of state, regional, and federal efforts rather than a monolithic federal program. This is appropriate and reflects the reality that the MRIP has multiple partners who play key data-collection roles. However, this also requires a level of coordination among partners that has not been fully demonstrated.

Second, there is a lack of a needs assessment to help identify and prioritize the current communications challenges. While elements of a needs analysis are evident in other NMFS documents, an integrated, comprehensive needs analysis should be in the plan. Third, the plan lacks an implementation component, which will be essential given the challenge of reaching multiple partners and audiences. Some additional details are provided in the annual implementation plan updates on the MRIP website. However, it appears that a detailed implementation plan remains to be developed.

Audiences

This review considered three potential audiences: data-collection partners, data users, and stakeholders impacted by data, primarily anglers. The MRIP has made significant progress in expanding and strengthening the communication and coordination with regional and state data-collection partners, especially from a logistical and survey implementation point of view.

Data users include stock assessment analysts, Council SSCs and Advisory Panels, and Council and NMFS Regional Office staff who use MRIP data to implement catch limits. Assessment analysts broadly recognize the improvements in the MRIP and have found MRIP staff to be responsive to their requests for data, but would benefit from additional coordination. Engagement of the SSCs by the MRIP appears to be in the early stages and needs more emphasis. Communication to groups with responsibilities similar to those of the SSCs within the Interstate Marine Fishery Commissions and states can also be improved.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

A major challenge confronting the MRIP is the use of recreational data in the management arena—specifically in implementing catch limits. Tension develops, because a survey designed for one purpose is being used for another purpose, requiring that some inferences be made. This issue was also highlighted in the 2006 report on the MRFSS. Moreover, uncertainties associated with catch estimates become critically important and may impact the timing of fishery closures. The committee also heard frustration from regional managers over the lack of timeliness of MRIP estimates for implementing catch limits—particularly when fisheries have short seasons or bursts of activity (i.e., pulses), as many recreational fisheries do. These issues can be complex and reinforce the need for an integrated communications strategy to alleviate concerns. In general, evidence presented to the committee indicated that the MRIP could be more proactive in communicating with managers and data users.

The MRIP has generally deferred communications with the anglers to the states and regions. Regional RecFIN programs and state fish and wildlife agencies conduct most of the outreach and education efforts apparently without much structured and deliberate guidance from the MRIP.

A major issue for the anglers the committee heard from was the credibility of the MRIP survey data and the data-gathering process. There are many possible reasons for their impressions, some of which can be addressed by explaining basic survey principles. Communication shortcomings have exacerbated anglers’ concerns about the MRIP’s value in ensuring sustainable management of recreational fish stocks. The success of the MRIP program depends on gaining the confidence of these stakeholders.

Recommendation: The MRIP should take a more active role in communicating with anglers, whether through its partners or through its own efforts. The committee recognizes that the MRIP defers to the states and regions in communications with anglers. Furthermore, the committee recognizes that an approach coordinated with the states may be most successful in building trust and aligning the understanding of these stakeholders with the reality of how the MRIP is deployed. However, the MRIP should play a leading role in providing the vision and implementation strategies that partners can follow.

For-hire captains are more likely than individual anglers to engage with the MRIP and become full partners. Currently, the MRIP has communication products aimed directly at this group, which offer direct benefits from engagement and indirect benefits from the operators’ interactions with their clients.

A critical aspect of communication with all audiences, but especially anglers, is that it be a two-way dialogue. The MRIP’s communication to date has focused largely on providing information. The program would benefit from greater emphasis on continually and actively collecting and incorporating feedback and input.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

Strategies

Four principal strategies for communication have evolved within the MRIP. They are (1) the MRIP website, (2) the MRIP Newscast, (3) engagement of data-collection partners and data users, and (4) print and social media products.

The committee commends NMFS on the development of the MRIP website. It is well laid out, reasonably easy to navigate, and very informative. It is thorough and detailed, and NMFS appears to be developing audience-specific navigation pathways to help users find information at the appropriate level of technical detail, an improvement the committee supports. The committee applauds the transparency afforded by opportunities on the website for users to query data and view the site register. The website would be further improved if it provided an opportunity for the public to provide input.

The second mechanism for communication is the MRIP Newscast newsletter. Produced since 2008, it is a high-quality digital newsletter that provides updates and news items to recipients.

The third mechanism for communication calls for engagement of data-collection partners, data users, and others at Council and Commission meetings. Although it is appropriate to engage these audiences, they do not form a comprehensive list of audiences that should be engaged. As stated above, these effective engagements would include an opportunity to listen to stakeholder input.

The communications strategic plan proposes, as the fourth mechanism, to continue to produce both traditional and social media products that explain forthcoming changes to the MRIP, although few details were provided.

CONTINUITY

There is a need for continuity in the recreational fisheries data used for assessment, management, and allocation, because changes in time series can create challenges for management. Many important components of management are dependent on these catch and effort estimates, including stock assessment, development of harvest policies, in-season management, and catch allocation. In addition, the allocation of resources to produce catch statistics is itself dependent on the estimates of catch produced by the MRIP. The historical time series of recreational catch and effort produced with the outdated MRFSS procedures therefore requires calibration to the estimation processes used in the MRIP, so that a combined time series of total removals may be used to inform these processes.

The MRIP convened two workshops to address the calibration issues. Both workshops clearly recognized that calibration was critical in allowing stock assessments to differentiate true changes in stock status from changes in the estimation procedures producing the data used in the assessments. They also identified issues that affect the sampling error of estimates, based on changes to the survey designs over time. The workshops identified several calibration approaches, all of which invoke assumptions about effort distribution throughout a 24-hour period.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

The calibrations are not straightforward because of the limited side-by-side estimation using previous and current methodology for almost all areas. The committee judges that uncertainty about process and observation error could be reduced if additional side-by-side comparisons were conducted. Continued research on calibration methodology would be useful to reducing uncertainty about stock management reference points.

Future efforts to develop calibrated time series of recreational catches will be most useful if accompanied with advice on the implications of the calibration method to stock assessment and reference points for stock management. In particular, simulation analyses of alternative methods will be helpful. As the time since a change in methodology for estimating recreational catches lengthens, the calibration method will have less influence on the understanding of current stock status. Recent data will more strongly influence stock status than will historical shifts in estimation methodology for catch. However, because the calibration methodology does influence the understanding of reference points for management, the effect of the calibration will be a persistent element of fisheries management.

Recommendation: The MRIP should continue development of a statistically sound calibration methodology as improvements to the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey and Fishing Effort Survey methodologies are incorporated. In the interim, the existing ratio-based calibration should be continued. For statistical catch-at-age (SCA)-based assessments, scientists should employ alternative catchability functions applied to the combined time series as a means to accommodate potential imprecision in the calibration of MRFSS data to MRIP data. For non-SCA frameworks, assessment scientists should exercise caution in the interpretation of trends in catch data.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24640.
×
Page 18
Next: 1 Introduction »
Review of the Marine Recreational Information Program Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00 Buy Ebook | $44.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for collecting information on marine recreational angling. It does so principally through the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), a survey program that consists of an in-person survey at fishing access sites and a mail survey, in addition to other complementary or alternative surveys. Data collected from anglers through MRIP supply fisheries managers with essential information for assessing fish stocks. In 2006, the National Research Council provided an evaluation of MRIP's predecessor, the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). That review, Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, presented conclusions and recommendations in six categories: sampling issues; statistical estimation issues; human dimensions; program management and support; communication and outreach; and general recommendations.

After spending nearly a decade addressing the recommendations, NMFS requested another evaluation of its modified survey program (MRIP). This report, the result of that evaluation, serves as a 10-year progress report. It recognizes the progress that NMFS has made, including major improvements in the statistical soundness of its survey designs, and also highlights some remaining challenges and provides recommendations for addressing them.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!