PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5I08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDuo.indd

 

RECREATIONAL ANGLER SURVEYS:
THEIR ROLE AND IMPORTANCE NATIONAL AND
THE 2008 MICHIGAN ANGLER SURVEY
By

Jody Christopher Simoes

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Fisheries and Wildlife

2009

ABSTRACT
RECREATIONAL ANGLER SURVEYS:
THEIR ROLE AND IMPORTANCE NATIONAL AND
THE 2008 MICHIGAN ANGLER SURVEY
By
Jody Christopher Simoes
This thesis examines the role and importance of angler human dimensions information in
fisheries management; methodological considerations for angler mail surveys; and
preliminary results from Michigan recreational angler survey. Our survey of fisheries
management agencies serves as a characterization of the collection and application of
human dimensions information. Respondents reported wide-spread and frequent human
dimensions data collection and a diversity of opinions about the role and importance of
human dimensions information in fisheries management. Our survey matrix format
which collected information on angler’s two most recent trips contained higher item-
nonresponse compared to our one-trip format. However the two-trip format collects
substantially more information on angler trips and provides an interval between trips,
important for measuring angler effort. Our tests of survey materials and hand-signing
produced only modest differences in overall response rates. However we report
significant differences in our initial response rates, suggesting a faster return for hand-
signed high quality packages, and subsequent lower follow-up mailing costs. Finally, we
present preliminary findings from the initial rounds of the 2008 Michigan recreational
angler survey including a summary of the general characteristics of recreational anglers
and their angling behavior and an examination of the relationships of various aspects of

angling behavior and demographic characteristics.

To my wife Katherine, and to my family, Joseph, Christine, Marlena and Troy.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the individuals and organizations that have contributed to
my research. First, I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Aaron McCright,
Dr. Daniel Hayes and, in particular, my research advisor Dr. Frank Lupi. Early and
often, Dr. Lupi emphasized the importance of this research to fisheries management
decision making. Thank you, Dr. Lupi for entrusting me with this project and for your
dedication to my personal and professional growth throughout the process.

I am grateful for the support of Michigan State University’s Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Department of Agriculture, Food, and Resource
Economics, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division, the Great
Lakes Fisheries Trust and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. This project was also
supported by the Sport Fish Restoration Program under the Sport Fish Restoration Act.
Several individuals within the Michigan Department of Natural Resources provided
words of encouragement and also their time to make this project possible. In particular, I
would like to acknowledge: Jim Breck, Jim Dexter, Brian Frawley, Fran Heffron, Tracy
Kolb, Tammy Newcomb, Kurt Newman, Roger Parsons, Theresa Pohl, Paul Seelbach,
Steve Scott, Zhenming Su and Gary Towns.

I am also grateful to my data entry crew: Adrian Donovan, Carolyn Gillen, Alison
Hartman, Kendra Hayes, Casey Koleski, Stephanie Longstaff, Emily Pankey, Jennifer
Pellegrini, Marco Sanchez, Patricia Thompson, and Shannon Walker.

Thanks also to my friends, especially those who suffered through early versions
of the Michigan recreational angle survey and provided me with ample opportunities to

witness angling behavior first-hand.

iv

I would also like to thank my family. From them I have learned about sacrifice,
boldness, selflessness, patience and love. Without their vision and continued support,
nothing I’ve done would have been possible. Finally, I would like to thank my wife

Katherine, for believing in me and inspiring me to be more.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: The collection, utilization and importance of angler human
dimensions data: A survey of US. fisheries management agencies ............... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... l
NIETHODS ..................................................................................................... 2
RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 3
Human Dimensions Data Collection ............................................................................. 5
Respondent Experience .................................................................................................. 6
Data Quality and Utilization .......................................................................................... 6
State Fisheries Issues ..................................................................................................... 9
Importance of Human Dimensions Information .......................................................... 11
Partnerships .................................................................................................................. 12
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 13
Human Dimensions Data Collection ........................................................................... 13
Experience and Staffing ............................................................................................... 14
Data Quality and Data Utilization ................................................................................ 17
State Fisheries Issues ................................................................................................... 18
Importance of Human Dimensions Information .......................................................... 21
Partnerships .................................................................................................................. 25

CHAPTER 2: The Michigan Recreational Angler Survey: Examining long

term, cost effective, statewide recreational angler survey strategies ............ 27
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ......................................................... 27
Angler Survey Challenges ........................................................................................... 29
Advantages and Disadvantages of Angler Surveys Methods ...................................... 29
Balancing the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Mail Survey ............................. 33
Two Tests of Survey Design Options .......................................................................... 36
METHODS ................................................................................................... 36
Questionnaire Development ......................................................................................... 36
Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 38
Sampling Frame ........................................................................................................... 39
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................... 40
Testing Trip Details ..................................................................................................... 42
Testing Personalization and Materials ......................................................................... 43
RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 45
Testing Trip Details ..................................................................................................... 45
Most Recent and Second Most Recent Trip ................................................................ 47
Most Recent Fishing Trip Only ................................................................................... 48
Testing Personalization and Materials ......................................................................... 49
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 54

vi

CHAPTER 3: Profile of Michigan’s Recreational Anglers: The Michigan

Recreational Angler Survey .......................................................................... 57
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ......................................................... 57
NIETHODS ................................................................................................... 59
Questionnaire Development ......................................................................................... 59
Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 59
Sampling Frame ........................................................................................................... 61
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................... 62
RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 64
Sample Draw, Respondent and Non-Respondent Characteristics ............................... 64
Respondent Demographic Characteristics ................................................................... 66
Respondent Fishing Characteristics ............................................................................. 69
Resident versus Non-resident Demographic Characteristics ....................................... 72
Resident versus Non-Resident Fishing Characteristics ............................................... 74
License Type ................................................................................................................ 75
Catch Disposition ......................................................................................................... 78
Recruitment .................................................................................................................. 79
Waterbodies Fished / Site Preference .......................................................................... 79
Fishing Frequency ........................................................................................................ 81
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 82
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................... 88
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................ 103
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................ 106
APPENDIX E ........................................................................................ 109
REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 1 3 0

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Respondents' experience and ratings of the utilization and overall quality of

Table 1.2.

Table 1.3.

Table 1.4.

Table 1.5.

Table 1.6.

Table 1.7.

Table 1.8.

Table 2.1.

human dimensions data collected by their agency. Data quality and data
utilization ratings on a 4 point scale [1=Poor; 2= F air; 3=Good; 4=Excellent]
*p<.05 **p<.10 .................................................................... 7

Respondent’s reporting of human dimensions data utilization. Respondents
selected all that applied from a list of 4 response categories. Nineteen
respondents offered other ways in which human dimensions data was utilized
by their

agency ..................................................................................... 8

Respondent’s reporting of human dimensions data utilization. Nineteen
respondents offered other ways in which human dimensions data was utilized
by their agency. The dominant themes are presented in this table ............... 8

Respondent’s ratings of issues facing their fishery management agencies.
Respondents rated 4 response categories independently. Ratings are on a 5
point scale [1=Not important at all; 2= Slightly important; 3=Moderately
important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Thirty respondents
Offered other issues facing their agency. ** p < .10 ............................... 10

Respondent’s ratings of issues facing their fishery management agencies.
Thirty respondents offered other issues facing their agency, 7 themes are
presented below ........................................................................ 11

Respondent's mean ratings of the importance of human dimensions
information items to fishery management decision making. Ratings are on a 5
point scale [1=Not important at all; 2= Slightly important; 3=Moderately
important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Mean ratings reported
by Wilde et a1. (1996), our national mean importance ratings and the means
for Biologists, Human Dimensions staff and Upper Management are
presented. *p < .05 **p < .10 ....................................................... 12

Respondent’s reporting of partnerships leveraged to conduct four tasks:
communicating with anglers; developing fishing programs, activities and
services; collecting angler economic data; and collecting angler human
dimensions data ......................................................................... 13

Respondents reporting of other agency partnerships to conduct four tasks:
communicating with anglers; developing fishing programs, activities and
services and collecting economic data and human dimensions data ............ 13
Testing Trip Details. MDNR Sample and Respondent characteristics
comparison. N = 2,450 ................................................................ 46

viii

Table 2.2.

Testing the Michigan Angler Survey: Trip Details. Anglers receiving Version
1, testing respondent's ability to document the details of their two most recent
fishing trips, and Version 2, testing respondent's ability to document the
details of their most recent fishing trip. NCOA Undeliverable: NCOA address
check "NO Forward" and "Primary Address Unverified (10); Packages
returned by USPS as undeliverable (159); Refusals (4); Deceased (1); Surveys
returned (2,450); Surveys not returned (2,371) .................................... 47

Table 2.3. Testing the Michigan Angler Survey: Trip Details. Comparison of survey

Table 2.4.

Table 2.5.

Table 2.6.

Table 3.1.

Table 3.2.

Table 3.3.

Table 3.4.

Version 1 (reporting the details of the two most recent trip, n = 1,212) and
Version 2 (most recent trip only n=1 ,23 8) survey response rate, item non-
response and usable trip information ................................................ 49

Testing personalization and materials. MDNR Sample and Respondent
characteristics comparison. N = 2,732 .............................................. 50

Michigan Recreational Angler Survey. Personalization and Materials. Initial
record checks eliminated (9); NCOA Undeliverable: NCOA address check
"No Forward" and "Primary Address Unverified (12); Packages returned by
USPS as undeliverable (192); Refusals (4); Deceased (0); Surveys returned
(2731); Surveys not returned (3052) ................................................ 51

Testing Personalization and Materials. Unit costs include: materials to
produce survey package(s) (mailing envelope, business return envelope, cover
letter and survey instrument); follow—up postcard(s); labor involved in hand
signing cover letters and postcards; and, finally outgoing postage. Total
Production Costs reflects the Unit costs multiplied by the total number of
mailings required over Wave 1 and Complete Survey. Cost per usable survey
is calculated by dividing the Total Production Cost by the number of returned

surveys .................................................................................. 53
Michigan Recreational Angler Survey. Response rate: [11,000 - (22 +3 52+l)
/ 5182] 49% ...................................................................................................... 64

MDNR Sample, Respondent and Non-Respondent characteristics comparison.
A total of 10,986 individuals were contacted, n = 5,182. * p < .05.............65

Comparison of Michigan residents and non-residents and the total sample:
gender ratio, mean age, license types, employment, education and income
categories, household structure and the number of household members with a
fishing license (including the respondent) and intemet access ................... 67

Comparison of Michigan resident reported income and age and education

categories between the 2006 US. Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (N SF HWAR) and

ix

Table 3.5.

Table 3.6.

Table 3.7.

Table 3.8.

respondents to the 2008 Michigan Recreational Angler Survey. # Age
category not reported .................................................................. 68

Comparison of Michigan resident reported race and ethnicity categories
between the Kikuchi (1984) and respondents to the 2008 Michigan
Recreational Angler Survey. Our respondents were allowed to choose all race
or ethnicity categories that applied. Kikuchi (1984) reported 8.9% "mixed
races". # _= category not reported ................................................... 69

Comparison of Michigan residents and non-residents and the total sample:
fishing behavior ........................................................................ 71

Comparison of reported age and education categories for residents and non-
residents to Kikuchi (1984). # - category not collected ........................... 73

Comparison of reported age categories for residents and non-residents to
Jamsen (1967). #- category not collected ....................... . ................... 74

CHAPTER 1: The collection, utilization and importance of angler
human dimensions data: A survey of US. fisheries management
agencies

INTRODUCTION

Researchers have used a variety of approaches to assess the management
priorities of fisheries management agencies (e. g. Voiland 1984; Ross and Loomis 1999;
Bennett et al. 1978; Mather et a1. 1995; Wilde et a1. 1996; Gabelhouse 2005). Each of
these studies also measured the importance of specific human dimensions information
items to fisheries management goals. Given the limited distribution and publication of
many statewide angler surveys (Brown 1991; Wilde et al. 1996) the management
interests and information needs of fisheries management agencies may be better assessed
by a direct examination of the frequency and content of surveys conducted by fisheries
management agencies (Wilde et al. 1996).

We conducted telephone interviews with US. fishery management agencies about
their collection, utilization, and attitudes toward human dimensions data. Our objectives
were to: assess the reported quality, utilization and importance of human dimensions data
and information; characterize the staffing and infrastructure available to support angler
human dimensions data collection and utilization; and finally, document contemporary
management interests and information needs related to human dimensions. Compared to
earlier findings (e. g. Ross and Loomis 1999; Wilde et al 1996; Gabelhouse 2005) we
expected our respondents to report increased experience in conducting and analyzing

angler human dimensions research, increases in the number of positions allocated to

collecting and analyzing human dimensions information, widespread human dimensions
data collection by fisheries management agencies, and relatively greater importance

placed on the human dimensions information items presented.

METHODS

In order to identify human dimensions contact persons at each fisheries program,
we established primary, secondary and tertiary sources: 1) fisheries management agency
websites; 2) Human Dimensions of Recreational Fisheries American Fisheries Society
Committee list (http://lutra.tamu.edu/hdcom/, August 2007; and finally, 3) a “cold call” to
fisheries management state headquarters. Telephone calls were made over a 5 month
period from September 2007 to January 2008. A scripted introduction paragraph was
read to all respondents in order to introduce the interviewer, the research project and
identify the appropriate human dimensions contact person within each fishery
management agency (Appendix A). Once the appropriate respondent was identified, we
proceeded with the interview.

We employed telephone interview methods in order to achieve a high response
rate, bring additional qualitative data to our analysis, and ensure that questions were
answered chronologically, by a single respondent. In order to minimize interviewer-
related error and maximize survey reliability and validity, we standardized our
interviewing procedures (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 151). All of our interviews were
conducted by one individual and each question was read to the respondent exactly as it
appeared on the survey instrument. We framed our inquiry to include all angler human

dimensions data collection efforts at all scales (e.g., local, regional and statewide).

Before proceeding with the interview, the researcher began by defining (for the purposes
of the study) economic and human dimensions information.

Respondents were not generally probed on their answers but were asked to
expand on comments or statements that were unclear to the interviewer. Respondents
offered a wide range of comments when prompted by 7 open-ended questions containing
“other” categories, and at all points throughout the interview. Respondent’s comments
were not discouraged at any point during the interview. Unscripted conversation did
occur, often at the end of the interview, however an effort was made to keep interviewer
comments and conversation standardized between surveys. Notes were kept on open
ended discussions and the entire interview was audio-taped.

All quantitative data were entered using a double-key data entry method.
Qualitative data were coded by a single investigator familiar with the objectives of this
research. We used SPSS Statistics 17.0® to calculate descriptive statistics, transform

variables and to compare means using an ANOVA F-test.

RESULTS

We completed interviews with respondents from all 50 states and Washington
DC. Six states maintained separate marine and inland staff responsible for angler human
dimensions information, brining the total number of conducted interviews to 57. Fifteen
respondents were identified through fisheries management agency websites; 13 through
Human Dimensions of Recreational Fisheries American Fisheries Society Committee list
(http://lutra.tamu.edu/hdcom/, August 2007, and the remainder, 29, were identified
through a “cold call” to fisheries management state headquarters. In three separate cases

we had inaccurate respondent contact information, and in one case, repeated attempts to

reach a respondent did not produce an interview (unreturned telephone call). Following
our survey protocol we converted these three potential nonresponse cases into interviews
by utilizing our secondary and tertiary resources to identify alternative human dimensions
contact persons. In a very limited number of cases, respondents were unable to answer
interview questions, reporting that either their program had not collected angler economic
or human dimensions information or that they simply did not know the answer to a
particular question.

We tracked the number of occasions in which an initial telephone call to a
potential survey respondent resulted in a recommendation for a new contact in order to
quantify the level of difficulty encountered in identifying the appropriate human
dimensions contact person within each fisheries management program. On 30 separate
occasions, the potential respondent we identified through our primary (fisheries
management agency websites), secondary (Human Dimensions of Recreational Fisheries
American Fisheries Society Committee list), or tertiary sources (cold call to fisheries
management state headquarters) resulted in at least one referral. We tracked this as
“persons removed” and this number ranged from 1 to 2 persons. On six occasions,
survey respondents identified through our primary resource were 1 person removed from
our original contact, resulting in an average of 0.4 additional telephone calls. Similarly,
on five occasions, survey respondents identified through our secondary source were 1
person removed from our original contact, on three occasions survey respondents were 2
persons removed, resulting in an average of 0.8 additional telephone calls. Finally, on
eleven occasions, survey respondents identified through our tertiary source were 1 person

removed from the person who was recommended to us, on five occasions survey

respondents were 2 persons removed, resulting in an average of .75 additional telephone
calls.

In order to examine differences in attitudinal and opinion measures between
respondents, we coded survey respondents by job title into one of three broad job
categories: Upper Management (e. g., Division Chief; Management Supervisor; Assistant
Director); Human Dimensions Staff (e. g., Human Dimensions Biologist; Responsive
Management; Economist); and, finally, Biologists (e.g., Fisheries Biologist, Biology
Specialist, Research Specialist). Approximately one-third of our respondents were coded
as Upper Management; 18% were coded as Human Dimensions Staff, and 48% were

coded as Biologists (Table 1).

Human Dimensions Data Collection

Respondents from 50 states and the District of Columbia reported that their
fisheries program had collected human dimensions information from anglers, and
respondents from 45 states reported that their fisheries program had specifically collected
economic information from anglers. Respondents reported that their fisheries program
had been collecting angler human dimensions information for as many as 76 years, to as
few as 4 years, with a median Of 27 years (mean = 29.7 years). Seventy-one percent of
respondents reported that their fisheries program had conducted angler human
dimensions surveys in 2006 or 2007. The year of the most recent data collection ranged
from 1996 to 2008 with a median of 0 years (mean = 1.6 years). Ninety-one percent of
respondents reported that their fisheries program had collected angler human dimensions
data in the previous 5 years. Eighty percent of respondents reported planned collections

for 2007 or 2008. The year of the next planned data collection ranged from 2007 to 2014

with a median of 1 year (mean = .7 years). Eighty-seven percent Of respondents reported
that their fisheries program had planned to collect angler human dimensions data within
the next two years.

Respondents reported that htunan dimensions staff were available in 18 different
state fisheries programs to collect and/or analyze angler human dimensions data and that
an economist was on staff for the collection and/or analysis of economic or
socioeconomic data in 9 states. Respondents from 10 states reported their agency had a
special division, section or department devoted to the collection and analysis of

socioeconomic, economic or human dimensions information.

Respondent Experience

Respondent’s reported a median experience level Of 10 years working on human
dimensions research with their respective agency (mean = 11.8 years) with a range from
0 to 34 years. Median experience levels varied between by job categories, with biologists
reporting the least experience working on human dimensions research at their current
agency (p = .061) and upper management reporting the most experience working on

human dimensions research at their current agency (p = .023) (Table 1).

Data Quality and Utilization

Respondents’ average rating of the overall quality and overall utilization of
human dimensions data collected by their fisheries program was 2.9 and 2.7, respectively
on a 4 point Likert-type scale: [Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Excellent (4)]. While the

majority of respondents rated both the quality and utilization of human dimensions data

collected by their fisheries management agency as excellent or good, human dimensions
staff rated the quality of human dimensions information significantly higher (p < .05)

than both biologists and upper management staff (Table 1).

 

Table 1.]. Respondents' experience and ratings of the utilization and overall quality of human
dimensions data collected by their agency. Data quality and data utilization ratings on a 4 point scale
[1=Poor; 2= Fair; 3=Good; 4=Excellent] * p < .05 ** p < .10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question/Item Sttltles Biologists Dill-Intiilsiiiins Mairjfgzerhent
Survey respondent job categories (N = 57) 57 28 10 19
Respondent’s work on human dimensions
research with current agency (median years) 10 7'5“ 12 15.5*
Data Utilization Rankings
{\ngeeglcya 1:312? dimensions data utilization 2.7 2.7 2.9 27
Excellent 1 1.0% l 1.5% 11.1% 10.5%
Good 53.7% 50.0% 66.6% 52.5%
Fair 31.4% 34.6% 22.2% 31.5%
Poor 3.0% 3.8% 0.0% 5.2%
Data Quality Rankings
2:311:33" drmensrons data quality 2.9 2.8 3.3,, 2.8
Excellent 16.3% 12.0% 36.3% 10.5%
Good 61.8% 64.0% 54.5% 63.1%
Fair 18.1% 20.0% 9.0% 21.0%
Poor 3.6% 4.0% 0.0% 5.2%

Respondents reported on the ways in which human dimensions data were utilized

by their agency selecting all that applied from a list of response categories. The majority

 

 

 

 

of respondents reported that human dimensions data were utilized for each of the

response categories offered, with a slightly larger number of respondents reporting

human dimensions data were utilized in the design of fishery regulations (89%) (Table 2).

 

Table 1.2. Respondent’s reporting of human dimensions data utilization. Respondents selected all that
applied from a list of 4 response categories. Nineteen respondents offered other ways in which human
dimensions data was utilized by their agency.

 

 

 

 

Question/Item N All States
The design of fishery regulations 49 89.1%
Local resource management plans 46 83.6%
State-wide strategic resource management plans 44 81.5%
Development of angler educational, outreach programs & 38 69.1%
materials

Other 19 34.5%

When asked if there were other ways in which angler human dimensions data
were utilized by the state agency, nineteen respondents offered additional comments with
several themes emerging. Themes related to each of the four original response categories
were reiterated as well as additional themes related to fiscal justification and outreach and
to a lesser extent, angler recruitment and retention. The frequency (number of times a
particular theme was mentioned) and extensiveness (number of individuals who

mentioned a particular theme) are provided in Table 3.

 

Table 1.3. Respondent’s reporting of human dimensions data utilization. Nineteen respondents
offered other ways in which human dimensions data was utilized by their agency. The dominant
themes are presented in this table.

 

Frequency Extensiveness

 

0

Resource management plans 14
Informing legislature / program validation
Developing regulations

Public relations / public outreach

Angler motivations /angler behavior / angler profiling
Economic information, impacts and valuation
Marketing to anglers / recruitment retention

Evaluating programs and services

 

 

WWMO\\I\O\JOO
Nw-hhMMOQ

Fiscal Justification (state and federal funding)

State Fisheries Issues

Collectively, respondents rated each of the four potential issues we presented
(Habitat Degradation, Access and Facilities, Declining Angler Participation, and State
Budget Shortfalls) as moderately or very important issues facing their state’s fishery
(Table 4). While all respondents rated habitat degradation (invasive species, drought,
pollution, development) to be a “very” or “extremely” important issue facing their state’s
fishery, we found greater variability in respondents’ ratings of other issues facing their
state’s fishery. Both human dimensions and upper management staff rated declining
angler participation as very important (4.2) while biologist’s rated declining angler
participation significantly lower (p < .10) at (3.7). Upper management and biologist
respondents rated state budget shortages (3.9) and (4.0), respectively, while human
dimensions staff rated state budget shortages significantly lower (p < .10) at (3.3) (Table

4).

 

Table 1.4. Respondent’s ratings of issues facing their fishery management agencies. Respondents
rated 4 response categories independently. Ratings are on a 5 point scale [1=Not important at all; 2=
Slightly important; 3=Moderate1y important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Thirty
respondents offered other issues facing their agency. ** p < .10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A" Upper 'Human Biologists

States Management Dimensmns
Habitat Degradation Rankings
Habitat degradation (mean rating) 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Very important 29.0% 33.3% 30.0% 25.9%
Extremely important 70.9% 66.6% 70.0% 74.0%
Access and Facilities Rankings
Access and facilities (mean rating) 4.1 4.3 3.9 4
Slightly important 5.5% 5.5% l 1.0% 3.7%
Moderately important 12.9% 5 .5% 22.0% 14.8%
Very important 48.1% 44.0% 33.0% 55.5%
Extremely important 33 .3% 44.0% 33.0% 25.9%
Declining Angler Participation Rankings
Declining angler participation (mean rating) 4 4.2 4.2 3.7"
Not important at all 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7%
Slightly important 5.4% 5.0% 10.0% 3.7%
Moderately important 23.6% 16.6% 20.0% 29.6%
Very important 30.9% 27.7% 10.0% 40.7%
Extremely important 38. 1% 50.0% 60.0% 22.0%
State Budget Shortages Rankings
State budget shortages (mean rating) 3.8 3.9 3.3" 4
Not important at all 3.7% 5.5% 0.0% 3.8%
Slightly important 7.4% 5.5% 20.0% 3.8%
Moderately important 25.9% 22.0% 50.0% 19.2%
Very important 27.7% 27.7% 10.0% 34.6%
Extremely important 35.1% 38.8% 20.0% 38.4%

 

 

 

 

When asked if there were other important issues facing their state’s fishery, 30
respondents offered additional comments with several themes emerging. Themes related
to each of the four original response categories were reiterated as well as additional

themes related to fiscal issues and outreach, aquatic health and to a lesser extent

10

recruitment and retention. The frequency (number of times a particular theme was
mentioned) and extensiveness (number of individuals who mentioned a particular theme)

are provided in Table 5.

 

Table 1.5. Respondent’s ratings of issues facing their fishery management agencies. Thirty respondents
offered other issues facing their agency, 7 themes are presented below.

 

 

Frequency Extensiveness

Budget issues / program funding / state funding 7 6
Angler experience / quality fishing / recruitment retention 7 7
Fish disease / disease effects on stocking 7 6
Water quality / water shortage / habitat degradation 7 6
Staffing shortages / inability to hire staff 7 6
Public education / public awareness 6 5
Exotic species / invasive species / illegal introductions / restoring native 5 4
populations

Threatened and Endangered Species 3 3

 

 

Importance of Human Dimensions Information

Collectively, respondents rated each of the human dimensions information items
presented as very or moderately important to fisheries management decision making. We
report respondent’s collective mean importance ratings, the means reported by each job
category (Biologists, Human Dimensions, and Upper Management), as well as the means
reported by Wilde et al. (1996) (Table 6). Our mean ratings and rank order are similar to
those reported by Wilde et a1. (1996), with the exception of species-specific market
information, which had a mean importance score significantly higher (p < .05) than the
mean reported by Wilde et a1. (1996). Human dimensions respondents rated five of the
eight human dimensions information items higher than both biologists and upper
management staff, with angler satisfaction and economics of recreational fishing rated

significantly higher p <.10 (Table 6).

ll

 

Table 1.6. Respondent's mean ratings of the importance of human dimensions information items to
fishery management decision making. Ratings are on a 5 point scale [1=Not important at all; 2=
Slightly important; 3=Moderately important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Mean
ratings reported by Wilde et al. (1996), our national mean importance ratings and the means for
Biologists, Human Dimensions staff and Upper Management are presented. “ p < .05 ** p < .10

 

 

 

 

 

1996 2007
Wilde et al. . . Human Upper
(1996) A" States Biologists Dimensions Management
Angler SUPP“ f“ . 4.2 4.1 4 4.2 4.2
management regulations
Angler satisfaction 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.3M 3.9
Angler ammdes and 4.1 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.8
opinions
.Spec'es'sfec'fic market 3.1 3.7* 3.7 3.8 3.6
Information
Economics of recreational 3.6 3.6 3‘ 6 4.1“ 34
fishing
Angler motivations 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.5
General Public attitudes 3'4 3'2 3'2 3.2 3.3
and opinions
Demmf’hlc 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.3
characteristics of anglers

 

 

 

Partnerships

The fifth and final section of the survey contained 4 questions about partnerships
leveraged to: 1) communicate with anglers; 2) develop fishing programs, activities and
services; 3) gather economic data; and, 4) gather human dimensions data. Respondents
reported partnerships with recreational businesses clubs and organizations to
communicate with anglers and develop programs activities and services, with a shift
toward partnering with colleges and universities and consulting firms to collect economic
and human dimensions data (Table 7). When asked if there were other partnerships
leveraged, respondents Offered additional comments with several themes emerging. The
frequency (number of times a particular theme was mentioned) and extensiveness

(number of individuals who mentioned a particular theme) are provided in Table 8.

 

Table 1.7. Respondent’s reporting of partnerships leveraged to conduct four tasks: communicating
with anglers; developing fishing programs, activities and services; collecting angler economic data;

and collectin an ler human dimensions data.

 

 

Clubs,

 

Colleges/ Recreational or anizations
Universities Business ' g . ’
foundations
Communicating with anglers 63% 68% 90%
Developing programs, activrties 47% 74% 88%
and servrces
Collecting Economic data 61% 26% 26%
Collecting human dimensions data 65% 23% 35%

 

 

 

Consulting
Firms

32%
21%

46%
53%

 

Table 1.8. Respondents reporting of other agency partnerships to conduct four tasks: communicating
with anglers; developing fishing programs, activities and services and collecting economic data and

human dimensions data.

 

Developing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communic Fishing Collecting Callectlng
. . . uman
atlng wuth Programs, Economic . .
. . . . Dimensions
Anglers Actrvnties and Data D
. ata
Servrces
3‘ = 5‘ g 5' g 3‘ a
= u = o = o E o
0 > 0 > 0 > 9 >
g I; g .5 = I; g n;
1: E 2 § E E 2 §
LL x L!- K L!- x k- N
a: m kl a:
Federal Agencies (USFSW;
BLM; USFS, etc.) 13 11 10 9 9 9 9 8
State Agencies 23 9 1 1 6 0 0 2 2
Media 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Agency / Internal 3 2 2 0 2 2 2 2
Mulit-state organizations / quazi-
. . 5 5 l 1 2 l l 1
governmental organizations
Recreational industry /
Recreational Shows 3 l l 1 0 O 0 0
Conservatrpn groups / N00 5 / 12 12 2 2 O 0 0 0
Sportsman 5 groups
Public/community orgs/local l 1 8 1 1 10 0 0 3 2
governments and councrls

DISCUSSION

 

Human Dimensions Data Collection

 

 

 

Wilde et a1. (1996) hypothesized that as human dimensions information became
more important to fisheries management activities, there would be a corresponding
increase in the frequency of surveys conducted by management agencies. We asked
respondents several questions to determine the frequency of all angler surveys (e. g., local,
regional and state-wide) being conducted by their fisheries program, developing baseline
information for this inquiry. Nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated that their
fisheries management program had conducted angler human dimensions surveys in the
previous 2 years, over 90% collect this information in the previous 5 years, and 80%
reported planned collections in the next two years. However, when asked how many
years their fisheries program had been involved in the collection of human dimensions
data, 20 respondents gave indistinct timeframes often coupled with comments about the
irregularity of their human dimension surveys efforts.

“I couldn’t tell you the exact date.” (20 respondents made similar comments)
Additionally, many respondents were unable to tell us when the next planned
collection of human dimensions data would occur, or gave vague answers:

“Unknown” (9 respondents made similar comments)

Experience and Staffing

Wilde et a1. (1996) predicted that with increased importance given to human
dimensions information, there would be a corresponding increase in trained human
dimensions personnel within fisheries management agencies. We did not collect
information on respondent’s education or training, and we also suspect that a diversity of

backgrounds is represented by our respondents, with some respondents obtaining formal

14

training and education in the social sciences. Collectively, we found respondent’s
median experience working on human dimensions research with their respective agency
to be 10 years with a range from 0 to 34 years (mean = 12 years). This is an increase
from 8 years of median respondent experience reported by Wilde et a1. (1996), and
indicates that at least by this measure, the collective experience of human dimensions
staff may be increasing.

Gabelhouse (2005) surveyed 41 US. inland fisheries programs and found that
twelve states had dedicated personnel to planning and human dimensions for fisheries,
accounting for 0.3% of inland fisheries programs employees nationwide. Respondents
from our study reported that human dimensions staff were available in 18 different state
inland fisheries programs to collect and/or analyze angler human dimensions data, (likely
an increase since Gabelhouse, 2005) with 9 states employing an economist for the
collection and/or analysis of economic or socioeconomic data. Additionally, respondents
from 10 states reported their agency had a special division, section or department
dedicated to the collection and or analysis of human dimensions data. When asked about
the availability of staff to collect and analyze human dimensions data or the presence of
special units devoted to working on the collection and analysis of human dimensions
related information, several respondents commented on the lack of qualified staff or the
lack of staff specifically dedicated to conducting human dimensions data collection and
analysis. Several researchers have reported on the lack of human dimensions training and
interdisciplinary learning in the conservation sciences and fisheries and wildlife
management (Kelso and Murphy (1988); Fox et al. (2006); Ditton (2004)). Comments

such as the following may illustrate a lack of human dimensions training, especially

15

given our respondent’s responsibility for human dimensions research at their respective

agencies:

here.”

“This may be a stupid question, but what is human dimensions information?”
-Respondent, Human Dimensions Staff

“When you say human dimensions, you’re talking the actual. . .you’re not talking
harvest survey, everything like that?” -Respondent, Biologist

“When you say human dimensions that is where I am kinda getting the hangup

-Respondent, Upper Management

“. . .it depends on what we include as human dimensions.” -Respondent, Biologist

The following comments, (made in direct response to our question about the

availability of staff to collect and analyze human dimensions data) and similar comments

pertaining to staffing shortages and inadequate staffing and program funds elsewhere in

the interview, may suggest continuing human dimensions staffing and programming

challenges.

“I’m a fisheries biologist, we’re all fisheries biologists. A lot of us have had
statistics classes, but there’s no specific training, there’s no survey person.” (7
respondents made similar comments)

“You’re talking to the one and only, but I’m not expressly charged with that as
my only duty.” (5 respondents made similar comments)

Using our protocol to identify hmnan dimensions contact persons at each fisheries

program, 15 respondents were identified through fisheries management agency websites;

13 through the Human Dimensions of Recreational Fisheries American Fisheries Society

Committee list (http://lutra.tamu.edu/hdcom/, August 2007 and the remainder, 29, were

identified through a “cold call” to fisheries management state headquarters. On 30

separate occasions the potential respondent we identified through our primary, secondary

l6

or tertiary sources resulted in at least one referral. These results suggest that at least in
some states, there may be some confusion about who the angler human dimensions

contact persons are within the fisheries program.

Data Quality and Data Utilization

While not statistically significant, overall respondents rated the quality of human
dimensions data collected by their agency higher than data utilization, with human
dimensions staff rating data quality significantly higher than biologists and upper
management staff. However, an equal and lower percentage of biologists, human
dimensions and upper management staff rated data utilization as excellent. The lower
ratings attributed to data utilization may be illustrated by the comments offered by 3
respondents:

“. . .as far as the final decisions, when they weigh everything, I don’t know how

they weight what they consider when they consider what group gets certain

regulations or when we have to cut down fishing mortality. I’m not sure how that
plays in.”

“We just haven’t been as aggressive in applying the knowledge that we gain from
the surveys as we should.”

“I think we could do a better job. I think we all recognize that we need more of it
but again, we’re on a fixed budget - we work strictly on the hunting fishing
license and boating registration, we don’t get general revenue money so, a lot of
times we can’t do all the things we want to do, and sometimes those surveys are
easier to cut than people or equipment. But we fight for them a lot...So I think our
agency’s doing a good job, but we can do better.”

Respondents reported on the ways in which that human dimensions data were

utilized, selecting all that applied from a list of response categories and were asked if

17

there were other ways in which angler human dimensions data were utilized. Nineteen
respondents offered additional comments, with each of the four original response
categories reiterated and several new themes also emerging. The majority of these
comments could be grouped into one of two broad categories: fiscal justification /
outreach [i.e., public outreach; informing legislature; communicating economic impacts;
other fiscal justification] and to a lesser extent recruitment and retention [i.e., angler
marketing; angler motivations]. These results suggest that angler human dimensions data
are also utilized to communicate the mission of fisheries management agencies and the
economic and other societal benefits of angling activities. In their survey of the heads of
freshwater fisheries management agencies, Ross and Loomis (1999) reported that most
agencies indicated they were spending more time developing public education programs.
Arlinghaus (2006) linked habitat degradation to inadequate communication of the social
and economic importance of recreational fisheries to non-fishery stakeholders and the
public, recommending programs to increase the awareness of the social and economic
importance of recreational fishing. Our findings are not surprising given that previous
surveys of fisheries management agencies have shown that at least 23 states received
fiinds from state public tax revenues, 14 of which received line item funds that legislators
vote on annually or biannually; 5 a dedicated proportion of state sales tax, 2 received a
dedicated proportion of state income tax, and 6 listed other state tax revenues (Ross and

Loomis 1999).

State Fisheries Issues

18

All of our respondents rated habitat degradation (invasive species, drought,
pollution, development) to be very or extremely important issue facing their fishery,
making it the most important issue rated by respondents. Additionally, when asked about
other issues facing their state, six different respondents reiterated issues related to habitat
degradation (water pollution, water shortage, water quality), discussed below. These
findings support previous research finding that habitat deterioration is consistently among

the most important issues facing fisheries agencies nationwide (Ross and Loomis 1999).

In recent decades, the USFWS National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation has reported continued declines in angling participation (U .S.
Department of Interior 2006) and there is evidence in the literature that agencies are
placing a major emphasis on angler recruitment issues (Mather et a1. 1995). However,
our results suggest there is variability among our respondents in rating the importance of
angler recruitment and retention, with biologists rating this item significantly lower than
Human Dimensions staff and Upper Management staff. This variability likely reflects
differing perceptions of the causes and consequences of declines in angler participation as
well as local (state) conditions. Four respondents specifically reiterated issues related to
angler recruitment and retention when asked about other issues facing their state. Eight
respondents offered comments in addition to their numerical rating of declining angler
participation, reflecting a range of levels of concern with declines in angler participation:

“We haven't experienced a decline.”

“. . .becoming important”

19

“We are not really experiencing a decline yet. We are kind of leveling out, but I
guess compared to our population grth it is in decline, so I’m going to say very
important.”

“We’re losing a lot of anglers. We’ve really taken a hit.”

“That’s the number 1 issue on our plate right now.”

When asked if there were other important issues facing their state’s fishery, 30
respondents offered additional comments with several themes emerging. The majority of
comments offered by respondents could be grouped into one of three broad categories:
fiscal issues / outreach [e.g. staffing shortages, budget and program funding, public
outreach and education]; aquatic health [e. g. water quality, invasive species, non-native
species, fish disease and hatchery issues, fish passage] and to a lesser extent recruitment
and retention [quality of fishing, recruitment and retention, angler education].

Nationally, more than half of total state budgets for fisheries management are
directed toward hatchery production and stocking and the analysis of put and take
regulations (hatchery and stocking programs alone require an average of 33% of all
fisheries expenditures) (Ross and Loomis 1999). These stocking activities resulted in an
estimated 1.7 billion fish being stocked in 2004 alone, largely accomplished by state
fisheries management agencies (Halverson 2008). Six respondents specifically raised
concerns about fish diseases and the effect of fish diseases on hatchery production.

Another theme raised by respondents was public education / public awareness.
Ross and Loomis (1999) found that developing public education programs was “very” or

“extremely” important to 63% of the heads of freshwater management agencies they

20

surveyed, and 89% of respondents reported spending more time on public education

programs than they had 10 years ago (Ross and Loomis 1999).

Importance of Human Dimensions Information

The majority of our mean ratings for the importance of human dimensions
information items were equal to or slightly less than the mean ratings reported by Wilde
et a1. (1996) with our overall ranking similar to those reported by Wilde et al. (1996).

Wilde et a1. (1996) maintained that respondents may attach greater importance to
more “traditional” human dimensions information items, specifically angler motivations,
angler satisfaction, and, angler support for management regulations. Our mean rating for
angler satisfaction was equal to the mean rating reported by Wilde et a1. (1996) and our
mean rating of angler motivations was lower than the mean rating report by Wilde et al.
(1996). Ross and Loomis (1999) reported that 76% of the heads of fisheries management
agencies surveyed ranked the importance of gaining angler acceptance of regulations as
“very” or “extremely” important management activity and that most agencies were
spending more time on this gaining angler acceptance of regulations. While angler
support for management regulations was the highest ranked item in our survey overall,
our mean rating was equal to the mean rating reported by Wilde et al. (1996), and we
report only a 2% increase in the percentage of respondents’ rating this item very or
extremely report compared to Wilde et a1. (1996). These results suggest little if any
change in the importance of these information items. The following comment was made

in direct response to our question about the importance of angler support for management

21

regulations, which may illustrate respondents’ perception of the utility of this
information:

“When a management regulation is being proposed that does not have popular

support we Often find it mired in debate or even in the courts, 1 would say for that

reason that angler support is very important.” -Respondent, Human Dimensions

Staff

Our national mean rating for the importance of angler attitudes and opinions was
3.9. This mean rating is lower than the mean rating of 4.1 reported by Wilde et al.
(1996). The following comment was also made in direct response to this interview
question:

“There is always someone who is not happy so we try to stick with the science.”

-Respondent, Biologist

Though ranked as relatively unimportant in their survey, Wilde et a1. (1996)
predicted that species specific angler market information would become important in
recruitment and service delivery, and we report a significant increase in the importance of
this issue compared the earlier findings of Wilde et a1. (1996). While probably a more
recent trend, these results may suggest that agencies are more inclined to manage toward
a specific fishery or a specific angler market, rather than toward more general attitudes,
opinions, and preferences. However, while not representative of a trend toward a greater
emphasis on species-specific market information, one respondent offered these comments
in direct response to this question which may suggest some skepticism:

“We have some hard core loud musky fishermen who are pushing for more

stocking, more regulations, more this more of that. You have to listen, but that

doesn’t mean you have to do anything. ....we hear them and we are listening to

them, but we are not doing anything because we’ve already done a whole lot and

they can comprise [a small proportion] of the angler population, so it is almost
irrelevant.” — Respondent, Biologist

22

A possible explanation for these and similar comments (above) provided in the
literature is that managers may feel that the public involvement process is heavily
influenced by special interests (Mortenson and Krannich 2001). Mortenson and Krannich
(2001) analyzed Utah Division of Wildlife Resources manager’s to determine their range
of acceptance for public involvement in management decisions. Respondents to their
survey indicated that the process needed to provide for a better representation of Utah’s
wildlife interests, claiming that the public involvement process is currently dominated by

consumptive-oriented special interests.

Our national mean rating for the importance of general public attitudes and
opinions was lower than the mean reported by Wilde et al. (1996). Arlinghaus (2006)
described one of the greatest challenges currently facing recreational fisheries as striking
the balance between sound management decisions to ensure viable recreational fisheries
and the aesthetic and nature conservation values held by people in the 215’century. The
following comment (offered in response to our question about the importance of general
public attitudes and opinions) may capture the viewpoints held by other respondents
particularly for those agencies now faced with public education / public awareness issues
in their state, and those respondents who cited the legislative process as an additional
application for human dimensions data:

“. . .because we actually get a sales tax or part of a sales tax, so we have to pay
attention to what the general public think.” -Respondent, Upper Management

23

Our national mean rating for the importance of demographic information was
equal to the mean reported by Wilde et a1. (1996) who pointed out that although
demographic information had at that time received attention in fisheries literature, their
survey respondents viewed demographic information as relatively unimportant.

The mix of demographic conditions occurring in industrialized societies may have
both negative and positive influences on angling demand (Aas and Arlinghaus 2009).
Researchers have also emphasized that angler participation and behavior may also be
influenced by other attributes (social background, culture and personality) (Aas and
Arlinghaus 2009; Hunt and Ditton 2002) as well as the actions of fisheries managers (Aas
and Arlinghaus 2009; Ditton 2004). Together, understanding constraints to participation
for angler subgroups with lower rates of participation and the socialization process and
benefits sought by minority populations and improving accessibility for these groups may
reverse many of the trends forecasted (Ditton 2004).

While demographic information may not be an important human dimensions
information item for states not currently experiencing rapid demographic changes,
researchers have documented increased conflicts as a result of new user groups entering
recreational angling with different meanings attached to several aspects of recreational
fishing (Aas and Arlinghaus 2009). While not necessarily representative of our
respondents, comments like the following may summarize the types of management
difficulties facing (or soon to face) fishery management agencies experiencing
demographic changes:

“. . . [our state] has a very diverse demographic component, a lot of different

cultures, nationalities of folks from various comers of the world and along with

that a different perspective on resource conservation and a lot of times we are not
necessarily up against an individual who has a lot of potential to break the law,

24

but entire cultures that have a different perspective about various laws.”
Respondent, Biologist

Partnerships

The fifth and final section of the survey contained 4 questions about partnerships
leveraged by the agency. Wilde et a1. (1996) reported that more than half of statewide
surveys were conducted in house, and 66% were analyzed in house, suggesting that
agencies may not be developing partnerships with the broader human dimensions
research community. However, the majority of our respondents reported leveraging
partnerships with colleges and universities and consulting firms to collect economic data
and human dimensions data. Ditton (2004) suggested that managers may depend mainly
on social and economic data from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation for human dimensions data. The majority of respondents offering
additional partnerships leveraged to collect economic and human dimensions data cited
federal agencies, four respondents specifically mentioned the US. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS).

Our findings document the diversity of opinions and attitudes toward human
dimensions data collection and application and provide an update on the status of human
dimension data collection and information management by fisheries management
agencies. A minority of states reported having human dimensions staff in place to collect
and analyze human dimensions data, and the comments from many of our respondents
suggest that much of the human dimensions program oversight may be ancillary to their
primary fisheries duties. Our findings also documented that some agencies had difficulty

identifying their angler human dimensions contact persons. While the median experience

25

level of our respondents was higher than that reported by Wilde et a1. (1996), many
respondents were unable to provide basic information on data collection efforts (most
recent, or next planned) and displayed a lack of basic knowledge about the field of human
dimensions. Respondent’s rankings of human dimensions information items suggest
little increase in the perceived value and importance of human dimensions information to
decision making. However our findings can help align human dimensions inquiries with
the information needs of fisheries managers. Further, our findings reinforce the
importance of interdisciplinary research experience in fisheries management curricula

and training.

26

CHAPTER 2: The Michigan Recreational Angler Survey:
Examining long term, cost effective, statewide recreational angler
survey strategies

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Over the last 25 years, the fisheries management literature has underscored the
importance of applying angler human dimensions information to fisheries management
decision making. Research scholars argue that this information may be used to: better
understand the resource and social needs of anglers (Brown 1987); appropriately allocate
natural resource and management funds (Fisher 1997); protect, restore, and enhance
fishery resources for present and future generations (Bray et a1. 1996); ensure that harvest
regulations, fish stocking and habitat enhancement efforts are effective (Pollock et a1.
1994); provide the diversity of opportunities desired by anglers (Connelly et al. 2001);
implement rules and regulations with knowledge of which angler groups will be most
affected (Fisher 1997); develop outreach programs, particularly for minority and non-
traditional angler groups (Ditton 2004); and, understand the impact of anglers on fishery
resources (Lupi et a1. 2005). Representative angler survey information may also be used
to, benchmark the results of existing non-random angler surveys (Lupi 2004) and they
can be used to supplement data from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (Lupi 2004; Brown 1991).

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has been credited as
one of the first states to initiate statewide mail angler surveys to collect biological and

user profile data in the Great Lakes system (Brown 1987). These surveys helped to

27

determine angler’s state-wide pattern of fishery resource use (J amesen 1985a and 1985b;
Mahoney et a1. 1991). Examples of the type of information collected during these
surveys included: total angler effort, spatial and temporal distribution of angling effort,
and spatial distribution of catch by species (but not for site-specific harvest) (Lupi et al.
2005). However, these surveys were discontinued in the mid 1980’s. Since that time the
MDNR Fisheries Division has conducted only occasional human dimensions surveys to
support individual projects or to react to management issues. This approach has left the
MDNR Fisheries Division with uncoordinated and un—standardized angler human
dimensions data collection efforts being undertaken as separate projects over time (Lupi
et al. 2005).

The Michigan Recreational Angler survey is a result of an MDNR funded project
proposal: F 81-R—8, Study 230548-4, “A state-wide survey of Michigan's licensed
anglers”. One of the objectives of this study was to design and initiate a cost effective,
long-term statewide angler survey strategy. The Michigan Recreational Angler survey
instrument is designed to collect information on the status and distribution of angling
effort for all of Michigan’s fisheries. Over time, the survey could be used to track the
status and trends of Michigan’s recreational anglers and their resource use including
behaviors, spatial distribution, trip characteristics and data for economic analysis. The
survey instrument and sampling strategy were designed to strike a balance between
achieving data collection needs and minimizing response error, nonresponse error and

sampling errors.

28

Angler Survey Challenges

For a variety of reasons, survey responses related to a range of important
parameters often being tested (e. g. effort, catch, expenditures) tend to differ to some
degree from what actually transpired (Pollock et. a1 1994 pg 52). Longer recall periods
are prone to more recall bias (e.g. Bence 2005; Chase and Haranda 1984; Fisher et al.
1991; Pollock 1994 pg 52; Westat 1989). Annual recall has produced overestimates of
fishing effort and catch and underestimates of expenditures (Pollock et al. 1994 pg 52).
Other response errors include deliberately misreporting data, social desirability bias
(Pollock et al. 1994 pg 53), misidentification of fish species (Pollock et al. 1994 pg 71);
digit preference (Pollock et a1. 1994 pg 71), and “satisficing” (Biemer and Lyberg 2003
pg 124; 135). Finally, nonresponse bias (Brown (1991); Pollock et a1. (1994 pg 71);
Dillman (2007 pg 10); McClanahan and Hansen (2003); Connelly et a1. (2001)) and item-
nonresponse (Dillman 2007 pg 79-148) are some additional forms of bias docmnented in

survey research literature.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Angler Surveys Methods

Access point and roving creel survey methods have been used to, and are
particularly effective for, collecting site-specific information on fishing effort, harvest
and biological characteristics of fish caught (Pollock et a1. 1994). Direct observation and
the ability to collect data from anglers on-site reduces some biases including recall biases
(Pollock et al. 1994 203) and prestige bias (Westat 1989). Creel surveys have also
experienced generally higher response rates (McClanahan & Hansen 2003). Although it

may be possible to add human dimensions questions to creel surveys, long interview

29

periods may not be tolerated by anglers, and longer per respondent interview periods may
in effect, reduce the total number of respondents surveyed as part of the sampling effort
(Brown 1991; Pollock et a1. 1994 pg 205). Information collected face-to-face may also
be subject to interviewer effects (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 190; Brown 1991), which
may ultimately lead to different management strategies (O’Bara 1991). Social desirability
bias (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 190), nonresponse, (McClanahan and Hansen 2003) as
well as avidity bias and length of stay bias (Pollock et a1. 1994, pg 70) have also been
documented. Creel surveys cover a limited geographical area and may not be conducted
during all fishing periods (McClanahan and Hansen 2003), may not be appropriate where
access is diffuse (Pollock et al. 1994 pg 206; Malvestuto 1996) and often focus on effort
and harvest of certain species in a particular waterways (Brown 1991 ). As a
consequence, it may be difficult to extrapolate creel data to larger populations or to fully
understand inland use which accounts for over 70% of fishing trips in Michigan (Lupi
2004). O’Bara (1991) cautioned that external influences on local fisheries, (e. g.
hydrologic changes; new angling opportunities), must be factored before information
from creel surveys is extrapolated for long-term management decisions.

More accurate information on trip expenditures and angler’s satisfaction may be
collected by telephone or mail survey methods from anglers who have recently completed
their trips (Brown 1991). Finally face-to-face interviews are generally more costly than
other modes of surveys (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 190; Brown 1991). Creel clerks
generally require some amount of training (O’Bara 1991) and incur significant

transportation and per diem costs (Brown 1991).

30

Principal off-site surveys methods include: telephone; door-to-door, mail surveys
and to some degree, intemet surveys. Generally, the cost of off-site methods tends to be
lower than the cost of on-site methods (with the exception of door-to-door surveys)
(Pollock et al. 1994 pg 206). In these surveys, anglers self report data and human
dimensions questions are often included as part of these relatively lengthier surveys
(Pollock et a1. 1994).

Telephone surveys cover a large geographic area and in the era before widespread
cell phone usage, could often obtain higher response rates than mail surveys
(McClanahan and Hansen 2003) and may generate a lower cost per respondent than both
door-to-door surveys and access and roving creel surveys (Pollock et a1. 1994 pg 116).
Telephone surveys may produce relatively quicker results; as survey appearance is
generally not an issue, survey navigation is primarily the responsibility of the interviewer
and data may be entered directly by the interviewer (Pollock et a1. 1994 pg 116).
Interviewer variance (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 194), recall bias, misidentification and
prestige bias have been documented in telephone surveys (Pollock et a1. 1994 pg 117).
Coverage errors resulting from unlisted numbers and households without telephones
(Pollock et al. 1994 pg 117) and nonresponse related to related to changes in household
telephone usage (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 194; Dillman 2007 pg 8) further
complicate telephone survey methods. Connelly et a1. (1997) found that a quarterly
telephone survey of Lake Ontario anglers had a recall bias just as large as an annual mail
survey. Telephone surveys also tend to have fewer questions, as complicated questions

with many response alternatives or complex recall are difficult to perform, increasing the

31

tendency of respondents to acquiesce and give extreme responses (Biemer and Lyberg
2003 pg 194).

Web surveys have become more widely used with improvements in computer
technology and increases in intemet access and computer use. The costs of implementing
web surveys has also declined and are often less expensive than telephone, mail and face-
to-face interviews (Dillman 2007 pg 448-500). However, not all members of survey
populations have intemet access or the ability to respond to intemet surveys. Household
random sampling procedures may be complicated by e-mail address structures and
cultural and legal barriers (Dillman 2007 pg 448-500). Finally, concerns about computer
viruses and privacy issues may contribute to higher incidence of nonresponse (Dillman
2007 pg 448-500).

Mail surveys have been the preferred off-site survey method for many fisheries
agencies (Pollock et a1. 1994 pg 73; Brown 1991). Mail surveys have the ability to cover
a large geographical area and at present are typically the least expensive of off-site
methods (Pollock et al. 1994 pg 206; McClanahan and Hansen 2003; Biemer and Lyberg
2003 pg 196; Brown 1991). Because mail surveys are self-administered, mail surveys
have a lower risk of social desirability bias (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 196). The mail
survey format provides anglers with the time to recall past events, check personal records
or consult with others and thoroughly consider their answers to attitude, opinion and
preference question (Brown 1991). Mail surveys may also provide types of information
that conventional creel surveys do not by relating fishing activity to properties of the
individual angler (such as geographic location or residence and license type) (Bence

2005). However, many mail surveys carry the risk of high item nonresponse. Without

32

an interviewer present available for clarification or guidance, mail surveys must be well
constructed so that respondents understand the concepts and are able to navigate through
the survey without assistance (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 197; Brown 1991). Longer
surveys may decrease response rates and may lead to nonresponse bias, as more avid
anglers are more likely to complete surveys (Brown 1991). Researchers conducting mail
surveys have little control over the response process including ensuring the intended
person completed the questionnaire (Brown 1991). It is also not possible to know if an
unretumed questionnaire reached the intended recipient or if the recipient simply chose
not to respond. This is can be problematic for computation of response rates and
adjusting the estimates for nonresponse (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 196; 197). Lower
response rates and the effects of nonresponse bias are of concern in mail surveys making
surveys of non-respondents particularly important (Brown 1991). Chase and Harada
(1984) report that recall is affected by the respondent’s frequency of participation near
the end of the recall period, and short recall periods such as a two-week period have been
recommended for more accurate data (Gems et al. 1982). A mail survey frame may not
contain anglers who are not required to purchase a fishing license or anglers who simply
choose to fish without a license (Pollock et a1. pg 80). Finally, mail surveys require a
relatively long field period for acceptable response rates (Pollock et a1. 1994 pg206;

Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 197; Brown 1991).

Balancing the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Mail Survey

The decision to implement our mailing strategy was made with many of the
aforementioned tradeoffs in mind. Several of the disadvantages related to mail surveys

are also present to some degree in other survey methods. Our survey instrument and

33

survey strategy were designed to minimize the effects of many of these common survey
biases as well as those biases unique to mail surveys. The concurrent collection of angler
information unaffected by a longer recall, the need for periodic, comprehensive, system-
wide data in Michigan, previously established mail survey methods within other divisions
of the MNDR, and the ability to compare information to previous MDNR Fisheries
Division research data also influenced our decision to implement statewide angler survey
format which retained some aspects of year-long recall (Brown 1991).

Our sample frame includes a simple random sample from the MDNR Retail Sales
System database, sampling a broad spectrum of Michigan’s licensed recreational anglers.
We implemented the National Change of Address (N COA) to identify and rectify
incorrect mailing addresses, and mailed surveys F irst-Class through the United States
Postal Service. Our mailing strategy follows many of the principles outlined by Dillman
(2007) with multiple follow-ups, personalized mailings, and progressively urgent appeals
in an effort to increase our response rate and reduce nonresponse bias (Pollock et a1. pg
80).

We applied many of the strategies described in Dillman (2007) to design a
streamlined, salient, user-fiiendly survey instrument that contains a mixture of closed and
Open-ended questions covering a range of angling activities, with visual navigation
guides between sections and concise instructions. Our survey instrument was designed
with multiple choice questions with short lists of possible response categories (informed
by a review of relevant literature and a cognitive interview process) including a species
checklists to aid in recall (Connelly and Knuth 1993). Because we were surveying

licensed anglers, we suspect most anglers will find the topic to be salient / relevant to

34

their angling behavior and activities, and therefore would be interested in the topic and
motivated to provide accurate responses. (Biemer and Lyberg 2003 pg 124; 135)

They survey instrument was designed to capture angling seasonality, cover all
fishing activity within Michigan, incur low costs per respondent and collect both short
term and longer term trip information balancing the benefits of long recall periods with
the needs for accuracy. Longer recall (activities over the last 12 months) are limited to
general angler behavior questions: fishing in Michigan (yes/no); participation in fishing
events (yes/no); fishing in other countries or states besides Michigan (yes/no); types of
waterbodies fished; number of trips taken (range); and fish species sought and methods
used.

Shorter recall periods are used for fishing effort (days fished) in the most recent
completed calendar month and may include the details of the most recent and second
most recent fishing trips. An attempt was made to ensure anglers received their initial
survey instrument within 4 weeks of the last day of the month, which should produce
more accurate estimates of effort (Brown 1991). Over the course of the calendar year,
regular monthly surveys will also permit researchers to examine angler seasonality.

Once the survey is established, issue-based questions and other human
dimensions questions could be added to this survey mode at little additional cost and
without compromising the integrity of the inventory data and without unnecessary
duplication of costs and effort. Data collected in this manner could detect changes in
fishing preferences given changes in regulations and environmental conditions and may

be incorporated into results from biological surveys of Michigan’s lakes and rivers.

35

Two Tests of Survey Design Options

Two versions of the survey instrument were implemented to test respondent’s
ability to document the details of their most recent fishing trip versus their two most
recent fishing trips. Trip information can be used to describe angler behavior both
spatially and temporarily and provides information for economic analysis. Collecting
information on the last two trips also provides researchers with the time between trips, an
interval measure of angler avidity. These surveys utilized a space saving column matrix
format, which may have the disadvantage of lower response rates and higher item
nonresponse (Dillman 2007). We also implemented an experiment with four discrete
treatments testing the effects of survey packaging, survey materials and personalization
on costs and survey response. We tailored our survey strategy following Dillman (2007)
to balance costs per survey and maximize response rate. The results of these tests guided

our subsequent mailing strategy and may serve to inform similar survey efforts.

METHODS

Questionnaire Development

The survey instrument was initially drafted following a review of published
literature, U.S. fisheries management agency survey instruments and survey reports
(Simoes, et al. www.msu.edu/~lupi/anglers.html) and related angler survey documents
and needs assessment materials developed by the MDNR, the MDNR Fisheries Division
and its partners.

MDNR Fisheries Division staff persons were provided with a draft of the

questionnaire during their 2007 annual meeting in Alpena, Michigan (October 11, 2007).

36

A short presentation was also given at this meeting to provide participants with a
background, rationale and timeline for the survey. We received important feedback on
the design, questions and response categories from the perspective of practitioners, who
collectively have many decades of experience interacting with the angling public.

Two rounds of “think-aloud” cognitive interviews as well as “retrospective
interviews” were conducted with peers and licensed angler acquaintances to assess the
survey questionnaire (Dillman 2007). Techniques and probing questions for this series of
cognitive interviews were were modified for our specific purposes following Dillman
(2007). The research staff conducting the cognitive interviews, retrospectively probed
interviewees on specific questions and sections of the survey. After completing the
survey, interviewees were then asked if they found specific sections of the survey
difficult to complete, if there were any problems following or understanding the survey
instrument, if they had any comments related to the survey instrument, and about the
overall appearance of the survey.

During the summer of 2008, retrospective interviews were conducted with
acquaintances on June 24th and 25‘h (N= 7). On July 7, 2008 retrospective interviews
were conducted with licensed Michigan anglers encountered at a Lansing, Michigan
hunting and fishing sporting goods store (N=18). Patrons with a current Michigan
fishing license were asked if they would be willing to assist Michigan State University
research staff by taking the Michigan recreational angler survey. Of particular note, we
found that 50% of licensed Michigan anglers interviewed during our July 7, 2008
cognitive interviews did not complete a portion of Part C of the survey instrument: “Your

Second Most Recent Fishing Trip”.

37

Based on the results of cognitive interviews in June and July, modifications were
made to the survey instrument in an effort to provide more concise instructions and to
address other issues identified by interviewees. Two versions of the survey instrument
were created, one which retained questions to collect data on the most recent and second
most recent fishing trips (Appendix B #1), and a second version collected information on
only the most recent fishing trip (Appendix B #2). Additional retrospective interviews
were conducted with licensed Michigan anglers encountered at the same location in
Lansing, Michigan on July 11, 2008 testing both versions of the revised survey
instrument (N=20). Once again, patrons with a current Michigan fishing license were
asked if they would be willing to assist Michigan State University research staff by taking
the Michigan recreational angler survey. During these tests we found 9 of 10
interviewees completed the original format seeking details on the most recent and second
most recent trip correctly. This was a considerable improvement from our earlier testing,
attributed primarily to our efforts to clarify survey instructions. These cognitive
interviews resulted in some important modifications to the survey instrument and
informed our test of two versions of the survey instrument during the initial survey

waves, discussed later.

Questionnaire

To meet our objectives, the survey instrument contains 20 to 21 multi-part
questions over four major sections: Part A) general fishing activities during the last 12
months; Part B) fishing activities during the most recent month (e.g., June, July, August);
Part C) details of the recent fishing trip(s); Part D) usual fishing activities, background

and demographic information (Appendix B #1 and Appendix B #2).

38

The majority of our response categories are closed-ended, with the exception of
questions seeking dates, locations, the numbers of events, the numbers of fish caught and
released and respondent’s age. Four questions contain an “Other” response choice and
provide space for respondents to write-in answers. Due to questions that focus on
specific time periods (e.g. fishing activity in the last 12 months and fishing activity in the
previous month) some respondents are directed to skip entire sections of the survey.
Specifically, anglers who have not fished in the last 12 months are instructed to proceed
to the Part D; anglers who have not fished in the most recent month are instructed to
proceed to Part C. Following the pretest interviews, we implemented what we feel are
intuitive visual navigational guides and concise instructions to direct respondents.
Response categories were carefully researched and developed and informed by our
cognitive interviews.

We anticipated a large number of respondents will not have fished either in the
last 12 months, or in the previous month which will necessitate large sample sizes.
Analysis based on fishing behavior (e. g. species targeted; fishing techniques; fishing
mode), license type, spatial information (angling location; zip code), and other

demographic information will also require larger sample sizes for robust analysis.

Sampling Frame

Our sample frame was the MDNR Retail Sales System database. MDNR
recreational angler licenses are effective April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 for the
2008-2009 fishing season (however anglers may purchase licenses during the month of
March for the upcoming season). In order to sample licensed anglers from the current

license year and reduce printing and administrative costs, a simple random sample of

39

5,000 individuals who purchased fishing licenses between April 1, 2008 and July 31,
2008 was drawn on August 27, 2008. A second random sample of 6,000 individuals who
purchased fishing licenses between April 1, 2008 and August 31, 2008 was drawn on
September 8, 2008. Each sample includes all possible license types.

Data from the MDNR Retail Sales System were examined and entries missing key
information (name of licensee, address of licensee) were deleted. Data with extraneous
information was edited for correctness, where possible, or deleted. Licensees with
addresses outside the US. or Canada were also removed from the sample. Once the final
sample was established for a round, each licensee in the sample was assigned a unique
project code which was used for the duration of the project. MSU’s University Relations
Printing Services was contracted to conduct a National Change of Address (N COA)
check of licensees addresses, conduct a mail merge, print, package all components of the
mailings and apply the appropriate postage to all mailings. The completed packages were
then pre-sorted and mailed First-Class through the United States Postal Service. Each
business reply envelope contained the unique code assigned to each individual in our

sample.

Data Collection Procedures

The procedures for this mail survey were adapted from the methods in Mail and
Internet Surveys (Dillman 2007). The first mailing included: 1) a cover letter printed on
MSU letterhead explaining the importance and objectives of the survey; 2) the four page
survey instrument; and, 3) a self-addressed, postage paid, business reply envelope. The

first mailing was followed 5 to 7 days later by a reminder / thank you postcard.

40

Approximately 33 days after the first mailing, non-respondents received a third mailing
containing: 1) a second cover letter printed on MSU letterhead which again explained the
importance and objectives of the survey with a slightly more urgent appeal; 2) a
replacement survey instrument; and, 3) a self-addressed, postage paid, business reply
envelope. Approximately 11 days after the third mailing non-respondents received a
fourth and final reminder / thank you postcard with a slightly more urgent appeal.
Examples of cover letters used in the mailing sequence can be found in Appendix C.

Returned business reply envelopes and undeliverable mailings were grouped by
the week of their receipt. All returned mailings were coded to inform follow-up mailings.
Additional communications from respondents directed to the principal investigator
including short notes, letters, pictures and refusals were coded and filed appropriately.
Returning business reply envelopes were opened and the project code appearing on the
business reply envelope was written on the top of the corresponding survey. Surveys
returning in envelopes other than the business reply envelope were examined for
evidence of the sender. The majority of these envelopes contained a return address which
could be linked through a separate database to the intended recipient and the project
identification code. Five surveys were unidentifiable because they were returned in non-
project envelopes, without an indication of the sender.

Surveys data were entered by technicians. Surveys with unusual responses patters
and inconsistencies were identified for further review. Consistent rules were established
for measuring usable response (Dillman 2007 pg 9) (e. g., skipped questions and dual
responses when single-answer responses were sought). Final editing and quality control

were overseen by one individual who is familiar with the survey instrument and the

41

purpose of the research. The data management process was concluded by merging

double-keyed files to detect and correct for differences in data entry.

Testing Trip Details

As previously stated, 50% of licensed Michigan anglers interviewed during an
early round of our cognitive interview pretests did not complete Part C of the survey
instrument, specifically question 8, “Your Second Most Recent Fishing Trip”. While
subsequent modifications to the survey instrument resulted in a higher completion rate in
a latter round of pretesting (90%), we decided to do a large scale field test of Part C of
our survey instrument to compare a version eliciting the most recent trip to a version
eliciting the two most recent trips.

Following an examination of the 5,000 records provided by the MDNR on August
27, 2008 with transaction dates beginning April 1, 2008 and ending July 31, 2008, five
records were deleted from the database. Two randomly assigned sub-samples were
created from the remaining simple random sample resulting in two sub-samples of 2,497
and 2,498 records. An additional 10 addresses were later deemed undeliverable (No
Forward; Primary Address Unverified) during the NCOA check.

One sub-sample of the population received the original format which retained
questions to collect data on both the most recent and second most recent fishing trips
(Version 1) (Appendix B#1). The other sub-sample received the version which collected
information on only the most recent fishing trip (Version 2) (Appendix B #2). Both sub-
sarnples received four contacts (initial survey instrument and cover letter; first thank
you/reminder postcard; replacement survey instrument and cover letter; second thank

you/reminder postcard) over the course of six weeks. The cover letters (8.5” x 11” 20#

42

bond paper) and survey instruments (11” x 17” 24# Domtar Ultra bond paper) were
printed in black ink and mailed in a first class windowed envelope. The letters were
personalized using a black ink electronic signature. Specific details pertaining to mailing
dates and rate of return by field week can be found in Appendix D#1.

We compared our response rates, item non-response, and the number of usable
trips for each survey version. We used SPSS Statistics 17.0® to calculate chi-square
statistic to test for relationships between our two tests and the characteristics of

respondents and non-respondents.

Testing Personalization and Materials

As one part of the personalization method, Dillman (2007) recommends that
letters are hand-signed or, alternatively, electronically signed in a contrasting ink color.
Dillman (2007) also encourages the use of regular business envelopes and carrying the
personalization method through to the letterhead stationary as an “integral connection to
personalization efforts”. By way of contrast, Dillman (2007) points to techniques
commonly used in “mass mailings”. While Dillman (2007) reports a collective impact of
5 to 8 percentage points from the use of personalization elements, he does not report on
how real versus facsimile signature may contribute to final response rate.

The MDNR Retail Sales System includes the necessary information to personalize
materials sent to licensees. Due to the large sample sizes typical of state-wide angler
surveys, we do not expect that the MDNR Fisheries Division would employ hand signing
or utilize higher quality stationary and envelopes. However, given the long-term nature
of this survey effort and the potential for making important contributions to the survey

research and human dimensions literature, we felt a test between a non-contrasting

43

facsimile signature and hand signing and higher quality and lower quality stationary and
envelopes was warranted.

Following an examination of the 6,000 records provided by the MDNR on
September 08, 2008 with transaction dates beginning April 1, 2008 and ending August
31, 2008, nine records were deleted from the database. Four randomly assigned sub-
samples were created from the remaining simple random sample resulting in four sub-
sarnples of 1,497 and 1499, 1,497, and 1,498 records. An additional 12 addresses were
later deemed undeliverable (No Forward; Primary Address Unverified) during the NCOA
check. Recipients received four contacts (initial survey instrument and cover letter; first
thank you/reminder postcard; replacement survey instrument and cover letter; second
thank you/reminder postcard) over the course of six weeks. Specific details pertaining to
mailing dates and rate of return by field week can be found in Appendix D #2.

Two sub-samples (totaling 2,991 individuals) received mailings which
incorporated many of the principles of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007)
utilizing high quality materials, specifically: a watermarked mailing envelope; a cover
letter printed on 24# watermarked paper with a color Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife logo; and, a survey instrument printed on 11” x 17” 70# White Domtar paper.
Mailing envelopes were addressed by printing the licensee’s name on the outside of the
envelope. Two thank you/remind postcards were sent at intervals following the receipt of
cover letters and surveys. Half of these mailings (1,496 individuals) received cover
letters and postcards that were hand signed in blue ink. The remainder (1,495

individuals), received cover letters and postcards that were digitally signed in black ink.

44

Two sub-samples (totaling 2,987 individuals) utilized lower cost, lower quality
materials, specifically: a windowed envelope; a cover letter printed on 8.5” x 11” 20#
bond paper with a black and white Department of Fisheries and Wildlife logo, and, a
survey instrument printed on 11” x 17” 24# Domtar Ultra bond paper. Two thank
you/remind postcards were sent at intervals following the receipt of cover letters and
surveys. Half of these mailings (1,494 individuals) received cover letters and postcards
that were hand signed in blue ink. The remainder, (1,493 individuals) received cover
letters and postcards that were digitally signed in black ink.

We will compare our response rates and costs per unit for each of the four tests
conducted. We used SPSS Statistics 17.0® to calculate chi-square statistic to test for

relationships between our four tests and survey response.

RESULTS

Testing Trip Details

To compare the one-trip versus two-trip versions of the survey, we used data from
the sample drawn on August 27, 2008. This simple random sample of licensed anglers
drawn from the MDNR Retail Sales System included 4,152 Michigan residents, or 83.1%
of the random sample drawn. Non-residents from Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio
comprised 3.5%, 3.5%, 2.7% and 2.5% of the simple random sample drawn, respectively.

The mean age of respondents, the proportion of Michigan residents, and the
proportion of female respondents was slightly higher than our original simple random

sample (Table 1). Resident restricted licensees and 24 hour licensees comprised a

45

slightly lower proportion of respondents, with the remaining license types (Resident All

Species; Non-resident Restricted, Non-resident All Species, Senior Restricted, Senior All

Species) comprising slightly larger proportions (Table 1).

 

Table 2.1. Testing Trip Details. MDNR Sample and Respondent

characteristics comparison. N = 2,450.

 

 

MDNR Sample Respondents
Michigan Residents 83.1% 83.3%
Non-Residents 16.9% 16.7%
Females 20.9% 21.7%
Mean Age 45.32 49.88
Standard Deviation (Age) 16.06 15.78
Resident Restricted 44.3% 38.5%
Resident All Species 26.4% 28.3%
Non-Resident Restricted 5.8% 6.3%
Non-Resident All Species 2.5% 3.1%
Senior Restricted 5.0% 6.9%
Senior All Species 5.3% 7.8%
24 hour 9.5% 8.0%
OtherLicenses 1.1% l . 1%

 

 

Of the 4,995 surveys in our simple random sample, 2,450 were returned. A total
of 2,371 surveys were not returned, 169 surveys were undeliverable, 4 individuals
refused to participate and 1 was reported deceased (Table 2).

Our survey which asked anglers to document the details of their most recent and
second most recent fishing trips produced a 50% response rate, while our survey which
asked anglers to document the details of their most recent trip produced a 51% response
rate (Table 2). We determined there is no statistically significant relationship between
response rates for our two survey instruments (chi-square with 1 degree of freedom

=.533, p = 0.463).

46

 

Table 2.2. Testing the Michigan Angler Survey: Trip Details. Anglers receiving Version 1, testing
respondent's ability to document the details of their two most recent fishing trips, and Version 2, testing
respondent's ability to document the details of their most recent fishing trip. NCOA Undeliverable:
NCOA address check "No Forward" and "Primary Address Unverified (10); Packages returned by USPS
as undeliverable (159); Refusals (4); Deceased (1); Surveys returned (2,450); Surveys not returned
(2,371).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most Recent and
Second Most Recent Most Recent Trip Combined
Trip

Status Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Response Rate 50.31% 51.24% 50.72%
Initially Eliminated n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 0.10%
NCOA Undeliverable 6 0.24% 4 0.16% 10 0.20%
USPS Undeliverable 82 3.28% 77 3.08% 159 3.18%
Refusals 1 0.04% 3 0.12% 4 0.08%
Deceased 1 0.04% 0 0.00% 1 0.02%
Surveys Returned 1212 48.52% 1238 49.58% 2450 49.00%
31:33:?“ 1 196 47.88% 1175 47.06% 2371 47.42%
TOTAL 2498 100.00% 2497 100.00% 5000 100.00%

Most Recent and Second Most Recent Trip

A total of 1,212 respondents returned surveys which asked anglers to document
the details of their most recent and second most recent fishing trips (Table 2). Among
those anglers who returned these surveys 1,141 reported that they had fished in the last 12
months, 20 surveys were returned with this answer blank and 49 respondents indicated
they had not fished in the last 12 months. Following survey instructions, anglers who had
reported that they had fished in the last 12 months were directed to complete Part C of the
survey documenting the details of their most recent and second most recent fishing trips.
For the purposes of the present analysis, respondents were considered to have provided
“usable data” on their trip if they provided information on at least the month of the trip,

waterbody name and information on species targeted, caught or released.

47

Most Recent Fishing Trip Only

A total of 1,238 respondents returned surveys which asked anglers to document
the details of their most recent fishing trip (Table 2). Among those anglers who returned
these surveys, 1,178 reported that they had fished in the last 12 months, 12 surveys were
returned with this answer blank and 48 respondents indicated they had not fished in the
last 12 months. Following survey instructions, anglers who had reported that they had
fished in the last 12 months were directed to complete Part C of the survey documenting
the details of their most recent trip. Once again, respondents provided “usable data” if
they provided information on at least the month of the trip, waterbody name and
information on species targeted, caught or released.

Both survey versions experienced relatively higher item non response for specific
questions regarding details of the trip location (name of river or lake; nearest
city/town/village; county) and relatively lower occurrence of item non-response for
questions regarding trip characteristics. Across all trip questions (trip characteristics; trip
location; fishing mode; fish targeted caught and released), item non-response rates for the
most recent trip in Version 1 and Version 2 were similar. However, item non-response
rates for the second most recent trip questions were often 2 to 3 higher, resulting in
approximately 15% fewer usable trips. Response rates, the percentage of usable trips and

the percent of item non-response for each question are provided in Table 3.

48

 

Table 2.3. Testing the Michigan Angler Survey: Trip Details. Comparison of survey
Version 1 (reporting the details of the two most recent trip, 11 = 1,212) and Version 2
(most recent trip only n=1 ,23 8) survey response rate, item non-response and usable trip

 

 

 

 

 

information.
Version 1 Version 2
Most Recent Second Most Most Recent
Trip Recent Trip Trip
Status Percent Percent
Survey Response Rate 50.3% 51.2%
Fished in last 12 months 94.3% 95.2%

Trip Characteristics

Date: Month

Date: Year

Fishing Main Purpose
Overnight Trip

Days Fished on Trip
Multiple Rivers or Lakes

Trip Location

River or Lake

Name of River or Lake
Nearest city/town/village
County

Primary Fishing Mode

Fish Targeted, Caught,
Released

Usable Trip Information

Testing Personalization and Materials

 

Percent Item
Non-Response

12.8%
12.4%
11.0%
11.0%
17.5%

11.2%

Percent Item
Non-Response

9.4%
25.5%
15.3%
35.5%
7.6%

9.0%
70.2%

 

Percent Item
N on-Response

27.5%
27.5%
29.5%
28.7%
37.3%

29.4%

Percent Item
Non-Response

27.7%
40.7%
32.6%
50.1%
26.7%

28.1%
55.7%

 

Percent Item
N on-Response

12.9%
12.5%
8.9%
8.4%
16.4%

8.4%

Percent Item
Non-Response

8.4%
23.6%
12.3%
29.4%

7.1%

6.8%
71.2%

For the test of personalization and material, we use data from the sample drawn

on September 8, 2008. The simple random sample of licensed anglers drawn from the

MDNR Retail Sales System included 4,837 Michigan residents, or 80.7% of the random

sample drawn. Non-residents from Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Ohio comprised

3.7%, 3.5%, 3.1% and 3.0% of the simple random sample drawn, respectively.

49

The mean age of respondents and proportion of female respondents was slightly
higher than our original simple random sample, while the proportion of Michigan
residents was nearly identical (Table 4). Resident restricted licensees and 24 hour
licensees comprised a slightly lower proportion of respondents, with the remaining
license types (Resident All Species; Non-resident Restricted, Non-resident All Species,

Senior Restricted, Senior All Species) comprising slightly larger proportions (Table 4).

 

Table 2.4. Testing personalization and materials. MDNR Sample and
Respondent characteristics comparison. N = 2,732.

 

 

MDNR Sample Respondents
Michigan Residents 80.7% 80.8%
Non-Residents 19.3% 19.2%
Females 20.8% 22.2%
Mean Age 45.34 49.76
Standard Deviation (Age) 15.96 15.79
Resident Restricted 43.3% 37.6%
Resident All Species 23.6% 25.8%
Non-Resident Restricted 6.1% 6.7%
Non-Resident All Species 2.6% 3.2%
Senior Restricted 5.1% 6.8%
Senior All Species 5.0% 7.5%
24 hour 12.4% 10.8%
Other Licenses 1.9% 1.6%

 

 

Of the 5,991 surveys in our simple random sample, 2,732 were returned. A total
of 3,051 surveys were not returned, 204 surveys were undeliverable and 4 individuals

refused to participate for an overall response rate of 47% (Table 5).

50

 

Table 2.5. Michigan Recreational Angler Survey. Personalization and
Materials. Initial record checks eliminated (9); NCOA Undeliverable:
NCOA address check "No Forward" and "Primary Address Unverified
(12); Packages returned by USPS as undeliverable (192); Refusals (4);
Deceased (0); Surveys returned (2731); Surveys not returned (3052).

 

 

 

Status Number Percent
Response Rate 47.14%
Initially Eliminated 9 015%
NCOA Undeliverable 12 020%
USPS Undeliverable 192 3.20%
Refusals 4 0.07%
Deceased 0 0.00%
Surveys Returned 2732 45.53%
Surveys Not Returned 3051 50.85%
TOTAL 6000 100.00%

Recipients of the highest quality materials, printed envelopes and hand signed
letters and postcards produced a 48% response rate, the same response rate for the
electronically signed surveys (row 8, Table 6). Recipients of the lower quality materials,
windowed envelopes and hand singed letters and postcards, produced a slightly lower
response rate (46%) than those who received electronically signed surveys (row 8, Table
6). We determined there was no statistically significant difference between response
rates for our four survey instruments (chi-square with three degrees of freedom = 1.593, p
= 0.661).

Response rates and estimated survey costs of producing the 4 different treatments
are provided in Table 6. The higher quality materials included a heavy bond paper
survey, watermarked cover letters and watermarked envelopes with a printed address.
The lower quality materials included a lighter bond paper survey, un-watermarked cover
letters and un-watermarked windowed envelopes. The cost difference between high and

low quality materials was approximately $0.25 per package. Hand signing cover letters

51

and postcards resulted in a cost difference of approximately $0.06 per package. [It is
important to note that the additional costs of hand signing reflect only the labor costs
associated with signing (i.e. hourly student labor), and does not reflect costs related to
additional management (e. g. trips made to retrieve printed packages, organizing labor
employees and returning signed packages for mailing).] These production costs in Table
6 also reflect outgoing postage for letters (.42) and postcards (.28) (row 1 and row 5).
The estimated total production costs for the entire field period for each of the 4 survey
packages are provided in Table 6 (row 6). These costs reflect differences in materials and
hand signing versus electronic signature as well as initial response rates (discussed
below).

To determine the effects of survey packaging, personalization and materials on
initial response rates, we examined our response rates for each of the 4 treatments at a
point 17 days following the initial receipt of the survey package (Table 6). For our field
period, this point reflects the end of the Wave 1 field period. At this point, initial
response rates are determined and replacement materials and packaging are prepared for
Wave 2. After 17 field days, the estimated survey costs associated with producing the 4
different treatments are provided in (row 2, Table 6). The total production costs in row 2
reflect the reduced field period and therefore a reduced number of mailings relative to the
complete survey efforts. Given the higher initial response rates (row 4), the hand signed
materials produce a relatively lower cost per usable survey than electronically signed
survey packages (row 3). Further, the costs per usable survey for higher quality materials
are also now comparable to lower quality materials (row 3). Response rates at this point

in time were significantly different (chi-square with three degrees of freedom = 13.906, p

52

= 0.003) (Table 6). However, our final response rates (row 8), which reflects the full
survey period and subsequent mailings, demonstrate that the effects of survey packaging,
personalization and materials produced only minor differences in final response rate that
were not statistically significant. Moreover, after all waves of the survey are considered,
the lower quality, digitally signed materials have the lowest overall cost per usable survey

(row 7).

 

Table 2.6. Testing Personalization and Materials. Unit costs include: materials to produce survey
package(s) (mailing envelope, business return envelope, cover letter and survey instrument); follow-up
postcard(s); labor involved in hand signing cover letters and postcards; and, finally outgoing postage.
Total Production Costs reflects the Unit costs multiplied by the total number of mailings required over
Wave 1 and Complete Survey. Cost per usable survey is calculated by dividing the Total Production

Cost by the number of returned surveys.

 

 

 

 

 

Higher "'3'"? Quality Lower Quality Lower Quality
Quality Hand Digital H . . . .
. . and Signed Digital Signature

Sfled Sgnature
Status Cost: Wave 1 Cost: Wave 1 Cost: Wave 1 Cost: Wave 1
Unit Costs [materials;
labor; outgoing $2.73 $2.66 $2.47 $2.41
postage]
Total Production
Costs [Unit Cost x $3,041.69 $2,945.43 $2,633.36 $2,567.78
number of mailings]
Cost per usable
survey [Total
Production Cost/ $8.10 $9.82 $8.07 $8.56
Returned Surveys]
Response Rate 25.02% 20.12% 22.15% 20.04%
Status ngitféte Costs: Complete Costs: Complete Costs: Complete

Surve Survey Survey Survey

y

Unit Costs [materials;
labor; outgoing $2.73 $2.66 $2.47 $2.41
postage]
Total Production
Costs [Unit Cost x $5,232.14 $5,161.18 $4,639.22 $4,507.86
number of mailings]
Cost per usable
survey [Total
Production Cost / $7.53 $7.46 $6.96 $6.68
Returned Surveys]
Response Rate 47.80% 48.06% 46.03% 46.75%

 

 

53

 

 

DISCUSSION

Decades of survey research and the human dimensions literature provide
extensive information on the advantages and disadvantages of most survey designs. The
mail survey design met our needs for a cost-effective survey mechanism to collect
statewide angler behavior and demographic information from a broad spectrum of
Michigan’s recreational anglers. The opportunity to utilize the existing MDNR Retail
Sales System to acquire angler contact information and additional demographic
information from licensed anglers, and a history of mail surveys being implemented
within the MDNR were also driving factors in our decision.

For maximum response rate, the Tailored Design Method, Dillman (2007)
includes a 5-contact mailing strategy over an 8 week field period and among other design
features, the use of incentives. Given our design to conduct monthly surveys and
minimize recall, we did not include pre-notices and incentives and implemented a 4-
contact mailing strategy which included two postcard reminders and only one
replacement questionnaire over a shortened 6 week field period.

Given this survey strategy, our response rates ranged between 46% and 51%.
While Older literature suggests that response rates of 60 to 75% may be expected, (Brown
1991), response rates for similar studies are comparable to ours given our reduced
number of contacts (Kikuchi 1986; McClanahan and Hansen (2003); Hutt and Bettoli
(2007); Connelly et a1. (2001)).

In his application of the theory of social exchange, Dillman (2007) emphasizes
minimizing respondent’s perceived costs by reducing inconvenience and making

questions appear short and easy. Other researchers have also emphasized the importance

54

of survey instruments that do not unduly burden respondents (Pollock et a1. 1994; Biemer
and Lyberg pg124, pg135). Further, survey instruments with relatively fewer and more
interesting questions may also decrease item-nonresponse (Dillman 2007 pg 79-148).
Dillman (2007) cautions that the matrix format, such as the one we employed to collect
information on the most recent and second most recent fishing trips may result in lower
response rate and higher item-nonresponse. In this matrix format, the navigational path
used in the balance of the survey is temporarily abandoned and respondents must relate
rows to columns, which may be more complicated than reading and ansWering individual
questions (Dillman 2007).

Given the relative high occurrence of item-nonresponse for the second trip in the
two-trip survey version, the information sought on the two most recent trips may have
proven burdensome for some anglers. However the majority of respondents provided
usable information in this section, suggesting anglers are able to recall and report on this
information. Further, there is no additional cost to including a space for collecting
information on the most recent and second most recent fishing trip, which provided us
with substantially more data without significant loss to the quality of data for the most
recent fishing trip question. While improvements may be made to restore the
navigational path present in the survey, collecting information on the two most recent
trips provides valuable information on the interval between fishing trips and a wealth of
information on angler trip behavior and provides information for economic analysis.

So that each letter is an individual appeal to each respondent, Dillman (2007)
recommends each letter to be individually signed whenever possible. A “pressed blue

ball-point pen signature” was described in the Total Design Method, Dillman (2000). A

55

substitute for this is to preprint the signature in a color (blue) that contrasts with the black
type, using a signature stamp or signature machine Dillman (2007).

Given our approximately 1% difference in response rate, we contend that, given
other aspects of personalization (using individual names and letterhead), hand signing
may not be worth the additional costs for Similar angler surveys. Likewise, the costs of
higher quality materials did not produce significant increases in response rate. However,
our findings of higher initial response for higher quality and hand signed survey packages
suggest a faster turn-around time for these packages. Researchers who plan limited

contacts may consider using higher quality materials and personalizing letters.

56

CHAPTER 3: Profile of Michigan’s Recreational Anglers: The
Michigan Recreational Angler Survey

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Previous fisheries management strategies often treated anglers as a homogeneous
group, as agencies formulated policies to suit the “average angler” (Fisher 1997), often
oversimplifying the effects of people in fisheries management (Hutt and Bettoli 2007). A
rich body of literature now exists to support the concept of angler populations as a
collection of heterogeneous subgroups (e.g., Bryan (1977); Chipman and Helfrich (1988);
Fisher (1997); F inn and Loomis (2001); Hunt et a1. (2002); Sutton (2003); Kyle et a1.
(2007); Anderson et a1. (2007); Hutt and Bettoli (2007)). Anglers seek different kinds of
fishing experiences, and no one site or management strategy is likely to satisfy all angler
subgroups (Connelly et a1. 2001). Information about the number, size and desires of
angler subgroups provides fisheries managers with the information necessary to offer a
variety of experiences and implement rules and regulations with predictive knowledge of
which groups will be effected (Fisher 1997). Faced with multiple management options to
achieve the same biological outcome, managers may design rules and regulations
inclusive of the motives and preferences of angler subgroups that dominate the angler
constituency at particular waterbodies (Hutt and Bettoli 2007). The challenge to
researchers has been to identify and quantify the different angler segments to help

managers estimate the relative demand for different types of opportunities (Fisher 1997).

57

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has been credited as one of the
first states to initiate statewide mail angler surveys to collect biological and user profile
data in the Great Lakes system (Brown 1987). These surveys have helped to determine
angler’s state-wide pattern of fishery resource use (Jamsen 1985a and 1985b; Mahoney et
a1. 1991). Examples of the type of information collected during these surveys included:
total angler effort, spatial and temporal distribution of angling effort, and spatial
distribution of catch by species (but not for site-specific harvest). However, these
surveys were discontinued in the mid 1980’s. Since that time the MDNR Fisheries
Division has conducted only occasional human dimensions surveys to support individual
projects or to react to management issues. This approach has left the MDNR Fisheries
Division with uncoordinated angler human dimensions data collection efforts being
undertaken as separate projects over time (Lupi et al. 2005 ).

In his typology of Great Lakes sport-fisheries human dimensions needs, Brown
(1987) emphasized the importance of developing basic angler user profiles as a first and
elementary step in fisheries management. The Michigan Recreational Angler survey is
designed to collect critical information on the status and distribution of angling effort for
all of Michigan’s fisheries, tracking the status of Michigan’s recreational anglers and
their resource use including behaviors, spatial distribution, trip characteristics and data
for economic analysis. One of the objectives of this study was to begin the process of
developing accurate and reliable profiles of Michigan’s licensed recreational anglers,
with a focus on relating demographic characteristics of anglers and their fishing behavior.
Our survey collected various aspects of angler behavioral and demographic information

previously identified in the literature as measures to describe angler groups. Prior angler

58

specialization research, the 2006 US. Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, and previous surveys of

Michigan’s anglers (Lupi et a1. 2005; Kukuchi 1986, Jamsen 1985a and 1985b) guide our

discussion below.

METHODS

Questionnaire Development
The survey instrument was initially drafted following a review of published

literature, a collection of US. fisheries management agency survey instruments and
survey reports (Simoes, et a1. www.msu.edu/~lupi/anglers.html) and related angler survey
documents and needs assessment materials developed by the MDNR, the MDNR
Fisheries Division and their research and management partners.

Two rounds of “think-aloud” cognitive interviews as well as “retrospective
interviews” were conducted with peers and licensed angler acquaintances to initially
assess or “pretest” the survey questionnaire. Techniques and probing questions for a
series of cognitive interviews conducted during the spring and summer of 2008 were

modified for our specific purposes following Dillman (2007).

Questionnaire

Our mailing strategy follows many of the principles outlined by Dillman (2007)
with multiple follow-ups, personalized mailings, and progressively urgent appeals in an
effort to increase response rate and reduce nonresponse bias (Pollock 1994 pg 80). Our
mail survey instrument collects both short term and longer term trip information in order

to balance the benefits of long recall periods with the needs for accuracy, to capture

59

angling seasonality, to cover a larger geographical area and to incur low costs per
respondent.

To meet our objectives, the survey instrument contains 20 to 21 multi-part
questions over four major sections: Part A) general fishing activities during the last 12
months; Part B) fishing activities during the most recent month (e. g., July, August); Part
C) details of the recent fishing trip(s); Part D) usual fishing activities, background and
demographic information (Appendix B #1 and Appendix B #2). We anticipated a large
number of respondents will not have fished either in the last 12 months, or in July or
August which necessitated our large sample sizes. Analysis based on fishing behavior
(e. g., frequency, catch disposition; waterbodies fished, fishing mode), license type, and
other demographic information also required larger sample sizes for robust analysis.

We examined several variables to test relationships between aspects of fishing
behavior thought to be important attributes of angler subgroups (fishing frequency;
waterbodies fished; catch disposition; age of introduction to fishing) and various
socioeconomic characteristics. Survey respondents were asked if they had fished in the
last 12 months in Michigan, and those that had were then asked to report how many times
in the last 12 months they had gone fishing in Michigan by choosing one of 6 categories.
Survey respondents were also asked to indicate which waterbodies they fished in
Michigan in the last 12 months. Anglers choose all that applied from the 3 classes of
waterbodies presented (Michigan rivers; Michigan inland lakes; Great Lakes and
connecting waterways). Due to the nature of this question, waterbody percentages do not
add up to 100%. We created 7 distinct waterbody categories from our original 3

waterbody categories to examine angler groups who specialize only on one water body,

60

on only two waterbodies and anglers that fish on all three waterbodies. All survey
respondents, whether or not they reported they had fished in the last 12 months, were
asked to indicate what they usually do with the legal size fish they catch (mostly keep my
catch; keep some, release some; mostly catch and release). All survey respondents were
also asked to indicate their age the first time they went fishing. We grouped the ages
provided by respondents into 7 age categories.

To determine whether associations existed between categorical variables
(demographic data and angler behavior) we used SPSS Statistics 17.0® “crosstabs” and
calculated the significance level (p-value) for Pearson chi-square test of independence.

We also conducted F tests for continuous data, comparing means across categories.

Sampling Frame

Our sample frame was the MDNR Retail Sales System database. MDNR
recreational angler licenses are effective April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 for the
2008-2009 fishing season (however anglers may purchase licenses during the month of
March for the following season). In order to sample licensed anglers from the current
license year and reduce printing and administrative costs, a simple random sample of
5,000 individuals who purchased fishing licenses between April 1, 2008 and July 31,
2008 was drawn on August 27, 2008. A second random sample of 6,000 individuals who
purchased fishing licenses between April 1, 2008 and August 31, 2008 was drawn on
September 8, 2008. Each sample included all possible license types.

Data from the MDNR Retail Sales System was examined and entries missing key

information (e.g., name of licensee, address of licensee) were deleted. Data with

61

extraneous information was edited for correctness, where possible, or deleted. Licensees
with addresses outside the US. or Canada were also removed from the sample. Once the
final sample was established, each licensee in the sample was assigned a unique project
code which was used for the duration of the project. MSU’s, University Relations
Printing Services was contracted to conduct a National Change of Address (NCOA)
check of licensees, conduct a mail merge, print and package all components of the
mailings and apply the appropriate postage to all mailings. The completed packages were
then pre-sorted and mailed First-Class through the United States Postal Service. Each
business reply envelope contained the unique project code assigned to each individual in

our sample.

Data Collection Procedures

The procedures for this mail survey were adapted from on the methods in Mail
and Internet Surveys (Dillman 2007). The first mailing included: 1) a cover letter printed
on MSU letterhead explaining the importance and objectives of the survey; 2) the four
page survey instrument; and, 3) a self-addressed, postage paid, business reply envelope.
The first mailing was followed 5 to 7 days later by a reminder / thank you postcard.
Approximately 33 days after the first mailing, non-respondents received a third mailing
containing: 1) a second cover letter printed on MSU letterhead which again explained the
importance and objectives of the survey with a slightly more urgent appeal; 2) a
replacement survey instrument; and, 3) a self-addressed, postage paid, business reply
envelope. Approximately 11 days after the third mailing, non-respondents received a

fourth and final reminder / thank you postcard with a slightly more urgent appeal.

62

Examples of surveys and cover letters used in the mailing sequence can be found in
Appendix B and Appendix C.

Returned business reply envelopes and undeliverable mailings were grouped by
the week of their receipt. All returned mailings were coded to inform follow—up mailings.
Additional communications from respondents directed to the principal investigator
including short notes, letters, pictures and refusals were coded and filed appropriately.
Returning business reply envelopes were opened and the project code appearing on the
business reply envelope was written on the top of the corresponding survey. Surveys
returning in envelopes other than the business reply envelope were examined for
evidence of the sender. The majority of these envelopes contained a return address which
could be linked through a separate database to the intended recipient and the project
identification code. Five surveys were unidentifiable because they were returned in non-
project envelopes, without an indication of the sender.

Survey data were entered by technicians. Surveys with unusual response patters
and inconsistencies were identified for further review. Consistent rules were established
for measuring usable response (Dillman 2007 pg 9) (e. g. skipped questions and dual
responses when single-answer responses were sought). Final editing and quality control
were overseen by one individual who is familiar with the survey instrument and the
purpose of the research. The data management process was concluded by merging
double-keyed files to detect for differences in data entry.

Our simple random sample was drawn on two occasions from the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Retail Sales System (August 27, 2008 and September

8, 2008) and includes only those anglers who had purchased a Michigan recreational

63

angler license on or before August 31, 2008. Further, because Michigan does not require
anglers under the age of 16 to purchase a fishing license to fish in the state of Michigan,
this age group is likely under-represented in our sample. Finally, most survey items refer

to fishing activities occurring in Michigan.

RESULTS

Of the 10,986 individuals who were contacted from our simple random sample,
5,182 individuals returned surveys. A total of 5,422 surveys were not returned, 373
surveys were undeliverable, 7 individuals refused to participate and 1 was reported
deceased, for a response rate of 49% (Table 1). Specific details pertaining to mailing

dates and rate of return by field week can be found in Appendix D#l and D#2.

 

Table 3.]. Michigan Recreational Angler Survey. Response rate:
[11,000 - (22 +352+1) / 5182] 49%

 

 

 

Status Number Percent
Initially Eliminated 14 0-13%
NCOA Undeliverable 22 020%
USPS Undeliverable 351 3.19%
Refusals 7 0.06%
Deceased 1 0.01%
Surveys Returned 5182 47.11%
Surveys Not Returned 5422 49.30%
TOTAL 10999 100.00%

Sample Draw, Respondent and Non-Respondent Characteristics

Our simple random sample of licensed anglers drawn from the MDNR Retail
Sales System included 8,989 Michigan residents, or 81.8% of the random sample drawn.

Non-residents from Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio comprised 3.6%, 3.4%, 2.9%

64

and 2.8% of the simple random sample drawn, respectively. We compare the
characteristics of our respondents to non-respondents and to our original random sample
in Table 1.

The proportion of female respondents was significantly larger than non-
respondents (chi-square with one degree of freedom = 6.872, p = 0.009). The mean age
of respondents was significantly higher than non-respondents (p < 0.001). A smaller
proportion of resident restricted licensees and 24 hour licensees responded to our survey,
with the remaining commonly issued license types (Resident All Species; Non-resident
Restricted, Non-resident All Species, Senior Restricted, Senior All Species) comprising a
slightly larger proportion of our respondents (chi-square with 8 degrees of freedom

=322.415, p < 0.001) (Table 2).

 

Table 3.2. MDNR Sample, Respondent and Non-Respondent characteristics comparison. A
total of 10,986 individuals were contacted, n = 5,182. * p < .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MDNR Sample Respondents Non-Respondents

Michigan Residents 81.8% 82.0% 82.9%
Non-Residents 18.2% 18.0% 17.1%
Females 20.9% 22.0% 19.9%*
Mean Age 45.34 49.81 4154“
Standard Deviation (Age) 16.008 15.785 15.122
License Type"

Resident Restricted 43.8% 38.0% 49.5%
Resident All Species 24.9% 27.0% 23.6%
Non-Resident Restricted 5.9% 6.5% 5. 1%
Non-Resident All Species 2.5% 3.2% 1.9%
Senior Restricted 5.0% 6.8% 3.6%
Senior All Species 5.1% 7.6% 2.9%
24 hour 1 1.1% 9.4% 1 1.7%
Other Licenses 1.7% 1.5% 1.7%

65

Respondent Demographic Characteristics

Males comprised over three-quarters (78%) of our respondent demographic, with
eighty-eight percent of survey respondents reporting they were White, non-Hispanic.
Over half of our respondents reported working fiilltime and reported incomes between
$25,000 and 74,999 (55% and 52% respectively) with the majority of respondents (64%)
reporting either a High School degree or GED or Some post High School or some
college. Over three-quarters of respondents (77%) reported living with a spouse or
significant other, 36% reported living with children age 5 and under and/or children age 6
to 17. Finally, 74% of respondents reported they used a computer to access the intemet

for personal use (Table 3).

66

 

Table 3.3. Comparison of Michigan residents and non-residents and the total sample: gender ratio,
mean age, license types, employment, education and income categories, household structure and the

number of household members with a fishing license (including the respondent) and intemet access.
Residents Non-Residents All Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Females 22.2% 20.7% 22.0%
Mean Age 49.65 50.55 49.81

License Type

Resident Restricted 46.2% 0.6% 38.0%
Resident All Species 32.9% 0.2% 27.0%
Non-Resident Restricted 0.0% 36.3% 6.5%

Non-Resident All Species 0.0% 17.5% 3.2%

Senior Restricted 8.3% 0.0% 6.8%

Senior All Species 9.3% 0.1% 7.6%

24 hour 1.6% 45.0% 9.4%

Other Licenses 1.7% 0.3% 1.5%

Employment Category

Employed fulltime 53.6% 63.9% 55.4%
Part-time 7.4% 6.4% 7.2%

Retired 28.1% 23.5% 27.3%
Un-employed 5.9% 2.2% 5.3%

Other 5.0% 4.1% 4.9%

Income Category

0 - 24,999 17.7% 7.9% 15.9%
25,000 - 49,000 29.4% 19.1% 27.5%
50,000 - 74,999 24.4% 24.1% 24.3%
75,000 to 99,999 13.5% 18.7% 14.4%
100, 000 to 149,999 10.0% 17.4% 1 1.3%
150,000 or more 5.2% 12.8% 6.5%

Education Category

Less than High School degree 6.2% 2.6% 5.6%

High School degree or GED 27.8% 19.6% 26.3%
Some post High School or some 38.3% 32.3% 372%
college

Bachelofs Degree 17.3% 27.7% 19.2%
Graduate Degree 10.3% 17.8% 11.7%
Household Structure

Spouse 76.3% 81.3% 77.2%
Children < 5 10.6% 8.8% 10.3%
Children 6 to 17 26.0% 25.9% 25.9%
Other immediate family 17.3% 12.7% 16.4%
Extended family or other adults 5.9% 3.9% 5.6%

None ofthese 11.0% 11.4% 11.1%
Number of licensees

1 (only respondent) 53.0% 51.9% 52.8%
2 38.2% 39.6% 38.5%
3 or more 8.9% 8.5% 8.7%

Internet access (Yes) 71.7% 82.4% 73.6%

67

The 2006 US. Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife Associated Recreation (N SF HWAR) screening sample for Michigan consisted
of 1,035 eligible housing units and obtained 942 interviews from these units. Surveys are
conducted of households and survey respondents are not necessarily licensed recreational
anglers. Some of the variables reported in the NSFHWAR study are estimates based. on
sample sizes of 10 to 29 observations. Our survey sample exceeds that of NSFHWAR by
a factor of five. Compared to the findings from NSFHWAR, a larger proportion of our
resident respondents reported household incomes of $0 to 49,000, were 45 years of age
and Older, and reported some post High School or some college, were college educated or

held advanced degrees (Table 4).

 

Table 3.4. Comparison of Michigan resident reported income and age and education categories
between the 2006 US. Fish and Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife
Associated Recreation (NSFHWAR) and respondents to the 2008 Michigan Recreational Angler
Survey. # Age category not reported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NSFHWAR 2008 M1 Angler Survey
Income Category Percentage ([52:32?! Percentage ([32:22:22]:
so to 49,999 28.0% 28.0%‘ 41.1% 41.1%—
$50,000 to 74,999 19.0% 47.0% 21.3% 62.4%
$75, 000 to 99,999 13.0% 60.0% 1 1.8% 74.2%
100,000 or more 16.0% 76.0% 13.2% 87.4%
Item Non Response 17.0% 93.0% 12.3% 99.7%
Age Category Percentage $22321; Percentage P212313]:
Under age 16 # # 0.3% #
16 to 17 7.0% 7.0% 0.7% 0.7%
18 to 24 8.0% 15.0% 6.4% 7.1%
25 to 34 17.0% 32.0% 12.6% 19.7%
35 to 44 26.0% 58.0% 16.0% 35.7%
45 to 54 15.0% 73.0% 23.3% 59.0%
55 to 64 19.0% 92.0% 21.9% 80.9%
65 and older 9.0% 101.0% 18.9% 99.8%
Education Category Percentage P21233312: Percentage $22322:
11 years or less 19.0% 19.0% 6.2% 6.2%
12 years 29.0% 48.0% 27.8% 34.0%
1 to 3 years of college 24.0% 72.0% 38.3% 72.3%
4 years college or more 29.0% 101 .O% 27.6% 99.9%

68

Kikuchi (1986) conducted a mail survey of resident and non-resident license
holders in 1984. A total of 44,000 questionnaires were mailed on five different dates
during the year, achieving a 57% response rate. Compared to the findings of Kikuchi
(1986) we report larger percentages for many race and ethnic categories, with a slightly

lower percentage of our respondents reporting as Black or African American (Table 5).

 

Table 3.5. Comparison of Michigan resident reported race and ethnicity categories
between the Kikuchi (1984) and respondents to the 2008 Michigan Recreational
Angler Survey. Our respondents were allowed to choose all race or ethnicity
categories that applied. Kikuchi (1984) reported 8.9% "mixed races". # = category
not reported.

 

 

 

 

 

Kikuchi (1984) 20088“ “‘3'"
urvey
Race and Ethnicity Percentage Percentgge

Asian 0.1% 0.9%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.2% 1.6%
Black or African American 2.6% 2.4%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific

0.3%
Islander #
Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin 0.5% 1.2%
White, non-Hispanic 88.0% 94.4%
Other 8.9% 1.1%

Respondent Fishing Characteristics

We examined 7 commonly issued license types, 6 of which could be broadly
categorized as either “restricted” licenses (all species except trout and salmon) or “all
species” licenses (all fish species, including trout and salmon). License types are further
defined as Resident, Non-resident and Senior license types. Finally we also examined 24
hour licenses holders which may be purchased by residents or non-residents, which allow
anglers to fish for all species including trout and salmon and are valid for one 24 hour

period. The remaining license types issued by the MDNR, identified in our study as

69

“other licenses”, comprise less then 2% of our sample. Resident Restricted and Resident
All Species licensees comprised the largest proportion of our respondent demographic
(38% and 27%, respectively).

On average, respondents began fishing when they were 7.5 years old and had
fished in Michigan for 33 years. Fifty-three percent of respondents reported they were
the only license holder in their household, while 39% lived in households in which one
other person held a current fishing license. The majority of anglers (60%) reported they
usually fished with family or relatives, and most owned a boat or canoe used for fishing
(61.5%). A very small percentage, (5.4%) of anglers reported they had competed in
fishing events in Michigan in the last 12 months. Respondents were only slightly more
likely to report they usually keep some and release some of the legal size fish they catch
than mostly keeping their catch or mostly practicing catch and release.

Ninety-six percent of respondents reported they had fished in Michigan in the past
12 months. The majority of anglers (57%) reported fishing 6 or more times in the last 12
months. Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that they had fished in inland
lakes in the last 12 months. When examining 7 combinations of these waterbodies, we
found the largest group of anglers reported fishing exclusively at inland lakes (34%),
followed by anglers who fished all waterbodies (16%) and anglers who fished both rivers
and inland lakes (16%). Finally, 29% of respondents reported they had fished in other

states or other countries besides Michigan (Table 6).

70

 

Table 3.6. Comparison of Michigan residents and non-residents and the total sample: fishing behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

 

 

Resident Non-Resident Combined

_A_ge first went fishing

Mean age 6.10 7.91 7.5 years old

Range 0 to 82 1 to 80 0 to 82 years

Standard deviation 6.81 1 8.540 7.157 years

Fishing in Michigan

Mean years 29.9 years 18.7 years 33 years

Range 0 to 83 years 0 to 75 0 to 83years

Standard deviation 17.648 17.836 18.932

Who usually fish with

No one else 7.7% 6.1% 7.4%

Family / relatives 59.5% 61.7% 60.0%

Friends 30.8% 30.8% 30.8%

Other 0.2% 1 .3% 1.9%

Boat ownership

Yes 62.7% 56.0% 61.5%

Motor boat 52.4% 47.8% 51.5%

Canoe / kayak 14.8% 13.3% 14.5%

Disposition of catch

Mostly keep my catch 32.5% 24.4% 31.0%

Keep some, release some 36.0% 33.6% 35.6%

Mostly catch and release 31.5% 42.0% 33.4%

Competition in MI Fishing Events 6.2% 2.1% 5.4%

Fished in last 12 months 95.7% 96.7% 95.9%

0 times 3.9% 2.4% 3.6%

1 time 4.7% 23.8% 8.1%

2 or 3 times 13.2% 27.0% 15.6%

4 or 5 times 14.2% 17.8% 14.8%

6 to 9 times 14.7% 13.0% 14.4%

10 to 19 times 18.5% 8.4% 16.7%

20 or more times 30.8% 7.6% 26.7%

Waterbodies fished

Michigan Rivers 47.3% 26.7% 43.6%

Michigan Inland Lakes 78.7% 68.0% 76.8%

Great Lakes and connecting waterways 44.4% 32.2% 42.2%

Waterbodies fished

Great Lakes and connecting waterways 10.8% 17.3% 12.0%

(excluswe)

Inland Lakes (exclusive) 31.0% 48.6% 34.2%

Inland Lakes and Great Lakes 10.9% 7.3% 10.2%

Rivers (exclusive) 6.8% 1 1.2% 7.6%

Rivers and Great Lakes 3.7% 3.4% 3.6%

Rivers and Inland Lakes 17.8% 8.0% 16.0%

All Waterbodies 19.0% 4.1% 16.3%

Fishing Outside of Michigan or US. 20.1% 68.5% 28.9%

J amsen (1985) conducted a mail survey of licensed anglers which was stratified
with the aim of estimating angling in northern regions of the state. Spouses of resident
anglers and anglers under the age of 17 were not included in this sample. Jamsen (1985)
reported inland lake fishing accounted for 73% of the estimated 14.4 million angler days
of inland fishing. Although Jamsen’s figure is for the share of fishing effort and our
figure is for the waterbodies fished (not adjusted for possible differences in effort), the

figures for the share of inland fishing compare favorably.

Resident versus Non-resident Demographic Characteristics

We found a greater proportion of non-residents were employed fulltime, had
household incomes of $75,000 or greater, were college educated or held advanced
degrees and were more likely to use a computer to access the intemet for personal use.
Similarly, Kikuchi (1986) reported that nonresident license holders were on average
younger, with higher levels of education and higher incomes than resident anglers. We
also compared our findings of resident and non-resident age categories to the findings of
Kikuchi (1986) (Table 7). Larger proportions of both our resident and non-resident
respondents were found in the oldest age categories, compared to the findings of Kikuchi

(1986).

72

 

Table 3.7. Comparison of reported age and education categories for residents and non-residents to

Kikuchi (1984). #- category not collected.

 

 

 

 

 

Resident N on-Resident
Age Category 1984 2008 1984 2008
< 17 # 0.4% # 0.3%
17 to 19 3.6% 2.6% 4.0% 0.9%
20 to 24 8.5% 4.4% 8.4% 4.1%
25 to 29 12.1% 6.0% 12.3% 5.5%
30 to 34 14.6% 6.6% 14.7% 5.5%
35 to 39 11.0% 7.1% 15.7% 6.6%
40 to 44 8.3% 8.9% 7.3% 9.2%
45 to 49 8.0% l 1.3% 8.2% 12.4%
50 to 54 7.1% 12.0% 3.3% 14.0%
55 to 59 7.4% 11.9% 10.0% 12.1%
60 to 64 7.0% 10.0% 6.3% 11.0%
65 to 69 7.6% 8.3% 5.2% 9.4%
70 plus 4.8% 10.5% 4.6% 8.9%

 

 

Jamsen (1967) reported on sex and age structure of resident and nonresident
licensed anglers, (which excluded residents under the age of 17, wives of licensed
residents, members of the Armed Services on furlough, and those who fished on the
Great Lakes and Saginaw River), using fishing license packets voluntarily returned to the
department. Given these caveats, we compared our findings of resident and non-resident
age categories to those reported by Jamsen (1967). As with the findings of Kikuchi
(1984) larger proportions of both our resident and non-resident respondents were found in

the oldest age categories, compared to those reported by J amsen (1967) (Table 8).

73

 

Table 3.8. Comparison of reported age categories for residents and

non-residents to Jamsen (1967). #- category not collected.
———%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resident
Age Category 1962 1963 1964 1965 2008
Less than 17 # # # # 0.4%
17 to 19 5.6% 4.4% 4.6% 5.8% 2.6%
20 to 24 8.1% 8.9% 8.7% 8.2% 4.4%
25 to 29 9.5% 9.5% 9.3% 9.4% 6.0%
30 to 34 10.1% 10.9% 11.1% 10.4% 6.6%
35 to 39 11.7% 11.7% 11.5% 11.4% 7.1%
40 to 44 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.1% 8.9%
45 to 49 10.9% 11.1% 10.8% 10.3% 11.3%
50 to 54 9.9% 9.1% 9.4% 10.2% 12.0%
55 to 59 7.5% 6.7% 5.3% 7.4% 11.9%
60 to 64 6.2% 5.1% 6.5% 5.4% 10.0%
_§§-over 9.2% 11.1% 11.1% 10.4% 18.8%
Age Category Non-Resident
Less than 17 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
17 to 19 4.1% 3.5% 3.4% 3.8% 0.9%
20 to 24 5.3% 5.8% 5.5% 6.6% 4.1%
25 to 29 9.5% 8.4% 8.9% 8.7% 5.5%
30 to 34 10.6% 10.2% 10.3% 10.3% 5.5%
35 to 39 14.5% 13.0% 13.1% 13.4% 6.6%
40 to 44 13.4% 14.0% 13.3% 13.8% 9.2%
45 to 49 11.1% 12.9% 12.9% 11.4% 12.4%
50 to 54 9.3% 10.0% 11.5% 10.6% 14.0%
55 to 59 8.4% 8.7% 8.1% 8.5% 12.1%
60 to 64 6.4% 6.3% 5.9% 4.7% 11.0%
65 - over 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 8.2% 18.3%

Resident versus Non-Resident Fishing Characteristics

Due to the nature of the Michigan recreational licensing system, discussed above,
we report differences between resident and non-residents in the purchasing of resident
and non-resident license types (Table 3). Resident Restricted and Resident All Species
licenses comprised the largest proportion of license types (38% and 27%, respectively).

Non-resident license holders were more likely to purchase restricted licenses. Finally, 24

74

hour fishing licenses were much more likely to be purchased by non-residents than
residents.

Non-residents were less likely to own a boat they use for fishing, were less likely
to have competed in fishing events in Michigan in the last 12 months, were more likely to
practice catch and release and less likely to report they keep the legal size fish they
caught than residents anglers. Non-residents also fished less frequently than residents
and were much more likely than residents to report fishing in other states or other
countries besides Michigan, 69% and 20% respectively. Non-residents were more likely
to be waterbody specialists, fishing exclusively on inland lakes, rivers or Great Lakes and
connecting waterways, with nearly half (49%) of non-residents fishing exclusively on
inland lakes. A much larger proportion of residents than non-residents reported fishing
on all waterbodies (19%) and rivers with inland lakes (17%) (Table 6).

In our survey, 20.1% of Michigan residents reported fishing in other countries or
other states besides Michigan, compared with 69% of non-residents. The US. Fish and
Wildlife Service reported that 103,000 Michigan residents fished in other states, or 9% of
all residents fishing in any state. Kikuchi (1986) reported that 24.1% of resident anglers

fished out of state (Table 7).

License Type

Resident licenses (Resident Restricted and Resident All Species) were the largest
license groups in our sample, 38% and 27% of all license holders respectively. Resident
Restricted license holders and Resident All Species license holders were also more likely
than any other license groups to report fishing 6 or more times in the last 12 months, 63%

and 73%, respectively.

75

Senior license holders (Senior Restricted and Senior All Species) were the most
likely license group to report they had not fished in the last 12 months (19%). Among
Senior license holders, a larger proportion of Senior Restricted license holders reported
fishing fewer than 5 times, (with more Senior All Species license holders reporting
fishing 6 or more times). Further, twenty-seven percent of Senior All Species license
holders reported fishing 20 or more times in the last 12 months, compared to 18% of
Senior Restricted license holders.

Across all license types, a larger proportion of anglers reported fishing on inland
lakes than on rivers or Great Lakes and connecting waterways. However (with the
exception of 24 hour license holders), Resident All Species and Non-resident All Species
license holders were less likely than other license groups to report fishing on inland lakes
and were more likely to report fishing on rivers and Great Lakes and connecting
waterways. Non-resident Restricted and Senior Restricted license holders were the least
likely group to report fishing on rivers or Great Lakes and connecting waterways, and
were the least-represented angler group on these waterbodies. Non-resident All Species
license holders were three times more likely than Non-resident restricted license holders
to report fishing on rivers, and twice as likely to fish on Great Lakes and connecting
waterways.

When examining the seven mutually exclusive waterbody categories, across all
license types, a larger proportion of anglers indicated that they fished exclusively on
inland lakes, with the exception of Resident All Species license holders in which nearly
one-third of license holders (32%) reported fishing on All waterbodies. Restricted

license holders (Resident Restricted, Non-resident Restricted and Senior Restricted) were

76

2 to 3 times more likely to fish on inland lakes than their All Species counterparts
(Resident All Species, Non-resident All Species and Senior All Species). The differences
between Restricted license holders and All Species license holders were greatest for Non-
Residents; Non-resident All Species license holders were 3 times less likely to fish
exclusively at inland lakes and about 2 to 7 times more likely to fish the other
combinations of waterbodies.

While the majority of license holders reported fishing before the age of 11, Senior
license holders were more likely than any other license group to report they fished after
the age of 10. Both Resident Restricted and Senior Restricted license holders were more
likely than their All Species counterparts (Resident All Species and Senior All Species)
to report they fished after the age of 10.

Senior license holders (Senior Restricted and Senior All Species) were more
likely than any other license group to report they mostly keep the legal sized fish they
catch, and were less likely to report they practiced catch and release. Non-resident All
Species and 24 hour license holders were more likely than any other license group to
report they mostly practiced catch and release. Non-resident Restricted and Non-resident
All Species license holders were the least likely group to mostly keep their catch.
Resident Restricted and Resident All Species license holders were similar in their catch
disposition, though a larger proportion of Resident Restricted license holders reported
they mostly practiced catch and release. SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations

discussed above may be found in Appendix E #1.

77

Catch Disposition

Collectively, slightly larger number of respondents reported that they keep some
and release some of their legal sized catch (36%), with slightly fewer reporting they
mostly practiced catch and release or mostly keep their catch, 33% and 31% respectively.
Anglers practicing catch and release were more likely to fish on rivers or to report fishing
exclusively on rivers, exclusively on inland lakes or on rivers with inland lakes, were
more likely to have fished before the age of 11, were much more likely to usually fish
alone, more likely to live with children under the age of 5 and children age 6 to 17, were
much more likely to report incomes of $100,000 or more, were more likely to be college
educated or hold an advanced degree and less likely to be retired.

Anglers reporting they keep some and release some of the legal sized fish they
catch were more likely to fish on All waterbodies, were slightly more likely to fish with
friends, were nearly equally likely to be male or female, were more likely to report
incomes below $50,000, more likely to report having a High School degree or GED or
less than a High School degree.

Anglers reporting they usually keep the legal sized fish they catch were less likely
to be under the age of 44, were more likely to fish on the Great Lakes and connecting
waterways, were less likely to have fished before the age of 11, were more likely to have
participated in a competitive fishing event, were less likely to live with children age 5 and
under and children age 6 to 17, were less likely to be male, much less likely to report
incomes greater than $100,000, were less likely to be employed fulltime, and more likely
to be retired. SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations discussed above may be found in

Appendix E #2.

78

Recruitment

Over 75% of anglers reported fishing before the age of 11. We found no
significant relationship between the age of recruitment and the social groups anglers
reported fishing with, and little difference in the age of recruitment between residents and
non-resident anglers.

Female anglers, anglers who have not participated in competitive fishing events,
anglers reporting a High School degree or GED or Less than a High School degree, and
anglers reporting income categories below $49,999 were more likely to have fished after
the age of 10. Conversely, males, anglers who have participated in competitive fishing
events, anglers reporting Some post High School or some college and lower education
categories, and anglers reporting incomes of $100,000 were more likely to have fished
before the age of l 1. SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations discussed above may be

found in Appendix E #3.

Waterbodies Fished / Site Preference

Collectively, 76% of all respondents indicated that they had fished on inland lakes
in the last 12 months. Less than half of all respondents indicated they had fished on
rivers or Great Lakes and connecting waterways, 44% and 42% respectively. When
examining 7 combinations of these waterbodies, we found the largest group of anglers
reported fishing exclusively on inland lakes (34%), followed by anglers who fished All
waterbodies (16%), and anglers who fished both rivers and inland lakes (16%).

Anglers fishing on rivers were less likely to fish with family or relatives and more

likely to report fishing with no one else, were less likely to own a boat for fishing, were

79

more likely to report incomes below $25,000, were more likely to have less than a High
School degree, and were more likely to be unemployed and were less likely to be retired.
Anglers who reported fishing exclusively on rivers were also more likely to be
unemployed and to report they fished with no one else.

Anglers fishing on inland lakes were less likely to fish with no one else and were
more likely to fish with family or relatives, fished less frequently and were more likely to
be retired. Anglers who reported fishing exclusively on inland lakes were also more
likely to be retired and more likely to fish with family or relatives.

Anglers fishing on Great Lakes and connecting waterways were less likely to fish
with no one else and more likely to fish with friends, were more likely to have a
Bachelor’s degree or advanced degree and were less likely to have less than High School
Degree, were less likely to report an incomes below $25,000 and were more likely to be
employed fulltime. Anglers fishing exclusively on Great Lakes and connecting
waterways were less likely to work part-time or be un-employed, were less likely to
report incomes below $25,000, and were more likely to fish with friends.

Anglers specializing in a particular waterbody (exclusively on rivers, exclusively
on inland lakes or exclusively on Great Lakes and connecting waterways) fished less
frequently than those anglers fishing on multiple waterbodies. Anglers reporting they
fished All waterbodies were more likely to own a boat for fishing, were more were likely
to be employed part-time and less likely to be retired, were more likely to fish with
friends and fished more frequently, with 58% of anglers who reported fishing on All
waterbodies fishing 20 or more times. SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations discussed

above may be found in Appendix E #4.

80

Fishing Frequency

Collectively, 57% of anglers reported fishing 6 or more times in the last 12
months, with 27% reporting 20 or more trips. Anglers fishing fewer than 6 times were
more likely to fish with family or relatives and were less likely to fish with no one else,
were more likely to live with a spouse or significant other and less likely to live with
children under 5, were more likely to have a Bachelor’s degree or advanced degree and
less likely to have a High School Degree or GED, were less likely to participate in a
competitive fishing event, were less likely to own a boat they used for fishing, were more
likely to be female, were more likely to report incomes over $100,000, were more likely
to be over the age of 65 and less likely to 25 to 34.

Anglers fishing 6 to 19 times were more likely to fish with family and relatives,
and less likely to fish with friends, were more likely to live with children under 5 and less
likely to live with extended family or other adults, were less likely to participate in a
competitive fishing event, were more likely to be a resident, were more likely to own a
boat for fishing, were less likely to report incomes of $0 to 24,999.

Anglers fishing 20 or more times were more likely to fish with no one else and
less likely to fish with family or relatives, were more likely to live with extended family
or other adults and less likely to live with no one else, were less likely to have a
Bachelor’s degree or advanced degree, were more likely to have fished in a competitive
fishing event, were more likely to own a boat the use for fishing, were more likely to be
male, were more likely to be un-employed and less likely to be retired, were more likely

to report incomes less than $50,000 and less likely to report incomes of $100,000 to

81

149,000 and more likely to be 25 to 34 and less likely to be 65 or older. SPSS Statistics

17.0® crosstabulations discussed above may be found in Appendix E #5.

DISCUSSION

Annual surveys of Michigan’s recreational anglers were discontinued in the mid-
1980’s due to “concerns about nonsampling bias in the estimates” with the expectation
that these surveys would resume following evaluation of these potential biases (Jamsen
1985). Nearly 25 years have passed since systematic statewide surveys of Michigan’s
recreational anglers have occurred.

The 2008 Michigan recreational angler survey and survey strategy were designed
to minimize the effects of survey biases, collect both long term and short term angling
behavior for all of Michigan’s fisheries, measure angling seasonality, cover a large
geographic area and incur low costs per respondent. The survey design is a reflection of
the growing need to understand angler behavior in Michigan and advances in survey
research. The concurrent collection of angler information unaffected by a longer recall,
the need for periodic, comprehensive, system-wide data in Michigan, previously
established mail survey methods within other divisions of the MNDR, and the ability to
compare information to previous MDNR Fisheries Division research data also influenced
our decision to implement statewide angler survey format which retained some aspects of
year-long recall (Brown 1991). This report presents preliminary findings from the 2008
Michigan recreational angler survey focusing on basic frequency distributions and a

preliminary examination of angler subgroups.

82

The collective response rate of 49% is comparable to angler mail surveys
conducted by other researchers given that our respondents were not pre-selected, received
a maximum of four contacts and received no incentives. The response rate reflects the
saliency of the topic and care taken in survey design.

The results show that the proportion of female respondents and the mean age of
respondents were significantly higher than non-respondents, additionally a smaller
proportion of resident restricted licensees and 24 hour licensees responded to our survey,
with the remaining commonly issued license types comprising a slightly larger proportion
of our respondents. These results suggest future analysis and survey efforts may include
data weighting or sampling stratification.

The majority of anglers (77%) reported fishing on inland lakes, which is
comparable angler effort reported by J amsen (1985). We also compared respondent age
categories to both Kickuchi (1986) and Jamsen (1967). These comparisons suggest that
anglers are aging without sufficient recruitment into younger age categories to replace an
aging angler population. This report also provides important preliminary baseline
information on fishing frequency, site preferences, tournament participation, recruitment,
fishing experience, household structure, fishing behavior, and socioeconomic
information. Additional information on fishing effort, details of angler trips and
comparisons of species preferences and regional angling effort will be examined in future
reports.

The majority of the variables we chose to examine in the current analysis were

thought to be important attributes of angler subgroups (fishing frequency; waterbodies

83

fished; catch disposition; age of introduction to fishing) and proved to have significant
associations with the socioeconomic characteristics we also tested.

Several studies have identified subgroups of anglers with different catch
dispositions (e.g., Fedler and Ditton (1992); Bryan (1997); Fisher (1997); Chipman and
Helfrich (1988); Hunt et a1. (2002); Sutton (2003); Kyle et a1. (2007); Anderson et al.
(2007). In their study of Tennessee tailwater anglers, Hutt and Bettoli (2007) found
consumptive and non-consumptive trout anglers (with differences in harvest rates and
opinions on regulation) exhibited significant differences in income and education levels,
with non-consumptive trout anglers the most educated and wealthiest group. In our
sample, the practice of catch and release was more likely for anglers fishing on rivers,
anglers who had begun fishing at an earlier age, for anglers who fish alone, and for
anglers with higher incomes and education levels. Conversely, anglers reporting they
mostly kept their legal size catch tended to be anglers who fished on the Great Lakes and
connecting waterways, began fishing at a later age, and reported lower incomes and
education levels.

The Michigan Decennial Census from 1990 to 2000 reported decreases in the
percentages of individuals for most of the age categories over 45 years of age (with only
a modest increase for the 60 to 64 age category) and increases in the percentages of
individuals in age categories under 34. However smaller percentages of our respondents
were found under the age of 34 and larger percentages of our respondents were found in
age categories over the age of 44 than previous studies of Michigan residents (Kikuchi
1986) and (Jamsen 1967). These findings suggest that the angling population may be

aging without sufficient recruitment to replace older anglers.

84

The process of aging produces lifestyle changes that influence angling behavior
(Aas and Arlinghaus 2009) and we found important differences in fishing behavior
between these age categories. Senior license holders were the largest license group to
report that they had not fished in the last 12 months and anglers 55 and older were the
largest group reporting that they had not fished in the last 12 months (66%) and the
largest group reporting that they had fished one time (45%), with half of anglers over 65
reporting that they fished 5 or fewer times, and 22% reporting 20 or more trips. Anglers
55 and older were more likely than anglers in other age categories to report fishing at
inland lakes, were less likely to report fishing at rivers and less likely to have fished
before the age of 1 1. Anglers 65 and older were much more likely than other anglers to
report they kept the legal sized fish they caught and were the least likely group to report
they practice catch and release. Conversely, anglers 25 to 34 were least likely to report
that they take fewer than 5 trips, most likely to report 20 or more trips and most likely to
report trips to Great Lakes and connecting waterways. Anglers 34 and younger reported
more trips to inland lakes but were more likely than other angler groups to report fishing
on rivers and were more likely to report they fished before the age of 11. Anglers 44 and
younger were much more likely to mostly practice catch and release and less likely than
other angler groups to report they mostly keep their catch.

Fisher (1997) reported that changes in social group (e.g. fishing with a less
specialized family members instead of friends) could lead to changes in motivation and
participation. Fedler and Ditton (1994) examined seventeen angler motivation studies
and found, across all studies, that many groups showed significant differences between

ratings for being with family or friends, indicating preference for participating with one

85

group or another. Ditton (2004) emphasized that social groups play an important role in
angling participation and in determining the meanings attributed to fishing and the
experiences and outcomes sought by anglers. We found anglers who report they usually
fish with family were less likely to fish more than 20 times and more likely to fish 1 to 5
times, were more likely to report fishing on inland lakes, and were less likely to be less
than 25 years of age and more likely to be between the age of 45 and 64. Anglers who
report they usually fish with fiiends were more likely to fish 1 to 5 times and less likely
to fish 6 to 19 times, were more likely to fish on all waterbodies and less likely to fish
exclusively on inland lakes, were more likely to keep some and release some of the legal
size fish they catch, and were less likely to be less than 25 years of age and more likely to
be between the age of 45 and 64. Anglers reporting they usually fish with no one else
were more likely to fish 20 or more times and less likely to fish 1 to 5 times, were more
likely to report fishing exclusively on rivers, were more likely to practice catch and
release, and more likely to be over 55 and much less likely to be under the age of 25.

The influence of education on angling participation is less clear, with researchers
in different Western countries reporting positive and negative relationships (Aas and
Arlinghaus 2009). We found anglers with a college degree or advanced degrees fished
less frequently, were more likely to report fishing before the age of 11, and more likely to
report they practice catch and release. Anglers who reported having a High School
degree or GED or having less than a high school degree fished more frequently, were
more likely to report fishing exclusively on inland lakes and rivers with inland lakes,
were less likely to have fished before the age of 11, and were less likely to report

practicing catch and release.

86

The mix of demographic conditions occurring in industrialized societies may have
both negative and positive influences on angling demand (Aas and Arlinghaus 2009).
However, researchers have emphasized that angler participation and behavior may also
be influenced by other attributes (social background, culture and personality) (Aas and
Arlinghaus 2009) and the actions of fisheries managers (Aas and Arlinghaus 2009; Ditton
2004). Understanding constraints to participation for angler subgroups with lower rates
of participation and the socialization process and benefits sought by minority populations
and improving accessibility for these groups may reverse many of the trends forecast
(Ditton 2004).

There is a great need for research examining the effects of lifestyle changes
including aging on angler preferences, the absolute number of anglers, participation rates
and activity levels over time. (Aas and Arlinghaus 2009). Our data provide a preliminary
examination of cross sectional profiles of Michigan’s recreational anglers. We envision
future research including further robust analysis of angler subgroups to provide managers
with the information they need to manage and provide angling opportunities for the

diverse angler groups fishing in Michigan.

87

APPENDIX A

This appendix contains:

1. Telephone Interview Script for the National Survey of Fisheries Management
Agencies.

88

National Survey of Fisheries Management Agencies
Telephone Interview Script

INTRODUCTION (Identifying the correct personnel at the agency)

Hello, my name is Jody Simoes and I am a graduate student working in the Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University. I am conducting a survey of
natural resource management agency’s freshwater and saltwater fisheries programs as
part of a graduate research project. This is a national survey to gain a better
understanding of the state of economic and other human dimensions surveys conducted
by and for natural resource management agency fisheries programs.

In order to collect this information I need to speak with the person at your office who
may have the greatest knowledge of angler surveys conducted by agency staff or on
behalf of the agency by an outside contractor. Who at your office would be able to speak
to the various angler surveys conducted in your state?

INTERVIEW

Introduction (repeat this paragraph if transferred)

Hello, my name is Jody Simoes and I am a graduate student working in the Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University. I am conducting a survey of
natural resource management agency’s freshwater and saltwater fisheries programs as
part of a graduate research project. This is an international survey to gain a better
understanding of the state of economic and other human dimensions surveys conducted
by and for natural resource management agency fisheries programs.

 

This questionnaire is part of a larger effort by Michigan State University to assess the
type and frequency of economic and other human dimensions information collected by
and on behalf of natural resource management agency fisheries programs in North
America. The data collected in this survey will be compared to earlier survey efforts.

Consent Statement for Telephone Interview

By continuing with this interview, you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in
this study and have your answers included in the project data set. Your participation is
voluntary. Your refusal to participate in or to withdraw from the study carries no penalty
or loss of any benefits. You are free to not answer any of the questions that I will ask
you. However, I hope that you will agree to answer questions, as your answers are very
important to this study. Answers are anonymous, and we will keep your individual views
entirely confidential. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extend allowable
by law. If you have any questions or comments please contact me and if you have any
questions concerning your rights as a survey participant, please contact the Director of
the Human Research Protection Program at MSU.

Would you like me to fax or email a copy of this information to you, including the
consent statement I just read and the contact information for the Project Investigator and
the Director of the Human Research Program at MSU?

No Yes (fax) Yes (e-mail)

89

 

Economic and Human dimensions Data Collection

Has your agency collected economic information directly from anglers in the form of
surveys, interviews, websites, questionnaires, drop-off, diaries and logbooks or by other
means? Before you answer, for the purposes of THIS study, economic data is data that is
collected from anglers that may include information on anger’s spending or willingness
to pay. This includes miles traveled and other trip related expenses such as gas, food, and
lodging expenditures.

Has your agency’s fisheries program collected economic information as I have
described?

YES NO DK

Does your agency collect human dimensions information, other than economic
information, directly from anglers in the form of surveys, interviews, websites,
questionnaires, drop-off, diaries, logbooks or other means? Before you answer, for the
purposes of THIS study, human dimensions data is data that is collected from anglers on
a local, regional or statewide basis other than effort, catch and harvest information.
These may include questions that ascertain angler satisfaction, angler opinions, angler
preferences, angler motivations and angler perceptions. Data collected on anglers may
include age; sex; race; income; angling experience; angling techniques; angling methods;
angling equipment. Other human dimensions questions include reasons for site selection
and asking anglers to rank items such as fishing trip experience, shore side facilities, state
programs, regulations and enforcement as well as preferences for certain types of fishing.

Has your agency’s fisheries program collected human dimensions information as I have
described?
YES NO Don’t Know (DK)

Use the responses to the questions (above) to determine which of the following questions
to ask.

Natural Resource Management Agency Contact Information
Agency Name:
Contact Person(s):
Address:

Phone:

Fax:

 

 

 

 

 

The following questions, unless otherwise noted, pertain to all human dimensions
information, including economic information.

1. For how many years have YOU been working on human dimensions research
with your current agency: DK

 

90

10.

For how many years has the agency been involved in the collection of human
dimensions data: DK

 

When was the most recent collection of human dimensions survey data

conducted:
DK

When is the next collection of human dimension data scheduled:
DK

How would you rate the overall quality of human dimensions data collected by
your agency: (Excellent; Good; Fair; Poor; DK)

How are human dimensions data utilized by the natural resource management
agency: (check all that apply):

0 State-wide strategic resource management plans (a.k.a. conservation and
recreation plans; wildlife action plans)
Local resource management plans
The design of fishery regulations (creel and species limits)
Development of angler educational and outreach programs and materials
Other (please specify)

Is your agency required or mandated by any of the following to collect human
dimensions information?

o The State

0 The agency

0 Other entity

0 Not required

How would you rate the utilization of human dimensions data collected by your
agency:
(Excellent; Good; Fair; Poor; DK)

Does the agency maintain on staff, human dimensions personnel (with
educational background and/or training in areas of sociology, psychology,
anthropology, communications, public relations, marketing or related fields) who
are available to work on the collection and/or analysis of human dimensions data?
YES NO DK

Does the agency maintain on staff, an economist (with educational background
and/or training in the areas of socioeconomics, resource economics,
environmental economics or related fields) who are available to work on the
collection and/or analysis of economic data?

YES NO DK

91

11. Does the agency maintain a special section, division or department devoted to
working on the collection and analysis of socioeconomic, economic or human

dimensions angler information:
YES NO DK

12. How would you rate the importance of the following issues for your State’s
fishery (check all that apply):

Not Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Habitat degradation
(invasive species, drought, pollution, development)
1 2 3 4 5

Access and facilities

1 2 3 4 5
Declining angler participation
(recruitment and retention)

1 ' 2 3 4 5
State budget shortages

1 2 3 4 5
Other (please specify)

1 2 3 4 5

13. How would you rate the importance of the following information to current
fisheries management decision-making in your agency: (not important at all;
slightly important; moderately important; very important; extremely important)

Not Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Angler support for management regulations

1 2 3 4 5
Angler motivations

l 2 3 4 5
Economics of recreational fishing

1 2 3 4 5
Angler attitudes and opinions

I 2 3 4 5
Demographic characteristics of anglers

l 2 3 4 5
General public attitudes and opinions

I 2 3 4 5
Angler satisfaction

1 2 3 4 5
Species-specific angler market information

1 2 3 4 5

92

Partnerships

14. Which of the following entities does your agency partner with to achieve its goals
for communicating with anglers (check all that apply):

Universities/Colleges

Recreational Businesses

National and local fishing organizations, foundations or clubs
Consulting firms

Other entities

The agency DOES NOT engage in ANY partnerships to achieve
Advertising and Marketing goals

15. Which of the following entities does your agency partner with to develop fishing
programs, activities and services (check all that apply):

Universities/Colleges

Recreational Businesses

National and local fishing organizations, foundations or clubs
Consulting firms

Other entities

The agency DOES NOT engage in ANY partnerships to develop fishing
programs, activities and services

16. Which of the following entities does your agency partner with to gather economic

data:

Universities/Colleges

Recreational Businesses

National and local fishing organizations, foundations or clubs

Consulting firms

Other entities

The agency DOES NOT engage in ANY partnerships to gather economic
data

17. Which of the following entities does your agency partner with to gather human
dimensions data, other than economic data:

Universities/Colleges

Recreational Businesses

National and local fishing organizations, foundations or clubs
Consulting firms

Other entities

The agency DOES NOT engage in ANY partnerships to gather human
dimensions data

93

APPENDIX B

This appendix contains:

1. Appendix B# 1, Michigan Recreational Angler Survey, Version 1.
2. Appendix B# 2, Michigan Recreational Angler Survey, Version 2.

94

 

 

 

 

PART A: YOUR MICHIGAN FISHING DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Please complete and return this questionnaire even if you did not go fishing in the past 12 months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 5. For each of the types of fish listed below, indicate
. 1. W? 12 months, did you go fishing 12 which methods, if any, you used to try catching that
, type of fish in Michigan in the past 12 months.
ENC (Skip 10 PART D, QUESthfl 9) (ChOCk a" that apply)
Yes . 1
1 W11
1 2. in the past 12 months, how many times have “ g ‘3
you gone fishing in Michigan? 3 5 E E ._ 2’ a 5
Elitime D6t091imes — I! a a 01%. :E is; g
[:IZor3times D10161911mes g g g §_§§ g g g
4 or 5 times 20 or more times *" " 3 ' 1° °
13 13 W a E .: 88 a s e s 5
, 33“ 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1
3. In the past 12 months, what types of water Catfish
bodies did you fish at in Michigan? P fl h D D D D D D D D
(check all that apply) a" 3 D D D D D D D D
E Michigan rivers P.“ l:l Cl 1:] U El El Cl [:1
Michigan inland lakes Salmon
Cl Great Lakes and connecting waterways D D D D D D D D
50°11"! 1:1 1:1 1:1 1] El 1:1 1:1 [1
Tm" 1:1 1:1 1:] 1:1 1:1 1:1 E] [:1
4. In the past 12 months, have you competed in W 11
any fishing events in Michigan? a eye D E] D D D E] D E]
EINo Other 1:1 D D 1:] D 13 1:] C]
l DYes -) (it Yes) How many events? .
Q fishing events l I
FAQ! 3: YOUR MICHIGAN FISHING IN we
I 6. Did you go fishing Wduring the
month of U Y 00 ? (If Yes) Circle the days that you fished in JULY
l DNo (skip to PART C, question 7) 1 July 2003
i EiYes 9 . s . M '1' w r
l I 1 2 3 4 s
s ' 7 8 9 10 11 12

 

 

 

20 21 22 23 24 25 26
28 29 30 31

 

 

 

 

’ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
l
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95

 

 

 

 

Use this map to help answer questions in PART C regarding your TWO MOST RECENT MICHIGAN FISHING TRIPS. l
A fishing trip is any time you went fishing no matter where or how long you1 fished.
l Place X’s near the locations of your two most recent fishing trips. 1

  

Lake Superior

 

Lake Michigan

  

 

96

 

 

m: voua rwo uosr RECENT MICHIGAN FISHING TRIPS
For the purposes of this survey, a fishing trip is any time you went fishing, no matter where or how long you fished.

 

7. Your Most Recent

8. Your Second Most Recent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
‘ Michigan Fishing Trip Michigan Fishing Trip
Trip Characteristics I
Date 1 month: year._ _ _ _ month: year:_ _ __ _
Was fishing the main purpose of the in p? [tes DNo DYes CINo
Was it an overnight trip? I DYes CINo [:lYes DNo
How many days did you fish on this trip? I day(s) _ day(s)
Did you fish at mult1ple rivers or lakes? Y [:IYes EINo DYes DNo
Main Trip Location I" ,b
(where most time was spent)
River or Lake (check one) DRiver [jLake DRiver [:lLake
Me or Lake I
1 Nearest City/towrilvillage
County
Please mark the general location on the map Put an 'X" on the map Put an ‘X‘ on the map
Primary Fishing Mode (check one) 1 it '9
Primarily from the shoreline l 1] Cl
gPrimarily wading TI [:1 E]
_'efim3ri'iffio’ri{a boat (trailored to site) I E] 1:]
‘Pfimlarilyhfrom a bOat(already af’sile) ' E] 1:]
Charter boat I] E]
Ice fishing I E] 1:]
Fish Species You Targeted, Caught or Targeted Number Number Targeted Number Number
Released (check all that apply) Caught Released Caught Released
Bass I Largemouth l] I _ fish _ fish [:1 __ fish _ fish
Smallmouth Cl I _ fish _ fish Cl _ fish _ fish
Carp Common Carp 1:] I __ fish __ fish [:1 _ fish _ fish
Catfish Bullhead, Channel and Flathead I [:1 I _ fish __ fish [:1 _ fish _ fish
Pikes Muskie/Muskellunge I El 1 _ fish __ fish [:1 _ fish _ fish
Pike I El I _ fish __ fish [:1 _ fish _ fish
Panfish Yellow Perch I [:1 I _ fish __ fish [:1 fish __ fish
White Perch or White Bass I 1:1 I __ fish _ fish 1] _ fish __ fish
Bluegill! Pumpkinseed/Sunfish . 1:] , _ fish _ fish CI fish _ fish
Black/White Crappie I El I _ fish _ fish [:1 fish _ fish
Rock Bass , C] I fish __ fish [:1 fish _ fish
Salmon Chinook/King Salmon I Cl I _ fish __ fish Cl _ fish _ fish
81 Coho/Silver Salmon I C] I __ fish __ fish 1:] fish _ fish
Trout Rainbow Trout (Steelhead) I [:1 I _ fish _ fish 1:] _ fish _ fish
Brook/Speckled Trout - [:1 fish _ fish 1:] fish _ fish
Brown Trout I 1:] _ fish _ fish 1:1 _ fish _ fish
Lake Trout i [j __ fish _ fish [:l _ fish _ fish
. Lake Whitefish_/whfigfi§h___ I i] _ fish _ fish E1 _ fish _ fish
Suckers Longnose. Redhorse and_V_Vhiie g. [:1 _ fish __ fish Cl __ fish _ fish
Walleye Walleye A El _ fish _ fish 1:] _ fish _ fish
Other Name. I C] fish _ fish [I _ fish _ fish
Species Name; C] fish _ fish Cl _ fish __ fish
Name: _ _ I l:l___ fish _ fish [:1 fish _ fish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

 

 

 

 

 

m: voun USUAL FISHING ACTIVITIES AND BACKGROUND

Summaries of the following questions help us represent the fishing activities of all types of anglers.
Individual answers are CONFIDENTIAL.

 

l

 

 

9. About how old were you the first time you went
fishing? (even if you did not catch a fish)
years old

10. How many years have you fished i Ich n?

years

11. Do any of the following live in your household?
(check all that apply)
[:I Spouse or significant other
C] Children age 5 and under
D Children age 6 to 17 years old
C] Other immediate family
D Extended family members or other adults
[I None of these

12. How many people In your household have a
current fishing license, including yourself?
people

13. Which of the following best describes who you
usually fish with? (check one)
C] No one else I:] Friends
[:1 Family / relatives 1:] Other

14. Do ou own a boat that you use for fishing?
No
C] Yes -) (if Yes) Check all that apply
[:I Motor boat
I] Canoe/kayak
Cl Other

15. When you go fishing, what do you usually do with
the legal size fish you catch? (check one)
C] Mostly keep my catch
Keep some. release some
E] Mostly catch and release

 

 

 

18.00 you use a computer to access the internet
for personal use?
[I No
[I Yes

17. In the past 12 months. have you fished in other
countries or In other states, W?
E] No
I] Yes

18.Whlch of the following best describes your
employment status? (check one)
I] Employed fulltime D Part-time El Retired'
CI Un-employed [:1 Other

19.What Is your highest level of education?
(check one)
[:I Less than High School degree
[:1 High School degree or GED
[:I Some post High School or some college
[I Bachelor’s Degree
CI Graduate Degree

20.What Is your race or ethnic background?
(check all that apply)

— Asian

American Indian or Alaska Native

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Hispanic. Latino or Spanish Origin

White. non-Hispanic

Other

 

 

[II II llll II II

21.Whlch of the following best describes your
annual household income? (check one)

C) 30. 24.999 [:1 $75,000-99.999
[:1 32500049399 [3 $100,000—149.999
El $50,000-74.999 1:] $150,000 or more

 

Comments:

 

 

If you have misplaced your postage-paid envelope. please return this survey to: Frank Lupi. Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources Building) East Lansinnglll 48824-1222. THANK YOU!

 

 

98

 

 

 

MICHIGAN FISHING SURVEY

 

PART A: YOUR FISHING IN MICHIGAN DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS
Please complete and return this questionnaire even If you did not go fishing in the past 12 months.

 

 

 

4.

In the past 12 months, did you go fishing lg
Mistllnan?
DNo (skip to PART D, question 8)
L—JYes

In the past 12 months, how many times have
you gone fishing in Michigan?

[:I 1 time [:1 6 to 9 times
[:I 2 or 3 times [I 10 to 19 times
CI 4 or 5 times E] 20 or more times

In the past 12 months, what types of water
bodies did you fish at In Michigan?

(Check all that apply)

E] Michigan rivers
[:1 Michigan inland lakes
[:1 Great Lakes and connecting waterways

In the past 12 months, have you competed
in any fishing events in Michigan?

DNO
DYes 9 (If Yes) How many events?
fishing events

 

6. For each of the types of fish listed below, indicate

which methods, if any, you used to try catching that
type of fish In Michigan In the past 12 months.
(check all that apply)

et fls In
.2
§§ 5532:
- .s a g g3 E 2
mm, is; 525 F2 Egiéi g
z < t o o a it _
3888 E] D E] E] III III III
Catfish El Cl E] El [II D E]
Panflsh E] E] [I] E] E] El E1
Pike E] El [:1 El (3 III III
Salmon E] E] III III E] E] El
Suckers [:I E] [:1 [j E] E] [:I
"0‘" [3 CI I] D E] E] III
Walleye El Cl E] Cl C] D [II
Other El El D E] E] Cl C]

DDDDDDDDDWMWM

 

mm: YOUR MICHIGAN FISHING IN W

 

8. Did you go fishing Wdurlng the
month of JULY 2008?

EINo (skip to PART C, question 7)
DYes 9

(If Yes) Circle the days that you fished in JULY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julyzooe
s I M T T
2 3 5
6 7 8 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 28
27 i 28 29 30 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

Use this map to help answer questions in PART C regarding your MOST RECENT MICHIGAN FISHING TRIP. I
A fishing trip is any time you went fishing, no matter where or how long you fished.
Place an X near the location of your most recent fishing trip. I

 

   

Lake Superior

Lake Huron

     
 

Lake Michigan

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

m: YOUR MOST RECENT MICHIGAN FISHING TRIP
For the purposes of this survey, a fishing trip is any time you went fishing, no matter where or how long you fished.

 

I 7. Your Most Recent Michigan Fishing Trip

I
t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trip Characteristics I ‘5
Date I month: year;_ _ _ _
Was fishing the main purpose of the trip? I [tes DNo
Was it an overnight trip? ‘ DYes [No
How many days did you fish on this trip? day(s)
Did you fish at multiple rivers or laltes? [:IYes EINO
Main Trip Location ‘1,
(where most time was spent)
River or Lake (check one) DRiver DLake
Name of River or Lake I
Nearest City/town/village I
County I
Please mark the general location on the map I Put an ‘X' on the map
Primary Fishing Mode (check one) I O
inmanly from the shoreline I C]
- Primaniy wading 1' CI
anan'ly from a boat (trailored to site) E]
Primaniy from a boat (already at SIIe) [3
Charter boat I]
Ice fishing I]
Fish Species You Targeted, Caught or Released Targeted Number Number
(check all that apply) 4 Caught Released
Largemouth I CI fish _ fish
3"” Smallmouth I (3 _fish _ fish
Carp Common Carp I [j __ fish __ fish
Catfish Bullhead. Channel and Flathead I E] _ fish __ fish
Muskie/Muskellun e C] fish fish
"k” Pike 9 I (:1 : fish : fish
Yellow Perch . [:1 _ fish _ fish
White Perch or White Bass E] _ fish _ fish
Panflsl'l Bluegill! Pumpkinseed/Sunfish I I] __ fish __ fish
' Black/White Crappie [:I __ fish _ fish
Rock Bass I [j _ fish _ fish
Chinook/King Salmon I [j _ fish _ fish
Coho/Silver Salmon I E] _ fish _ fish
Salmon Rainbow Trout (Steelhead) ' E] _ fish _ fish
8. Brook/Speckled Trout I [:1 fish _ fish
Trout Brown Trout I El __ fish _ fish
Lake Trout I] _ fish _ fish
Lake WhitefishNVhitefish I] _ fish _ fish
Suckers Longnose, Redhorse and White E] _ fish _ fish
Walleye Walleye C] _ fish __ fish
Other Name; C] __ fish _ fish
spec”, Name. I] _ fish __ fish
Name: I] _ fish _ fish

 

 

 

 

 

 

101

 

 

 

m: YOUR USUAL FISHING Acnvrnes AND BACKGROUND

Summaries of the following questions help us represent the fishing activities of all types of anglers.
Individual answers are CONFIDENTIAL.

 

8. About how old were you the first time you went
fishing? (even if you did not catch a fish)
years old

9. How many years have you fished Wu?
years

10. Do any of the following live In your household?
(check all that apply)
I] Spouse or significant other
[I Children age 5 and under
I:I Children age 6 to 17 years Old
C] Other immediate family
[I Extended family members or other adults
[:1 None Of these

11. How many people in your household have a
current fishing license, including yourself?

__ peeple

12. Which of the following best describes who you
usually fish with? (check one)
[:I NO one else [I Friends
[I Family I relatives [:1 Other

13. Do on own a boat that you use for fishing?
No
[Z] Yes 9 (if Yes) Check all that apply
[Z] Motor boat
[:1 Canoe/kayak
C] Other

14. When you go fishing, what do you usually do
with the legal size fish you catch? (check one)
[3 Mostly keep my catch
I] Keep some, release some
C] Mostly catch and release

 

 

I

 

15. Do you use a computer to access the Internet
for personal use?
[:I NC
D Yes

16. In the past 12 months, have you fished In other
countries or In other states, W?
[:I No
[I Yes

17. Which of the following best describes your
em loyment status? (check one)
ErEmployed fulltime [:1 Part-time E] Retired

[:1 Un-employed D Other

18. What is your highest level of education?
(check one)
[:1 Less than High School degree
I] High School degree or GED
I] Some post High School or some college
[:I Bachelor's Degree
CI Graduate Degree

19. What Is your race or ethnic background?
(check all that apply)

Asian

:] American Indian or Alaska Native

:1 Black or African American

3 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

:I Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin

:I White, non-Hispanic

3 Other

 

20. Which of the following best describes your
annual household Income? (check one)
C] $0- 24,999 1:] $75,000-99,999
E] 52500049999 C] $100,000—149,999
CI $50,000-74.999 [3 $150,000 or more

 

 

 

1 Comments:

 

 

lfyou have misplaced your postage-paid envelope, please return this survey to: Frank Lupi. Department of Fisheries
Land Wildlife. Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources Building. East Lansing, MI 48824-1222. THANK YOU!

 

 

102

 

APPENDIX C
This appendix contains:

1. Michigan Recreational Angler Survey cover letters.

103

DATE

Jane Doe
123 Main Street
Lansing, MI 48915

Your help is needed with a study of fishing in Michigan. The study is being conducted
by Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife for the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. The results from this survey will
help natural resource agencies make fisheries management decisions that better reflect
the needs of people that fish in Michigan.

You are part of a small sample of people being asked about their fishing activities. Your
answers are needed to help ensure the results accurately represent the people who fish in
Michigan.

Whether you go fishing often or only occasionally, your input is important. Please let us
know what you think by completing the enclosed questionnaire and returning it in the
prepaid envelope.

Your individual views will be completely confidential and your privacy will be protected
to the maximum extent permitted by law. Also, your participation in the survey is
voluntary, and you may refuse to answer certain questions. If you have any concerns or
questions about this research study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or if
you believe you have been banned because of the research, please contact Frank Lupi,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources
Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222; lupi@msu.edu, 517-432-3883.

If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant,
or would like to register a complaint about this research study, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, Michigan State University Human Research Protection
Program at 517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail
at: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you very much for helping with this important study.
Sincerely,
Frank Lupi

Associate Professor
Enclosure

104

DATE

Jane Doe
123 Main Street
Lansing, MI 48915

I recently sent you a survey about your fishing activities in Michigan. To the best of my
knowledge, I have not heard from you.

I am writing to you again because your input is vital! You are part of a small sample of
people who are being asked about their fishing activities.

Your answers are needed to help ensure the results accurately represent the people who
fish in Michigan. Your answers will help natural resource agencies make management
decisions that better reflect the needs of people that fish in Michigan.

Please take a few minutes to share your viewpoint by filling out this short survey.

Your individual views will be completely confidential and your privacy will be protected
to the maximum extent permitted by law. Also, your participation in the survey is
voluntary, and you may refuse to answer certain questions. If you have any concerns or
questions about this research study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or if
you believe you have been harmed because of the research, please contact Frank Lupi,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources
Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222; lupi@msu.edu, 517-432-3883.

If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant,
or would like to register a complaint about this research study, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, Michigan State University Human Research Protection
Program at 517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail
at: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you very much for helping with this important study.
Sincerely,
Frank Lupi

Associate Professor
Enclosure

105

APPENDIX D

This appendix contains:

. Appendix D#l, mailing dates and rate of return by field week for test of trip
details.

. Appendix D#2, mailing dates and rate of return by field week for test of materials
and personalization.

106

Mailing dates and rate of return by field week: Testing Trip Details

The initial survey instrument and contact letter were mailed on September 23,
2008. This was followed by the first reminder / thank you postcards mailed on
September 29, 2008. Peak survey returns of 850 returned surveys occurred within the
first full field week which was described as ending on October 3, 2008. The replacement
survey instrument and cover letter were mailed on October 15 during the third full week.
A second, smaller wave of surveys returned within week 4 (251) and week 5 (517). A
second reminder / thank you postcard was mailed on October 29th at the beginning of the
6th week in the field, completing the mailing sequence. The return estimates below
include the approximately 107 respondents who returned both the initial questionnaire
and the replacement questionnaire; therefore individual returns following the mailing of
the replacement questionnaire are inflated. These surveys were not included in our final

analysis, however they are included in this figure.

 

 

sooll ,7
4001 ‘ .Eieii‘il.‘
aool

200

 

100“

 

 

 

 

 

Figure l Approximate return rates, Round l.

107

Mailing dates and rate of return by field week: Personalization and Materials

The initial survey instrument and contact letter were mailed on September 29,
2008 and September 30, 2008. This was followed by the first reminder / thank you
postcards mailed on October 6, 2008 and October 7, 2008. Peak survey returns of 902
returned surveys occurred within the first full field week which was described as ending
on October 10, 2008. The replacement survey instrument and cover letter were mailed on
November 6, 2008 and November 7, 2008 during the fifih full week. A second, smaller
wave of surveys returned within week 6 (229) and week 7 (522). A second reminder/
thank you postcard was mailed on November 15, 2008 and November 19, 2008 at the
beginning of the 6‘h week in the field, completing the mailing sequence. The return
estimates below include the approximately 206 respondents who returned both the initial
questionnaire and the replacement questionnaire; therefore individual returns following
the mailing of the replacement questionnaire are inflated. These surveys were not

included in our final analysis, however they are included in this figure.

 

 

E83795]

 

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415

 

 

 

Figure 2 Approximate return rates, Round 2.

108

.V‘PP‘SQZ"

APPENDIX E

This appendix contains:

Appendix E #1, SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations, license type.
Appendix E #2 SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations, catch disposition.
Appendix E #3, SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations, recruitment.
Appendix E #4, SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations, site preference.
Appendix E #5, SPSS Statistics 17.0® crosstabulations, fishing frequency.

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$06» $».~6 $_.mm $m.~6 $m.mw $».»m .50: 6.5.
. . . . . . 868m
$m am $» 5» $0 mm $m 06 $0 »0 $0 on :6. «8280.52
$0.5m $066 $».5m $0.06 $6.m5 $».06 86on =< SEQ»
$».o~ $5.»m $6. _ m $0.00 $5.»5 $».m0 86on =< .5281
$6.0 _ $065 $0.0. $N.»_ $» .5» $6.9 082082 0828282
$5.9 $5.0 $0.2 $_ 6N $0.05 $».mm 022.581 8:5»
$N.m~ $ _ .mm $5.3 $5.6» $m. _ » $ _ .06 02208» E8282
823 .85 86.3 2.25 803”. 8x3 320 8qu 0:2:— m8>E .27 & 25C. 8:35
20.32.55 33— m:2.=£.=m_a 5:200
muzmzmmmmm m5.» "mm—F5935 mUmem—mmmm nah—w "mm—<bmmOmU
$m.~ $_.~ $0» $».m_ $0.2“ $».5m $».m $».o $N._ $0.» $2: $0.0m $0.56 $».o So: 6m
8.8m
$5.2 $».5_ $6.05. $0.0. $m.- $m.» $o._ $0.. $0» $06 $0.». $06 $.,.» $0._ __<Eo2m2.-:om
$6.5m $0.». $m.m_ $0.0. $0.2 $.56 $5.» $».5 $0.» $0.5 $5.5 $_.0 $5.» $95— 86322.25»
$6.»m $m._m $6.». $m.m_ $00 $0.» $m.m $0.3 $0.0m $0.0m $».mm $0.0. $06 $6.5. 8382205063.
Bu. 8
$m.__ $_.m_ $0.». $0.0m $m._m $06. $»._ $0.5. $N.m $0.» $o.o $_.o $6.: $m.» 0 mu m
2828.. :02
$0.». $0.3 $5.2 $5.2 $0.2 $0.0 $6.0. $5.6 $0.0 $6.0 $_.» $m.» $m.m $0.2 032082028»
$0.»~ $».5_ $N.0_ $o6. $66. $56 $3” $m.m6 $26 $36 $».»m $5.0» $0.2 $0..» 08208105282
0 m. m. m m n. .w. o m. m. m m m w.
m i m m. w. a 0 w 1 w w. .1... a 0
m M w. .w... w. m m w. w. w. .2?
9 . 9 a a a l. a 9 9
1 w. s s s 1 w s s s a 2.3. 8:35
we 9 M. w o
3 3
220:2me >6: 2.22.2.5:— 55:00
52023:... 5523:..— czEmE "8:895
62.65....— "mm<._.mmO~_U

 

 

 

25 88: .8253885 8.: 808% 8% z. m x528?

110

 

 

 

$0.N $0.5 $0.6 $.06. $..5 $. .00 $..»N $0.. $06 $»... $5.5. $5.0 $0.0. $N.~N 50.. 6N
882.
$0.... $0... $0.5 $».0... $m.m. $0.0m $22 $m.~ $m.m $5.0 $».» $06 $_ .N $0.0 =< “8280:0705
$0.0. $0.0. $6.0 $0.0. $6.2 $. .0N $5.2 $0.5 $».0 $5.0 $0.0 $0.0 $_ .0 $0.5 8.8..» ..< h0.:an
$».mm $00.. $56 $m.0 $6.0. $0.2 $00. $0.00 $0.0m $0.0m $..0N $. .50 $N.0. $».0m 8.0on ..< E828M
8208
$6.N $ . .0 $0.0 $0.» $. .0 $5.N5 $».» $0.. $0.N $5.. $5.N $. 6 $06. $06 Eavmonzow.
$0.~ $0.0. $0.0 $0.0 $06 $6.»0 $0.6. $0.0 $. 6 $. .0 $0.0 $0». $0.0. $0.5 020.082 5.80
$0.2 $».5. $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 $N. . 6 $6.0 $. . . m $0.06 $0.Nm $N.Nm $0.00 $5.06 $6.00 022.503. E0282
N Nu. m. m m. M D W M m Nu. m. m. D
i .A. .A. .A. w m w i .A. a a m .u... w
m u u y. p 9 m1. m y. .s. u p P mi.
0 w. w 1 m e m w m 1 1 e
w P D. W. X. a W P D. W. w. W
o I D m 0 s o l D 0 m s
P W i. P W I. .
m. w m w. m. 2 m m .00 v
s P 11. P s w. 1 P a 09C. 8:35
"I. E D "I. 1. D
s s
1 s W

 

2.2.3320 :3.

mUmemn—mmm MPH—m ”mm<hmmO~—U

 

0:053:30:— 5.5.00

HUZmzmh—HML nah—m "mm—«‘Pmey—U

 

 

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$.00 $0.06 $0.00 $0.0 $..0. $0.0 50$ 60
$0.0. $ . .06 $0. . 0 $. .0 $0.6 $0.0 3.02.0 ..< .:o0.8._-:0z
$0.06 $0.0. $0.50 $0.0. $0.6 $0.0 8.02.0 ..< 00.:00
$0. . 0 $ . .00 $6.00 $0.00 $0.60 $0.00 8.02.0 ..< 200.03.
$. .00 $0.00 $0.50 $0.0 $0.5 $. .5 020.003. 2000.80-52
$0.06 $6.00 $0. . 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 030.080 00.:00
$0.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $02.6 $6.00 080.53.050.80
080.2 0:0 2:8 080.3. 080.2 0:0 080m 080.3. .
000v. 008$. :23 0.30.). .058 003. 003. 0.000.). :83 0.3.02 .208 003. .00 v E0905. 00:00.4
20.000.50.0— 39: 0.00.30.50.0— 5:200
zO.....0OA.0.a 10.5.0 "00.550010 ZOE—000mm:— =Uh<0 "00.550010
$0.0 $6.0 $0.. $0.. $0.6 $5.06 $..06 $0.5. $5.5 $0.5. $6.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 .50... 60
$52.
$0.. $0.0 $0.0 $0.. $0.0 $0.06 $0.06 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $6.0 $0.0 =<Eo052w=0m
$6.0 $0.0 $... $0.. $0.0 $6.00 $0.00 $0.0 $0... $0.5 $6.0 $5.0. $0.0. $0.6 8.02.0.2 00.:00
$0.. $5.0 $6.0 $0.. $0.0 $0.00 $..00 $5.6. $0.60 $6.0 $0.0. $0.6. $0.00 $0.60 36000.2.00033.
$0.. $0.0 $0.. $0.0 $0.0 $6.06 $6.06 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.0 $0.5 $5.0 $5.0 080.030.:00.8:-:0Z
$0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0.6 $0.0. $0.00 $.60 $0... $5.5 $0.5. $0.0. $0.6. $0.0 $0.0 080.53. 00.:00
$0.. $6.0 $... $0.. $0.0 $5.06 $0.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.6 $0.06 $0.06 $0.00 $0.00 080.53.050.80
F. Z Z .I I 9 0 E Z Z I I. 9 0
O 9 I 9 I m. m. 0 9 I 9 I m. m.
.m. m. m. m m. I C. .m. m m. m. m. I c. .00.v a 2.»... 8:00....
s M R M m 0 s m. R M m 0

 

22.3.5.0 :3.
£53.28”... 00:9... SE... 09.. "00500000

 

0.00.25.30.0— 050.00

...:0E==..00~—: Aim—=0...— Pmfl—m mU< "mm—<h000w—U

 

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:3. $...... as; $0.0 $0.0. $2.0 $2.0 $0.00 $30 :0; $0.00 $0.00 $05. $...: :28 b: 08.. 0.82
.00.... $...... 30.0 :2: :5 $0.0M :3 $0.00 $...... $0.8 $00.. $.00 $0.00 $...... om.33. 0.... .28
$0.8. $3. $0.6 30.0 :2: $0.2 $...: $...? $0.00 $0.... $0.00 $.00 $0.00 $50 2.50 023.3. Ba 33.
w w. w. w. M M w w w. w. w. M ml. 0
l.. 9 .l. B 9
.M. m m m m . . w m w
m 0 w .1 1. n. m. 0 w 1. .1 e
m D. 0. W4. W4. 9 m D. D. W. won. a
m m. 9 0 0. s W m D 0 0 s .
s w. w P s P w P v m 00.0.0000:— 0800
1 D 1 9
m e 1 m. e m.
M m m M m m
S m S m
x.
9 9
30.000.305 30¢ 000.000.0005 0:5.00
00200000.... 020 “00500000 002......qu 0.5 "00500000
.03.. $0..... $02 $6.8 $2.0 $0.3 :28 b: 008. 0.8.2
ex... .0. 3...: $0.8 $6.00 .00.... $2.. 3.8.3. 0.... :26
.6... .8 £00.. £0.00 $0..... $0..: $0..... 0:50 38.3. us. 83..
08.0.. 000.0 000.3 05.5 0.020 00...... 000.0 “mm”... 0.030 .00. v a 5:32.05 00.00

 

 

.00me0.001.— mh—m "mm—<h000m0

2.2.3.5.: E...

 

000.000.0005 5:200

.00me0.00.9— 0.50 "mag—00010

 

 

GOmHmmommmU £360 .mflomum—Sbgmmoho @O.h— momummuwum mmmm N% m— VA—szmnmdx

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.. .0. 63.8 $000 20.2 .28 0.. 82. 0.8.).
2.0.2. $0.8 20.3.. a... . . m 88.2 2a .28 0.8.2
:0... 2.0.0 2.0.2 :00... 2:8 0322 .028 003.
0.0.). 0.00.0 ... 0.05. 0.00.0... .00. v & 00.000005 00.00
000.000.50.0— 30¢ 000.000.000.0— 00.0.00

000200 "00500000 000200 "00500000

2.02. .0... .0 2.0.8 2.3.0 .28 0.. 38. 0.8.2
£0.00 2.. .2 $......” 2.00.. 38.2 2a .28 0.82
0\00.WN 000d 0\0¢.wm 0\0m.mm 0500 00020.. .0500 Quo¥

: - 0 5.2.6 0 w 5.2.6 t - 0 5.2.6 m w 5.2.6 0.... v 0 80.8.0.0 =36
000.25.30.0— 30¢ 000.000.3000. 00.0.00

00.050000 0.500000: "00:000.... 0006005 00000000: "00060000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$..0 :03 2.0.0... 2.0.0... .28 0.. 00...... 0.8.2
$..0 $060 $0. .0 $5.00 0000.0. 000 00.00 0000.).
$0.0 $0.60 $0.60 $0.0 0 0.00.0. 0000.0. .0080 000v.
00> .00>m. 00.00.... 07. .00>m. 00.02“. 00> 02 .00. v .0 00.00.0005 00.00
. . . . .003. 00.00.... .00>m. 00.00...

000000.505 30¢ 000.000.505 00.0.00
...z..>m. 02.10.... H00.550050 0.20;”... 02.30.... n0m.¢.....000.~.0
$..0 $0.0 $0.. $..0 $0.0 $5.66 $0.06 $0.60 $0.0 $0.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $. .00 00.00 .00. 000.. 0:00.).
$0.. $0.0 $0.. $6.. $0.0 $0.06 $6.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0000.0. 000 00.00 0000.).
$..0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.. $0.0 $...6 $0.06 $6.00 $0.0. $6.00 $..00 $0.00 $0.60 $0.00 0000 0000.0. 00.9. 000v.

C0 7.0 7.. 1.. .l. 9 0 C0 70 70 I. ll 9 0

0 9 .I. 9 .l. 1 1 0 9 .l. 9 I 1 1
N m. m. m. m. w. W .N m m .0. m. w. W. .00. v & 00.000005 00.00

m m. 0 0 0 o m m 0.. 0 0. o
000.000.0005 30¢ 000.000.0005 00.0.00
...__o=_.._:80.. .....2...=:80.. 0000.... 000.... 00... "00.200000
n.0,...0... 00¢... 00¢. u0m.¢....0000¢0 .

 

 

 

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.0.00 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.2.00 2...... 2.00. 2.2.0 2.0.8 2.0.0 .28 0E 58. 0.8.2
2.0.0.. 2...... 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.2.0 2.0... 2.000 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.. 0. .82.... 05 .28 0.8.).
2.0.50 2.000 2.200 2.3.0 2.0.2 2.0.0 2.0.: 2.0.00 2.0.50 2.0.0 2.5 88.... 2.553.
o a 0 m. m m 0. 1 m. a 0 0. m m 0. 0
0 0 m. 0 a m 0 m m w .0 a m m
m 0:... Id S 1 ..u.. m P 1d S I u.
1 0 3 19 0 3 a D.
0. J o u. C m a J 0 u. u
s. 0.. o 9 G s. w 0 00% .00. v a 00.000005 00.00
I. 0 0M. 0 u.
w m .0 m m 0 m u m m
a a
000.000.0005 30¢ 000.000.0005 00.0.00
20.5.0000 00300000 zoi<0000 "00:00.00
2...... 2.5... 2.0.0. 2.00.0 2.0.00 20...: 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.3.0 2.0.00 .28 0.. 58. 0.8.2
2.2: 2.0.0. 2.0.0. 2.0.00 2.0.0.. 2.8.0. 2.0.00 2...: 2.5.00 2.0.00 2.0.8 2.0.00 88.0.05 .28 0.8..
2.5... 2.0.0 2.0.... 2.0.00 2.30 2.50.0. 2.0.00 2.200 2.000 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.0.00 2.8 88.... .5050 53.
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7. .M .0 .0 .0 .0 z
m m m m m .0 m m m m m m
m . _ l... .L r w m _ 0 5. r 6 .0... v 0 50.8.0.0 .26
.1. .6 .V .6 m .l. .0 .0 .0
w .6 mm M w m .6 6 6 6
M m 6 6 6 3 m 6 6 6

 

 

 

823......5 .50
0.00.2. u00.300000

 

000.000.000.0— 0E0.00
0.5.007: .mm<...mm0¢0

 

 

 

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eccem :08 5.3 $...: :3 $3 $0; Xmmm 5.8 :SN $5.2 $58 :28 b: 38. 2:22
:3. $8 sons :2: :3. so; 9&3 :53 go: 30.8 «a? gown 38.2 as :28 $62
$9: {aim 3&8 can: AVsq: «a.» 3.3 9.3.3 :23 33m :62 5.3 2:8 88:: .058 80x
9 C. V 5 Z n1 9 C. .7 E Z n1
S S g S S 9 S S g S 9 Ad
m m m m. m «w .d: m m. m. m x
m W W. W W m. m w W. W W. W :5. v a .528ng 5:5
a q
2.2.2.235 55.30 222.555 5.530
mg "8:395 mu< ”8539.0
:2 $3 :62 $3 5.? £an «a. _ m 5.2 «comm £12 :28 b: 33. €82
:3 e... .m :58 :3 $58 $3M 3N2 £02 3&2 {3.2 3.8.2 Ea :28 $82
$3 :2 33a :3 §+m .ii $0.2 «3.3 $02 $92 2:8 0822 sea 33.
.d .d
m m m. m m m m m m. m m m
n m w w. w m m m w w w. m
m w a W w w a W .8. v a 5:333 5.5
m m

 

 

322::me 33—

Elm 5:01: Em "mm—<hmey—U

 

222.555 5.530

thE>OJm2m "mm—<PmmOmD

 

 

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26%. 2.2. 3 $3 2.3 2.3 on
25.8 :93 $2 256 cm 2 3
2&2 22$ 2.2 :2 mm 2 a
2.2.; 2a.? 2.: 2.2 8 22
25.2 22.3 2.3 2.2 2 2 :
2&8 2.2.2 2.0.3 2.2.3 2 2 o
2&8 2.0.2 2%.: 269 m 2 o
222 22:: 222 22$ :5. v a ...=25_=.8¢= 8.3... EE ow<
m=o==£bma .53— m:o_::=.:m_: 55.30

5:25 "mmfiwmomo mmnzmo "mmfimmozu

2; .N 25.; 2.2.0 2.3 SE 3
2%.: 2.2» $2 2.2 cm 2 8
2.3 2.33 2.2a 2.2 mm 2 a
:2 :23 2.2 2.3 8 2 2
2.3 25.8 2.3 2.2.2 2 2 :
2.3 2.20 222m 23.? o. 2 c
2&2 2&8 $.% 22.3 m 2 o
mo> Eo>m cZ Eo>m mo> Eo>m oZ Eo>m :5. v a 15:53.53... :23..— .wLE ou<

 

 

2232222 to:

ZO_E<A:U_P¢<A FZH>H UZ-Ima "mm—«firmwa—U

 

2223235 55.50

ZO—h<m—U_,—.~_<m th>m UZ—Im—h ”mm<.—.mm0~m0

 

 

2:08:38“ acorn—32388 @92 853.2% mmmm m2 m X_QZmnE<

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2: 2.22 2.2% 2.22 2&m 2.2. 2.2. 2.2. 2.2 2;; swam
2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.3 2.2a 2.2a 2.2g 22.. 8 SN
2.; 2&2 2&3 2.2% 2.2: 2.2 2.2. 223 2.3 2.2mm 2%:
2.22 2&2 2&3. 2.22 2.3 2&_ 2.2. 2.2_ 2.3 2.2m 8&2
2.2: 2.22 2.28 2.2: 2.3 2.22. 2.2m 2.3 2.22. 2.3. 2 w:
2&2 2.22 2.22. 2.22 2.3 2.23. 2.2? 2.22 2.2:. 2.23. 2 S
2.2. 2.28 2.2:. 2.22 2.3. 2.22. 2.22. 2.2“ 2.2% 2%? «2°
9 a 2m. mm m2 n 9 2. m2 m. m mmn
w m m. .2"... a? w m. mm 2.... 02.
n P l. 9 a S l. 1 n P I a S .1 mm.
m m. m w m m. m m. m. m. m m :5. v 2 ...§E=E$¢.. 8.2... .22 22
m m m on m m m a H w m m
2 a 2.. in. 2 Am 2.. m2.
2 m u m 2 w q 1
2.2.32.2: >5: macs—.5529 55.30
20:52.2 "22585 E25625 23.5225
2.; 2.2 2.22 2.28 2.22 2.22 22: 2.2. 2.: 2.3 2.2. 2.2m 2.38
2.28 2.3 2.3 2.28 2.32 2.28 2.: 2.2a 2.2a 2.2a 2.2 2.2. on 2 cm
2.5. 2.5. 2.22 2.22 2.23“ 2.28 2.3 2.2a 2&_ 2.2a 2.2 2.2. 22;
2.2m 2.2m 2a.: 2&2 2.2:. 2.22 2.2. 2.3 2&_ 2.2. 2.2. 2.3 322
2.3. 2.22 2.3.. 2.2.8 2.2% 2.22 2.2m 2.3. 2.2 2.3. 2&2 2.22 22:
2.3 2.22 2.22 2.2% 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22. 2.22. 2&2. 2.23. 2.23. 20;
2.3 2.22 2.22 2.222 2.22 2.3.. 2.2% 2.2% 2.2.2. 2.2:. 2.23 2.22. 2.5
$ $ $ $ S $ $
m. m m. m m ..u m. m m. m .2 m.
.0 w w w W w. w W m m m w.
m m 0 0 o w m m w .0 n.. w :5. v 2 ...52._28~_..
m .I w w. my. 6 m H mm w. m 6 22.2... :2... «3.
s . ‘ 6
m m m w m w. .w m m w
a w e um
283.5235 33— 2235me 55.30
2:50:— ummfimmomu 25502. "2.25820

 

 

 

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.22. 2.23 2.22. 2.2..N 8...... .86

2.2 .2 2.2.6 2.2:. 2&2. 8...... 2......

2.22. 2.2.... 2.28 2.2% 28>...

mo> “mom OZ “mom mo> «mom OZ «mom :5. V NUOEOLOHOLA— 03%

“532.329 .53. 2533235 55.30

2:25.55 .56.. "2253.5 25555 .55.. "22.5320

2.22. 2.22 2.22. 2.2: 2.2.2 2.2.N 2.2.2 2.2..N 8...... .86

22$ 2.2% 2.22 2.22. 2.22. 2.2.... 2&2. 2.2 _ m 8.3 2......

2.2% 2.2mm 2&2. 2&5. 2.2 . m 2.. .3 2.2.2 2&3. 28>...

5.30 2.0 2.5:... 52.28 5.30 0.5 oZ 2.5:... 53.20. :5. v 2 35.5.9... gm

02 . . 2.5.... . . 2.5... .

m:o3........m.n. 33. 2:32:32: 5.5.00

2595 .268 "22.585 259.0 .258 "2252.20
2&2 2.22. 2.22. 2.22 2.22 2&8 2 2&8 2.22 2.2... 2.. .2 2.2.. 2.2. 2. 8...... .86
2.22. 2.. .2. 2.22. 2.23 2.2% 2.2% 2 2.22m 2&2 2.22 2.22 2.2... 2.2. 2. 8...... 23....
2.2 S 2.22. 2.23 2.22.. 2.22. 2.28. 2 2.22.. 2&2 2.22 2.22 2.2.: 2.2.. 2 28>...

m. m. m ...., w w. u m m. m m. w w M. m m...
. m m m a. u. m w . m m m u u. w w
m M m... w. w. s m M... m. w. m. s :5. .v .2 35.5.9... 85
a w m a m a w m w .s.
w 9

3:32:32: 33. 2833.32.— .5530
55:05... 0252... "2258.6 >02m30m¢u 22:5: "2.55235

 

 

 

855.5... 86 .22....38380 @OS. 532.2% mmmm 3. m. X.QZm.n...<

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

abwsm o\ov.\.m $0.0m o\oN.ov $1.3“ .XVOMN o\eo.NN foaém .XRMN o\ov.hN mew—mu— $0.—O
$5.3. o\ow.o> $.93. £33K o\om.h> o\o©.hv o\om.mv .dem godv $0.0v mew—wa— cam—E
o\aw.hv o\ow.mm filém o\om.Om fawév HXLdN $5.9” .Xhém $.th $0.0m $53M
4. d
m m w m m m m m w m m m.
a a 1 . I d 9 a J _ I .m.
J w W n. m m. 1 w W u. w o
d w 9 .A d w a A
q a W W a W :5. v a 3:93.35 85
a M
p P
22.2225 33. 22.3%:— 2.35
PZHE>OJLEH ”mm—<PmmOKU PZHE>OJEEH ”mm—(.hmmOm—U
{KEV $5..—av fend—u fivoév a\ow.ov 9°th $5.0m o\om.nN o\eo.om o\oo.wm fobém o\ov.w_ mow—mu. EEO
$.0di o\ov.o> o\ov.wh $005 $6.55 9°03. o\o>.mv o\°m.\.v o\om.ov $5de o\oN.§u o\oN.av 3me cam—:—
..\..o. 3“ o\o\..ov $0.0—q 9°de o\ow.©v a\o_ .Nm $0.0m $N.m~ o\om.vm .Xiém .xvmfim $.va fluid
$ $ $ $ m S $ $ $ $ $ $
H m u M. c. .0 n m u M R .0
‘0 v .0 .0 ‘0 Z ‘0 ‘0 U ‘0 ‘0 Z
0 O 0 0 0 ‘7 0 0 0 0 0 my
m _ (.0 .I. V 6 o . ,_o .L V 6 :5. v a 3:289:— “Em
.I. 6 .7 6 J I. 6 .7 6
w M .6 ‘6 .6 w M ‘6 ‘6 ‘6
m .6 m w w m ‘6 % w w
6 6
6 6
€235.55 33— 2325235 5.5.90
m—ZOUZ— "mm—(meOm—U @2007: "mm<.—.mm0~—U

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$.63 $....om $N... $3. $2 $3. a. $.... $3. $3. $3. $... $.... 2 362.333....
$...... $08 $...: $.... $2. $.... 2. $.... $...... $3. $...: $m... $3. 2 8.3 €253.22
$.38 $m...~ $.... $.... $...: $... 2 $.... $3 $....“ $N... $3 $2. 2 33.85.33...
$8.2 $3. $3. $5. $98 $3... a: $3 $3. $3 $.... $.... $2... 9. e25.
. . . 8 3
$8.8 $~..~ $...NN $3. $...... $.... 2 $.... $.... $3. $c .. $. .. $2 2 .35....8.3 ENE.
$.02 $..m. $...: $3. $n- $.... 2 $5.: $§m $3M $2M $2.. $98 2 8.3 2......
$2.... $...... $0... $3. $...NN $2. 2. $3 $2. $... $3. $3. $.....N 2 3.3.8.0

1 o o u. 1. 1 1 m m u. n.

m m. w a. u m w m m w s s w .w.

6 u. n... u. s 6 u. n... U. s
m. w. w m m m w. m m m. .8. v a 8552.. 8%
25:323.: 33— mgzsébma 5.530
52.505: 02:5... "8:895 57.303... 02:5... "mmfimmomu
$...... $3... $3.. $3.” $...mm $..R $93 $..R $..mm $...: 8.3.36
$...? $...? $...: $0: $.... $3.. $3.. $...: $...... $...... 8.3 2......
$3.. $...... $3... $3.. $3... $.48 $3N $...cm $08 $.... 20>...

S D. S S D. S

m m mm .. m. m m m m mm. .. m m. m.

P u. o 9 MW u. o H m. w. 0 a m o s
m m o m m G w m m o 1 W G w SQVQooaohououm 02m
0 m. m. w W q...” H a m w w m .m. H .

9 l. 9 l. 9 I. 9 I.

co 1. an an a 1. co

.. .. a .. q m w a .. u.

9 9

2835.35 >5: m=o==£535 55.30
29:62:.— .mmfimmomu 22362:... $92395

 

 

 

 

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$n? $3N $2: $3: 362.533 .2
$30 $...: $3: $3: 8.3 23.... a. 225.
$nmm $2; $. .m $3 8.3 .85 a. 23.x
$23 $56 $3 $3: 22;.
$30 $3M $... . $3. 8.3
320 a. may—ma— 0:3:—
$Ze $Em $3». $92 8.3 .25....
$...% $....» $2. $..m. 8%.. .85
mo> 30m 02 30m mo> “mom oZ “mom :5. v Q 3.5.3.3...— ozm
mgzzahma 33. 32.3235 5:260
3:53.53 .55: ”£2,535 $53.53 .55: "mm—589.0
$93 $...m $2.“ $..3 $2~ $..~_ $§~ $3. 862.333 ..<
$3N $2. $5.8 $23 $nom $3.. $3. $~.m. 8.3 25.... a. 225.
$2.. $...... $0.3 $23 $3 $3 $3 $3 8.3 .85 a. 23:.
$8.~ $3. $2M $08 $3. $3. $...” $5. 23;.
$3.. $3 $...om $26 $. .2 $3 $2: $3 . 3.3 .85 a. 93.3 23....
$3.. $3 $3M. $..8 $02 $2». $...: $...? 8.3 25....
$9. $3 $§m $§m $. .2 $2. $2. $...: 8.3 sec
0 N a a 0 N d d
w m w. m m M w. m
.. w w. m .. w m w.
W W :5. v & 3.3.5.8.:— 35
m w
m m

 

22.2.55 33.

whacmO 1—<_UOm "mm<meO~—U

 

23.3265 $...—EU

mam—O10 JEUOm "mm<hmmO~—U

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fewé {and food— o\o_.@ $65.3 £692 £65.: o\om.c_ €6de $0.2 6603.633 :<
£36 639.5 $0.—N £65.“. famdm o\oo.mm o\ow.NN $92 91.: $0.2 mow—m4 van—E d. 95>;—
o\om.~ c\ov.c o\om.mm food o\o_ .em fob.— o\om.v o\ow.m o\om.m $0M mow—m..— EEO 6% 95>;—
o\o_ .v .XQH o\o~. _ m o\ow.w £6de {and $0.2 £3.” o\oo.o $0.0 953M
8 a
$..m $2 $02 $..m $6.8 $3 $5 $2. $2 $...: .86 a. 86.3 2”...“
food 39¢ .XNNM o\o_.\. $0.—m o\oc.mm o\o_.om o\cm._v o\ow.mm o\¢v._m 3an cam—=—
Qomd o\ow.m o\co.wm o\om.m .XLdm o\oo.m_ fem.” o\ow.m_ ..\.F.w o\om.m_ mov—ax— 30.5
rd .d
m m w... m m m. m m m w... m m
m m. m... w m. .m. n. m. m... w m. d:
.w P w. a ,m .w P w. a .m :5..v & 8:289..— 85
m 9 m m a W
..A rA
9 9
p 0-
2.325235 33— 2335.35 55.30
PZME>OJLEH ”mm—«meOu—U PZm—STrOJA—Em "mm—<PmmOmD
o\o_ .m fond— o\oN.w_ fomfim o\om.hm $6.2 Ramm— o\oc.m_ £5.0— $_.a_ €3.0— o\om.m_ 3:59.855 =<
o\ov.v o\oo.o_ few.— _ o\ov._m £36m $0.—N o\om._ _ £36.: o\oo.m_ o\om.3 o\o©.w_ o\om.mm mow—mu— “EEE 6% €95—
¢\ow.N_ c\om.m_ o\ow.m_ o\oh.mm o\om.©m o\cN.N_ o\.._ .5 ..\&.m .X.N.m REM. o\ov.m fond moxmq $0.—O 6% $83M
foo.” fa}: £65.0— o\ow.om fowfim a\om.NN °\cm.o gwé o\om.m o\ov.e AXES o\ow.o_ 30>?—
o\o_ .w 636.2 630.0— o\oN.mN o\a_.©m o\cm.h o\ev.m_ few.— _ o\oc.m_ o\om.o_ c\cv.o o\oc.v mow—m1— 820 6% mow—m...— “Em—E
o\om.o ob».— _ fond— o\o©.mm c\om.hm o\ow.c_ o\ow._m o\om.vm $.on o\om.Nm o\oo.mm o\am.om mow—w...— 9:2:—
o\o_ .w food: o\oo.m_ o\cm.wm c\ow.mm o\om.@ o\ow.v_ o\oo.m_ o\oo.m_ .xkxm— ..\o_.: 3:. mow—Q.— 820
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s S $ S
w W. .6. .0. .6 m m m u m a w
w w m m m m w w m m m .6.
M .0 ,.o r .r w M .0 ,.o .L r % :x...v a 8.352.. 35
J .I. 6 .LV ,6 l. ..l .6 .V 6
w w .6 .6 .6 w. v .6 .6 .6
o . 6 6 6 o .6 6 6 %
6 6

 

 

22:5.me 23.
”.5502. "mm—«meozu

 

322.5me 55.30
@2605 "mm—<hmmOmU

 

 

123

 

 

o\om.__ o\oN.oN o\om. ; o\om._m o\ov.m ..\.L 6— o\o_.: o\o_.w_ o\o©.m_ c\om.o_ 3:59.355 =<
o\c_.a c\om.m_ $06M foodm o\oh.© o\ov.N_ o\o©.N_ o\co.: $6.: o\oo.ON mow—n1— vaE u% $53.”—
$1— _ €6de o\oo.om o\co.mm c\ch.v o\ov.m o\oh.m Xian o\ov.m .X._ .m mow—mu— :woumv a. $83.”—
o\oh.: €6th o\oN.nN o\oo.wN {and o\om. : o\o_ .w .X.m.m o\oN.w o\o~.o 95>;—
o\ow.m_ c\o—.mm £6de °\ov._N o\om.m .Xva: o\o_.N_ o\ow.o_ o\ov.w o\oN.© moxmx— $0.—O 6% moxma— cam—E
o\ov._ _ $02 .XL .mm 6}th o\o©.m c\om.mm $».mm o\oc.Nm .XFSM o\ov..nm moxau— 9.8.:—
§m.m_ o\o_ .om $0.0m o\oN.MN o\om.v XEN— o\o©.N_ o\oo.m_ food— o\o©.o 3an amp—O

m. m m. m. w m m n 6 m m m. .m m. m... n

m m m. m m .6 m m m. m. m. w .6 m w

m m. d O 8 a B m m d 0 8 a

a J. o J u. a u a J. m J u. a m .ccVnoucohououm 85

s B D o an s 1 D 0 co .
.m m m m. m. m m m m m. w. m.
w m w. w m m an. q

 

 

22.2.55 >6:
22:025. "mm—(.585

 

3335.35 55.30
ZO_P<UDn—m "mm—<hmmOw—U

 

 

124

 

 

 

 

$08 $.... $2. $.22 $...... $..nm 2.... am
$28 $... . $...... $6.: $2.. $. .2 .22. a. o. o.

$. .8 $6... $2.. $..0. $3. $0.... 3:... o o. 0
$..mm $. .2 $...: $...: $0.... $3. 8:... m .6 .V
$0.0m $.... $...... $.... $0.2 $...: 8:... m .o N
$08 $6... $3.. $.... $.... $...... 2.... .
$22 $..m $...... $... $.... $6.. 6.... c

t o. 0 5.220 m w 5.220 622.0 2 o. 0 8.220 m w 5.220 62am 2.... v a .6532... 02......
05:52.05 .33— 5025235 5.5.00

5553.5 30:00.5: "0.2.0096 22:00:25 03:00.5: "0.2.5002“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$.0m $6..: $0....” $5..... $6.3” $.03 $.... _ m $....om 2.... cm
$3.. $.00 $.03. $.08 $.03 $.35. $.00. $.50. 00...: o. o. 2
$5.. $2 .0 $.a.vm $2.00 $.03 $6..: $3.2 $5.2 3.5. a o. c
$.0— $.o.o $.03 $.28 $.03 $.52 $.31 $50. 005.. m .o v
$..0.— $.0v $.03 $.m.$ $.03 $6.0 $.w.m _ $6..: 0.0:... m .o N
$...... $60.. $.0mm $.26 $......“ $...6 $2.0 $6... 0:... _
$....— $._ .2 $.03 $.03 $.0m $.N5 $.0m $.00. v.02... c
.050 0.... 02 £2.02... $2.20. .050 0.... oZ 050...“. 83.0.0. :5. v a 22.0.30...— $...—m...—
. \ 5...... . \ 3......
0.525235 33— m:0....5....m5 5.5.00
950:0 Asucm "mm—«meOm—U mmDOEv ASUOm "mm—«meOu—U

 

 

22.83... 2.2.... 0.2.22.2..88 @3. 6.2.20 mmmm 2. m 252......2

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3... $. .m $...... $... 8... om
$. .3 $...: $3. $3 8:... a. o. o.
$3.. $..0. $5.. $3. 8:... o o. 0
$3: $0.: $3.. $...: 85.. m .o ..
$28 $...... $02 $...... 85.. m .o N
$3.. $...Nm $.... $0.8 8:... .
$. 3.. $.... . $3 $..0 8:... ..
m0> 2.0.0.31 02 50.53. 00> 50.0.82 02 50.0.03. :5. v R 5:05.00... 3.2.0...—
w=c_u=n=.=m_n— 3°“ meet—1:53;. =E=_OU

8:828: 80539.0 8:828: 0.2.509...

$2. $3.. $3... $....” 8... on
$...... $...: $3. $3. 8:... o. o. 0.
$3 $...; $3 $...: 85.. a o. 0
$3 $3: $. .: $3. 8:... m .o ..
$. .. $3: $3 $...: 8:... m .o N
$:.. $. 3: $...». $3 8:... .
a: a... m: a: woe: o
00> E0>m oz .=0>m. 00> 2.0.6 02 20>”. :5. v a 3:53.... 5......“—

 

 

.:....:......E E...

52.2.8.5. .53.. 02...... .00....5095

 

2.0.5....505 5.5.00

5.0.2.832... .55. 02...... 00:39.”.

 

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$93 $...: £38 $12 2.3 cm
€903 o\om.o~ $92 {and _ 8:5 3 3 o—
o\om.c\. o\on.mm $6.3 $92 8:5 a 3 o
fawn o\oN.bN o\ow.m _ {ama— 88: m ho v
£64K o\ov.eN $53 $0.w_ 88: m S N
£93. £9de fans fond 2:: _
{OWE 9&de {and .xéd 8:5 o
222 29:0“. 222 29:0". :5. v a 3:33.:— 9:5,.“—
m=c==£bm5 33— 2522:me 55.80
Lou—.06 "mm—«meOy—U 52:39 "mm<hmmO¢U
e... 2 0%.; 5.2 $3. man on
$6.2. o\°c.om $92 $66 _ 8:5 2 8 o.
$99. $0.?” $93 £3: 8E: a 8 w
$0.3 £0th Roma. $0.: 35: n 8 v
91.9» foodm £05.: £5; 3:5 m 8 m
as”: °\om.me food o\om.m_ 2:: _
$0.3 9%.? fiod food 8:5 o
mo> “com 02 “com mo> 8cm oz :25 :5. v a 55:52,..— Mafia?—

 

 

EazéEmE >6:

35.2.20 :25 ӣ2585

 

253.5.me 55.30
25355 .8: "mm—Emmomu

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o\o©.w o\om.m_ o\o_ .wm o\om. _ m $0.0 .xQd- o\oN. _ N o\om.hN o\o_ .Nm c\o©. _ M ms:— cm
o\oN.N_ o\o_ .2 £9de o\om.vm c\o¢.v c\om.: £3.0— o\ow.: $6.2 $0.3 3:5 2 9 o—
o\ow.o_ o\oa.om o\c~.wm o\c_ .nN o\oo.m o\oN.m_ o\o©.m_ e\cw.v_ o\ow.m_ o\o_.m_ mos—z o 3 e
o\oh.m_ fox.”— o\o_ .om o\om.MN o\oo.© o\oo.©_ o\om.3 $0.2 o\cm.m_ a\oo.©_ 38: m .8 v
o\ow.m_ c\ow.NN o\o_.mm o\oo.vw o\ov.v flow.”— o\o©.w_ $5.3 c\om.v_ c\ov.m_ 35: m .5 N
$0.: o\om.mm o\ov._m o\oo._N o\oh.v o\oN.N_ $5.2 o\oo.© $0.0 £66 2:: _
o\oN._ _ o\ov.m_ o\ao.Nm o\o_.mm c\om.w o\om.m o\oh.N god o\om.v c\.._ .m 3:5 o
S P S S u. S
m m m w aw m. m m m m m w a m. m m
m p N. 9 9 S m. m. m p N.“ 9 S W. m...
m. m. m m m. m m m m. w w W m m :5. v % 35.3.3...— 85
am“ m m m 1 mm a.“ m m m I w a
J J Q0 Us
a m cm a m u.
28:2..me .33— 2:33:35 55.80
ZO—Paflvia—m "mm—<PmmOflU ZO—hkUDA—m— "mm<PmmO~—U
o\am.m food o\o_.mm .xvmfi o\om.mm .vadm $93” .XEéN o\oh.©N o\om.©m min om
o\om.v o\oh.m o\om.\.m $0.0 $5.5m Rimm— o\c©._ _ £50— o\oo.©_ 9%.: 3:5 2 3 o—
o\ov.v ..\a_ .c o\ov.mm o\om.\. o\oo.>m o\o_.m_ $.00— o\ov.m_ o\om.v_ $5.3 mos—3 o 9 e
9.6% o\o©.m $0.5m e\em.w o\om.mm o\om.m_ o\cw.m_ o\om.m_ o\o_.: o\c.m.v_ 3&3 w .5 v
o\c_ .v o\ow.m $0.5m o\oN.h o\om.hm o\o©.m_ o\oN._ _ o\oo.m_ o\o\...m_ c\o_.c_ 3:5 m .5 N
{and o\om.v {cosh e\om.m $5.5m {end {and o\a_.m o\oN6 fem.» 05: _
o\o©.v o\c_.m o\cm.3V o\oo.w e\o—.wm o\ov.m o\om.m o\cw.m o\oo.m c\ov.m 3:5 o
O n ua d 3 n “a d 3
m. M w m m w. m .w
J u. I 1 n... l
w. m w m w
m a P ,m a P :5. v a 8:953...— 85
m m m m
9 ad

 

 

2325225 38.

PZME>OJLZH "mats—.mmOy—U

 

2232265 55:90

PZME>OJA=ZM "mm—<hmmOy—U

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:9 cm
. .@N 05: 2 3 o—
. e\N NM {co m .
.. EN :3.“ $9.2 no: $3: 8% ¢ 2 e
0 Nu.“ $W.—N \¢ . O\©.©— °\°ON.— O . — O\°W.M— moemumhov
. 9%.: \a. o . _ :3. a. a ma :1 . _ am
.N :53 $2. 92 $3 x: m 3.: 3o 1 \.. 2 $52 $1; 32.; Z
. . . o\o . .m_ o . £6. 6— 0::
o\cw V— o\o© o M1VN o\ov 0— . o\w b o\cO . — o\o© W— o N.M_ o\om
. .mm \o . _ gm 2 a o .2 can m . 3%.. \c .5 BE: o
0% 2 0% .. mam «am e . is \..o . x.» b . .. M: :m
. .o. \c . all: a . . £3 a . o m _ \a
son 2 :3. $5.8 $3.2 of: exam 0 gm.» °\ 2‘ exam m \a z M 2m «gm
. .oN a . $9 9 g S 1 o m
$0 M: .5 o .2 9% e 1 c. 1 m. o c. w
. . N \ow Z 0 V V
.x: :V famv W. R m. m M W W. v R 25:35 55.30
9 C. 1 m 1U... S m5: . .
.l 9 .7 Z
m V C.
22.3225 EM mag om
. _ c\o_.mN o\oN.©N cone o\oo.v_ 38: o 8 o
. AXVVNN o\o© o o v.m— {906— \o . o\om.m_ mos: w .5 v
. o\om_m o 03 \o . _ oi; . 9mm. 38.;
o\cm.m o o 0.2 o\oN.v . $0.: a o 5.2 c\om . _ o\ow.N_ o r o
. .N. \o . N o\cm 0N . o\o.m_ \o o .2 fans . $2. 85.
. fan... \a . o méN o\°© m . _ o\om.ON a . {NS {co .m .XR v
”WM.” XEN— ..\..o c” A“CNN o\ov.NN “Wow—mm— o\oN.o_ o\°m ._N_ QMBN o\ov.m X” M
o . axe: . a 9mm 9 . :3 S K .
. 9% 2 . a .vm \o S 1 ‘9 .0 0 .6 . . moo—.29.—
:3 3: 3o : % s m m m m m o w .2. v
.N. O s z . ‘0 c . _
gm m m m. m w m m m w. m
.s. m w m m w m ,_- m w m
M W m . V 6 m w ,w 6 22.2.55 5.330
m .0 % W. m m w a. . _ “gimme—U
..0.. W ‘6 % NW 6 HECUZ
w .M "W 6
m % acct—.355 Bow
. mom

 

 

 

129

REFERENCE

Aas, 0., R. Arlinghaus. 2009. New Markets for Recreational Fishing. Wildlife and
Society, The Science of Human Dimensions. Copyright © 2009 Island Press.

Anderson, D. K., R. B. Ditton, K. M. Hunt. 2007. Measuring Angler Attitudes Toward
Catch-Related Aspects of Fishing 12:181-191.

Arlinghaus, R. 2006. Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational
fishery resources, with emphasis on central Europe. Environmental Conservation.
33(1):46-59.

Bence, J. 2005. Feasibility of using mail and/or telephone survey to provide estimates of
effort, targeted effort, harvest and targeted harvest by month and Statistical Reporting
District for selected species from Michigan’s waters of the Great Lakes. Technical
Report. Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI.

Bennett, D. H., Ed L. Hampton and Robert T. Lackey. 1978. Current and Future
Fisheries Management Goals: Implications for Future Management. Fisheries. 3(1 )210-
14.

Biemer P. P. and L. E. Lyberg. 2003. Introduction to Survey Quality. Wiley Series in
Survey Methodology.

Bray, G.S., J. T. Forbes, H. L. Schram Jr., and D. A. Gill. 1996. Characteristics of

respondents and nonrespondents to mail and telephone angler surveys. Proceedings of
the 50‘h Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
0:156-162.

Brown, T. L. 1987. Typology of Human Dimensions Information Needed for Great
Lakes Sport-Fisheries Management. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society
116:320-324.

Brown, T. L. 1991. Use and abuse of mail surveys in fisheries management. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 12:255-261.

Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout
anglers. Journal of Leisure Research 92174-187.

Chase, D., and M. Harada. 1984. Research note: The Accuracy of self-reported
participation rates. Leisure Studies 2:231-5.

Chipman, B. D., and L. A. Helfrich. 1988. Recreational specializations and motivations
of Virginia river anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:390-398.

130

Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth and T. L. Brown. 2001. An angler typology based on
angler fishing preferences. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1302130-137.

Connelly, N. A. and B. A. Knuth. 1993. Great lakes fish consumption health advisories:
angler response to advisories and evaluation of communication techniques. Cornell
University, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Publication 93-2, Ithaca, New York.

Connely, N.A., T. L. Brown, and BA. Knuth. 1997. New York statewide angler survey,
report 1: Angler effort and expenditures. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Division of Fish and Wildlife. Albany, New York.

Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth and T. L. Brown. 2001. An angler typology based on
angler fishing preferences. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:130—137.

Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys, The Tailored Design Method.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dillman, Don A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys, The Tailored Design Method.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ditton, R. B. 2004. Human dimensions of fisheries. In: Society and Natural Resources:
a Summary of Knowledge Prepared for the 10th International Symposium on Society and
Resource Management, ed. M.J. Manfredo, J .J . Vaske, B.L. Bruyere, D.R. Field & R].
Brown, pp. 199-208. Jefferson, USA: Modern Litho.

Finn K. L., D. K. Loomis. 2001. The importance of Catch Motives to Recreational
Anglers: The Effects of Catch Satiation and Deprivation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife

6:173-187

Fedler, A. J ., R.B. Ditton. 1994. Understanding Angler Motivations in Fisheries
Management. Fisheries 19(4) 6-13

Fisher, W., A. Grambsch, D. Eisenhower, and D. Morgansein. 1991. Length of Recall
Period and Accuracy of Estimates from the National Survey of Fishing Hunting and
Wildlife Associated Recreation in Creel and Angler Survey Methods in Fisheries
Management (Guthrie et al, eds.) symposium 12, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
MD.

Fisher, Mark R. 1997. Segmentation of the Angler Population by Catch Preference,
Participation, and Experience: A Management-Oriented Application of Recreation

Specialization. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17(1) 1:10

Fowler, F. J., T. W. Mangione. Standardized survey interviewing; minimizing
interviewer-related error. Copyright © 1990 by Sage Publications, Inc.

131

Fox, H. E., C. Christian, J. C. Nordby, O. R. W. Pergams, G. D. Peterson, and C. R.
Pyke. 2006. Perceived Barriers to Integrating Social Science and Conservation.
20(6): 1 817-1 820.

Gabelhouse, D. W. 2005. Staffing, Spending, and Funding of State Inland Fisheries
Programs. Fisheries. 30(2):10-17.

Gems, B., D. Ghosh, and R. Hitlin. 1982. A recall experiment: Impact of time on recall
of recreational fishing trips. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods.
American Statistical Association. 1982:372-375. Washington, DC

Hunt, L., W. Haider, K. Armstrong. 2002. Understanding the Fish Harvesting Decisions
by Anglers. Hmnan Dimensions of Wildlife 7:75-89.

Hunt, K. M. and R. B. Ditton. 2002. Freshwater fishing participation patterns of racial
and ethnic groups in Texas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 52-65

Hutt, C. P., P. W. Bettoli. 2007. Preferences, Specialization, and Management Attitudes
of Trout Anglers Fishing in Tennessee Tailwaters. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 27: 1257-1267.

J amsen, G. 1967. Sex and Age Structure of Licensed Hunters, Trappers and Fishermen
in Michigan. Michigan Department of Conservation, Research and Development Report
No. 125.

Jamsen, G. 1985. Michigan’s 1981 and 1982 Sport Fishery, Technical Reports 85-4 and
85-5, Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI.

Kelso, W. E., and B. R. Murphy. 1988. University fishery programs in the United State:
structure and needs. Fisheries 13(2):9-15

Kikuchi, H. 1986. Segmenting Michigan’s Sport Fishing Market: Evaluation of Two
Approaches. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Parks and Recreation
Resources, Michigan State University. East Lansing.

Kyle, G. W. Norman, L. Jodice, A. Graefe, A. Marsinko. 2007. Segmenting Anglers
Using Their Consumptive Orientation Profiles. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12:115-
132.

Lupi, F. 2004. A profile of recreational anglers in Michigan. Staff Paper No. 04-17,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.

Lupi, F., D. Hayes, Z. Su. 2005. F-81-R-4, Study 230548-4. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. A statewide survey of Michigan’s licensed anglers.

132

 

Mahoney, E., D. Jester, and G. Jamsen. 1991. “Recreational Fishing in Michigan,” in:
Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile, (D. Spotts, ed.), Travel, Tourism,
and Recreational Resource Center. Michigan State University, 307-343.

Malvestuto, S. P. 1996. Sampling the recreational creel. Pages 591-624 in ER. Murphy
and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.

Mather, M. E., D. L. Parrish, R. A. Stein, and R. M. Muth. 1995. Management Issues
and Their Relative Priority within State Fisheries Agencies. Fisheries. 20(10): 14- 21

McClanahan, D. R., M. J. Hansen. 2003. A Statewide Mail Survey to Estimate 2000-
2001 Angler Catch, Harvest, and Effort in Wisconsin. Unpublished Masters Thesis,
College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. Stevens Point,
Wisconsin.

Mortenson, K. G. and R. S. Krannich. 2001 Wildlife Managers and Public Involvement:
Letting the Crazy Aunt Out. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6:4, 277-290.

O’Bara, C. J. 1991. Long-term analysis of creel surveys: Problems concerning the
interpretation and use of results. American Fisheries Society Symposium 12:281-284.

Pollock, K. H., C. M. Jones, T. L. Brown. 1994. Angler Survey Methods and their
Applications in Fisheries Management, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication
25.

Ross, M. R. and David Loomis. 1999. State Management of Freshwater Fisheries

Resources: Its Organizational Structure, Funding, and Programmatic Emphases.
Fisheries. 24(7):8-14.

Simoes, J ., C. Gillen, and F. Lupi, "Angler Surveys by Fishery Management Agencies in
the United States: An Annotated Bibliography," online report available at
www.msu.edu/~lupi/anglers.html, 2008.

Sutton, S. 2003. Personal and Situational Determinants of Catch-and-Release Choice of
Freshwater Anglers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:109-126.

US. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and US. Department of
Commerce, US. Census Bureau. 2006. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

Voiland, M. P., and M. W. Duttweiler. 1984 Where’s the humanity? A challenge and
opportunity for the fisheries community. Fisheries 9(4):]0-12.

133

 

Westat. 1989. Investigation of possible recall/reference period bias in National Surveys
of Fisheries, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Final Report to US. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

Wilde, G. R., R. B. Ditton, S. R. Grimes, and R. K. Riechers. 1996. Status of Human

Dimensions Surveys Sponsored by State and Provincial Fisheries Management Agencies
in North America. Fisheries. 21(11):]2-17

134