INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright m aterial had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic p rin t for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original m anuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. H igher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University M icrofilms International A Bell & Howell Information C o m p a n y 3 0 0 North Z e e b R oad, Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 U SA 3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0 Order N um ber 9011991 No-kill Ashing regulations: A n assessment of the social and recreational characteristics and behaviors of Michigan stream trout anglers w ith special consideration of anglers on selected sections of the A u Sable River G igliotti, Larry Mark, Ph.D . Michigan S tate University, 1989 UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 NO-KILL FISHING REGULATIONS: A N ASSESSMENT O F T H E SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS O F M ICHIGAN STREAM TR O U T ANGLERS W ITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION O F ANGLERS ON SELECTED SECTIONS O F T H E A U SABLE RIVER by LARRY M ARK GIG LIO TTI A DISSERTATION Submitted to MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR O F PH ILO SO PHY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife July 1989 ABSTRACT NO-KILL FISHING REGULATIONS: AN ASSESSMENT O F T H E SOCIAL AND RECREA TIO N A L CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS O F M ICHIGAN STREAM T R O U T ANGLERS W ITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF ANGLERS ON SELECTED SECTIONS O F TH E A U SABLE RIVER By Larry M ark Gigliotti Early in 1985, interest and controversy arose over the idea of establishing no-kill regulations on the Au Sable River M ainstream (the "Holy Waters"). In response to a large amount of support for no-kill, the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) established catch-and-release regulations for the "Holy Waters", effective April 26,1986. However, a citizen group in the Grayling area filed a suit against the NRC opposing the new regulation. A restraining order was issued and the controversy was settled in court over the next three years with the eventual establishment of the catch-andrelease regulation on April 28, 1989. There is growing pressure on the Fisheries Division both favoring and opposing the establishment of more no-kill regulations. One objective of this research was to provide a thorough understanding of the issue and its participants. - Future studies can use the data base to explore changes and trends in Au Sable River anglers after the implementation of catch-and-release regulations. Catch-and-release areas (as well as other management efforts) will benefit some anglers but be opposed by other groups, therefore, these different groups must be managed separately. For this reason this research took a m arket segmentation approach. Another objective was to explore the developmental nature of trout fishing to determine whether different groups of anglers reflect different developmental stages. A site intercept interview was used to collect data from A u Sable River anglers (n=742) in the spring and summer of 1986. Follow-up surveys were mailed in the fall of 1986 (n=610; 82.2% return rate). A mail survey of statewide trout anglers in the spring and summer of 1987 produced 1,056 usable surveys (70.8% return rate). A third mail survey was sent to a subsample of Au Sable River anglers and statewide stream trout anglers in early 1988 to study attitudes towards and compliance with trout fishing regulations. Three potential segmentation bases were identified as being useful for the study and management of stream trout anglers: fly-fishing specialization, non-consumptive orientation, and trout fishing intensity. These segmentation variables can be used by fisheries managers as quick summaries of the socio-psychological characteristics of anglers at various sites and to identify market segments of stream trout anglers. A segmentation approach was also useful in analyzing the Au Sable no-kill issue. A major finding was that the Au Sable River no-kill disagreement was between specialized fly anglers that were different on their degree of non-consumptive orientation. One other contribution was the idea that anglers can develop in more than one way, i.e., development may not always lead to use of fly fishing equipment, rather some anglers develop to dedicated and skilled bait or lure trout anglers. To My Very Dear Friend, Lori Greening McCartney ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project of this size could never be accomplished by the work of one person, and I truly have a multitude of people to thank for their help. First, I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. R. Ben Peyton, under whose guidance this study was undertaken. Ben has been an exceptional advisor, teacher and friend. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. William Taylor, Dr. Joseph Fridgen, and Dr. Craig Harris for serving on my graduate committee and for their helpful comments on this dissertation. I also want to thank all the anglers who participated in this study and who made my job enjoyable. There were just too many really great people to list in this report. Also, a very special thanks to Lisa M. Churgay and Becky Gray who assisted in the field interviews of the A u Sable River anglers. I also appreciate the help of M ark Lutz and Bruce Patrick, the Crawford County Conservation Officers. Working with them was especially enjoyable. I also wish to thank Carl Latta, Rick Clark and Gaylord Alexander and all the other DNR personnel who assisted me in the project. I am grateful to all my friends and fellow Fisheries and Wildlife students at Michigan State University who supported and encouraged me, there are just too many to mention all by name. However, some require special mention, first, Lori McCartney has been a very special friend throughout my stay at MSU and contributed to this project by studying the Grayling residents’ opinions of the no-kill controversy. Second, Kevin Gardiner of W a Wa Sum made my stay in Grayling very pleasant and has become a very good friend, he helped my research by introducing me to many Au Sable River anglers. Also a very special thanks to my friends, Duane and Brenda LaM otte of Down River Pines, for making my stay at Grayling very pleasant, especially thanks to Brenda for her excellent cooking and to Duane for his tips on archery hunting as well as for introducing me to many local anglers. Funding was provided by the Michigan D epartm ent of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division and the Michigan Agricultural Experimental Station. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 .................................................... Page viii xiii INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 Socio-Pyschological Dimensions of No-Kill Fishing .......... History of the Au Sable River Issue ......................... Statement of the Problem ..................................... A Market Segmentation Approach For Managing Michigan's Stream Trout Anglers ......................................... Goals and Research Objectives ................................ Limitations .................................................... 3 6 7 Chapter 2 8 10 10 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ..................... 12 Part One: Restrictive Angling Regulations ................. No-kill Regulations ....................................... History of Regulations on the Au Sable River ............ Part Two: Market Segmentation ............................... Segmentation ............................................... Application of Segmentation to Fisheries Management .... Part Three: Angler Satisfactions and Motivations .......... Motivations and Satisfactions ............................ Fly Fishing and Attitudes Related to FLy Fishing ........ Part Four: Developmental Phenomena ......................... Developmental Stages ...................................... 12 15 17 18 18 22 24 24 29 30 31 Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODS ...................................... Au Sable River Anglers ....................................... Field Interview ............................................ Follow-up Survey ........................................... Instrument Development, Validity and Reliability ........ Description of the Au Sable River Field Interview....... Description of Follow-up Survey to Au Sable River Anglers Estimate of Non-Response Bias ............................ Statewide Michigan Stream Trout Anglers ..................... Selection of Sample ....................................... Administration of Michigan Trout Angler Survey .......... Instrument Development, Validity and Reliability ........ Description of the Michigan Trout Angler Survey ......... iv 34 34 34 36 36 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 Estimate of Non-Response Bias ............................ Trout Fishing Regulations Survey ............................ Selection of Sample ....................................... Administration of Michigan Trout Fishing Regulations Survey ..................................................... Instrument Development, Validity and Reliability ........ Description of Michigan Trout Fishing Regulations Survey. Estimate of Non-Response Bias ............................ Data Analysis ................................................. Market Segmentation Variables ............................ Chapter 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ................................... Part One: Survey Response Rates and Non-Response Bias .... Au Sable River Angler Surveys ............................ Bias -- Au Sable River Angler Surveys .................... Statewide Michigan Trout Angler Survey .................. Non-Response Bias -- Statewide Michigan Trout Angler Survey ..................................................... Trout Fishing Regulations Survey ......................... Non-Response Bias -- Trout Fishing Regulations Survey ... Part Two: Descriptions of Au Sable River Anglers .......... Comparison With Michigan Stream Trout Anglers ........... Special Characteristics of Au Sable River Anglers ...... A u Sable River Users Among The Statewide Sample ......... Part Three: Attitude Towards the Proposed Au Sable River Mainstream Catch-and-Release (No-Kill) Regulation and Related Variables ............................................ Part Four: Segmentation Bases For Stream Trout Anglers .... Au Sable River Anglers Compared With Statewide Trout Anglers .................................................... Relationship With Other Variables -- Au Sable River Sample ..................................................... Relationship With Other Variables -- Statewide Sample of Michigan Stream Trout Anglers ........................... Opinions Related to Fishing Regulations ................. Satisfactions With Trout Fishing Regulations ............ Validation of Segmentation Variables ..................... Part Five: Developmental Nature of Trout Fishing .......... Changes In Attitudes and Practices ....................... Years of Trout Fishing Experience ........................ Changes Related to Fly-Fishing Specialization, Non-Consumptive Orientation and Trout Fishing Intensity. Bryan's Specialization Model ............................. Chapter 5 DISCUSSION and RECOMMENDATIONS 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 47 47 47 48 54 54 57 57 60 60 65 70 72 87 87 89 100 107 Ill 115 118 118 119 123 126 ....................... 130 Part One: Au Sable River Anglers ........................... Site Attributes ............................................ Preferred Trout Species ................................... Part Two: The Au Sable River No-Kill Controversy .......... 130 133 134 136 v Part Three: Segmentation .................................... Overall Evaluation of These Three Segmentation Bases .... Further Discussion of the Three Segmentation Variables .. Implications For Management Use of These Three Segmentation Bases ........................................ Some Suggested Points For Application of a Segmentation Approach ................................................... ...... Part Four: Developmental Nature of Trout Fishing A Modified Model of Development and Specialization Among Trout Anglers ............................................. Years of Experience ........................................ Non-Consumptive Orientation ............................... Trout Fishing Intensity ................................... Fly-Fishing Specialization ................................ Some Further Questions to Consider ....................... Summary of Recommended Research ............................. Summary of Major Contributions of This Research ............ LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K APPENDIX L APPENDIX M APPENDIX N APPENDIX 0 APPENDIX P ................................................ 139 139 145 149 150 153 155 157 159 159 160 163 165 168 171 Complete field interview for Au Sable River anglers. 178 Short field interview for Au Sable River anglers.... 185 Cover letter left on cars with the short field 187 interview for the Au Sable River anglers........ Remainder of the field survey sent to all Au Sable River anglers interviewed with the short survey.... 188 Cover letter included with the second mailing of the remainder of the field survey sent to n o n ­ respondents to the first mailing................. 194 Sampling schedule for the Au Sable River study, 1 986................................................... 195 Follow-up survey sent to participants in the Au 197 Sable River study.................................... Cover letters sent with the follow-up survey sent to Au Sable River anglers............................ 203 Michigan Trout Angler Survey......................... 205 Cover letters sent with the Michigan Trout Angler Survey mailings...................................... 220 Postcards used with the Michigan Trout Angler Survey................................................ 224 Michigan Trout Fishing Regulations Survey........... 225 Mailings used with the Michigan Trout Fishing Regulations Survey................................... 236 (TABLES) Descriptions of Au Sable River anglers: Comparison of Au Sable River anglers with a sample of Michigan stream trout anglers....................... 241 (TABLES) Special characteristics of Au Sable River anglers... 250 Map of residence of Au Sable River anglers......... 256 vi APPENDIX Q (TABLES) Variables related to attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation............................................ APPENDIX R (TABLES) Variables related to segmentation bases for stream trout anglers -- Au Sable River d a t a ............... APPENDIX S (TABLES) Variables related to segmentation bases for stream trout anglers -- Statewide sample of Michigan stream trout anglers................................. APPENDIX T (TABLES) Trout fishing regulation variables related to segmentation bases for stream trout anglers -subsample of A u Sable River anglers and Michigan stream trout anglers................................. APPENDIX U (TABLES) Changes in trout fishing attitudes and practices related to fly-fishing specialization, n o n ­ consumptive orientation, and trout fishing intensity............................................. APPENDIX V (FIGURES) Motivations for trout fishing........................ vii 257 266 288 297 308 319 LIST OF TABLES Number 4.1 4.2 Page Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation analyzed by respondents vs. non-respondents to the follow-up mail survey toAu Sable River anglers.. 53 Fly tying analyzed by respondents vs. non-respondents to the follow-up mail survey toAu Sable River anglers.. 53 4.3 Self-rated experience analyzed by respondents vs. n o n ­ respondents to the follow-up mail survey to Au Sable 53 River anglers....................................... 4.4 Importance of trout fishing analyzed by respondents vs. non-respondents to the follow-up mail survey to the Au Sable River anglers ................................. 54 4.5 Reasons given by anglers for not participating in the Michigan trout angler survey....................... 56 4.6 Total days fished during the 1986 fishing season by the statewide sample of trout stamp purchasers analyzed by self-reported level of accuracy................... 57 4.7 Reasons given by anglers for not participating in the compliance survey ................................... 59 4.8 Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation analyzed by residence 4.9 4.10 4.11 72 Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation analyzed by owning property. 73 Importance of catch-and-release regulations in general analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation.................. 74 Importance of fly-fishing only regulations in general analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation.................. 75 viii Number 4.12 Page Importance of trout fishing analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation.. 76 4.13 The motivation for trout fishing, "to eat fish" analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream 77 catch-and-release regulation.............................. 4.14 Primary reasons why Au Sable River anglers approve of the proposed no-kill regulation for the Au Sable River Mainstream.................................................. 79 Primary reasons why Au Sable River anglers disapprove of the proposed no-kill regulation for the Au Sable River Mainstream ........................................... 80 Au Sable River angler opinions analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream no-kill regulation.................................................. 82 Stepwise multiple regression: Prediction of attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation with beliefs held by the anglers (0.05 probability of F-to-enter criteria)...................................... 84 Relationship of attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation and intended response in fishing behavior if the proposed no-kill regulation is implemented................................................ 85 Levels of fly-fishing specialization in the Au Sable River sample compared to a statewide sample of Michigan stream trout anglers...................................... 88 Levels of non-consumptive orientation in the Au Sable River sample compared to a statewide sample of Michigan stream trout anglers...................................... 88 Levels of trout fishing intensity in the Au Sable River sample compared to a statewide sample of Michigan stream trout anglers.............................................. 88 Attitude towards the proposed catch-and-release regulation on the Au Sable River Mainstream Quality Section analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, n o n ­ consumptive orientation and trout fishing intensity 90 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 Number 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 Page Prediction of dependent variables with fly-fishing specialization, non-consumptive orientation and trout fishing intensity (0.05 probability of F-to-enter criteria)................................................... 91 List of variables from Au Sable River anglers related to fly-fishing specialization............................. 92 List of variables from Au Sable River anglers related to non-consumptive orientation............................ 93 List of variables from Au Sable River anglers related to trout fishing intensity................................ 94 F-value, degrees of freedom and significance for motivation for trout fishing analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, non-consumptive orientation and trout fishing intensity.......................................... 96 Motivation, "to eat fish", as a reason for trout fishing analyzed by fly-fishing specialization and trout fishing intensity................................................... 97 Satisfaction with the days fishing reported by Au Sable River anglers in 1986 analyzed by fly-fishing specialization............................................. 100 List of variables from Michigan stream trout anglers related to fly-fishing specialization.................... 101 List of variables from Michigan stream trout anglers related to non-consumptive orientation................... 102 List of variables from Michigan stream trout anglers related to trout fishing intensity....................... 102 4.33 Attributes used in selecting most preferred trout fishing areas analyzed by fly-fishing specialization.... 104 4.34 Attributes used in selecting most preferred trout fishing areas analyzed by non-consumptive orientation... 105 Attributes used in selecting most preferred trout fishing areas analyzed by trout fishing intensity...... 105 4.35 x Number 4.36 4.37 Pape Prediction of opinions related to fishing regulations with fly-fishing specialization, non-consumptive orientation and trout fishing intensity (stepwise multiple regression: 0.05 probability of F-to-enter criteria)................................................... 112 Satisfaction with trout fishing regulations analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, non-consumptive orientation and trout fishing intensity............................... 114 4.38 Percent membership in fishing organization analyzed by fly-fishing specialization levels comparing Au Sable River anglers with Michigan stream trout anglers........ 116 4.39 Pearson correlations between the three proposed segmentation bases and selected variables for Au Sable River anglers and statewide stream trout anglers........ 116 4.40 Relationship between stream trout fishing method first used and preferred method................................. 118 Relationship between fly-fishing specialization and stream trout fishing method first u s e d ................... 119 Mean change in attitudes and practices (since they first started trout fishing) self reported by trout anglers..................................................... 120 Years of trout fishing experience analyzed by preferred stream trout fishing method............................... 121 Years of trout fishing experience analyzed by fly­ fishing specialization level.............................. 121 Years of trout fishing experience analyzed by stream trout fishing method first u s e d ........................... 122 Years of trout fishing experience analyzed by importance of stream trout fishing................................... 122 Years of trout fishing experience analyzed by trout fishing intensity level................................... 122 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 Number 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 4.55 5.1 Pape Changes in attitudes and practices (since they first started trout fishing) self reported by anglers analyzed by years of trout fishing experience........... 124 Years of trout fishing experience analyzed by the importance of trout species............................... 125 Preferred stream trout fishing method of statewide anglers analyzed by trout fishing intensity............. 127 Change in bait fishing for the statewide sample of low specialized anglers (fly-fishing specialization levels 1 - 3 ) analyzed by trout fishing intensity.............. 127 Change in spinner fishing for the statewide sample of anglers who prefer trout fishing with lures analyzed by trout fishing intensity................................ 128 Self-reported experience level of statewide trout anglers analyzed by preferred stream trout fishing method...................................................... 128 Statewide sample of anglers with low interest in eating fish (motivation value 0 - 3 on a scale of 0 - 9 ) analyzed by anglers’ reported change in interest in catching trout to e a t ........................ 129 Importance of eating fish for a sample of specialized Au Sable River anglers (fly-fishing specialization level 5 ) .................................................... 129 Summary of differences between Au Sable River anglers and a sample of Michigan stream trout anglers........... 132 LIST OF FIGURES Number 1.1 Location of Au Sable R i v e r ................................ Pape 4 Sampling scheme of Au Sable River anglers and Michigan statewide trout anglers used for this research.................................................... 35 3.2 Location of Au Sable River study sections, 1986......... 37 4.1 Relative importance of six motivations for trout fishing of Au Sable River anglers and Michigan stream trout anglers (with 95Z Confidence Intervals).... 63 Proposed developmental model for trout anglers.......... 156 3.1 5.1 5.2 Change in time spent fly fishing, lure fishing, and bait fishing reported by statewide stream trout anglers as a function of fly-fishing specialization xiii 162 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION No-kill or catch-and-rclcasc refers to fishing regulations that perm it fishing but require that the fish be released after capture. No-kill regulations control hum an behavior and are often useful solutions to situations where: (1) the resource is facing intense fishing pressure, (2) chemical contamination is considered a health threat, and/or (3) increasing the number of larger fish is desired. No-kill regulations arc thus aimed at controlling human behavior for biological, ecological or social reasons. Catch-and-rclcasc fishing is most often used as a management response to intense fishing pressure which threatens the fish population and ecosystem. This problem was identified in Yellowstone National Park during the 1960’s. For example in 1969, approximately 2.5 million people visited the park in five months and there was an estimated 370,000 man-days of fishing in an 80-day period (Anderson 1977). Management changes were adopted in the mid-1960’s which included stream closures and restriction of some streams to fly fishing only, but by 1969 there was general consensus that a major change was needed to prevent a steadily declining cutthroat fSalmo clarkil fishery. Numerous meetings were held by management and members of the scientific community. Specific objectives for the management of the Yellowstone sport fishery program were identified (Anderson 1977): 1. To maintain or restore aquatic environments and native fish populations in as near natural state as possible. 2. T o provide regulations for fishing that will ensure high quality angling for wild fish as part of the visitor experience without altering natural conditions. 3. To encourage visitor participation in the park program to preserve native species and high quality angling for wild fish in natural environs. 2 High quality angling is defined as, "having an opportunity to fish for rare native species or wild trout in pristine settings where angling removals do not exceed natural replenishment rates or, on a year-to-year basis, reduce fish biomass, numbers, sizes and age groups from that which would exist in the absence of fishing." The Yellowstone managers decided that to accomplish these objectives a distinction between "catching" and "killing" fish must be made. An important difference between the philosophy of park management and that of most other fisheries management is that from the park’s point of view the clients are the fish themselves and/or their natural predators, rather than the sportsmen (Anderson 1977). This allows the park management to adopt m ore restrictive regulations than those found in other places. Catch-and-release was not introduced initially, but was part of a staged management program implemented over three years. The first step banned all bait fishing in the park. Studies showed a hooking mortality of 50-70% on baited hooks but less than 8% for lures and flies (Anderson 1977). A prerequisite of the catch-and-release concept is a low mortality of the released fish. The prohibition of bait fishing decreased angling pressure for a few years and attracted many anglers who voluntarily released their catch. G ear restrictions were followed by closed areas and increased minimum size restrictions. In 1972 a catch-and-release program was fully implemented on the Yellowstone River, Slough Creek and the Lamar. Positive responses were noted after one year and within four years, these three streams were considered to have some of the best fishing in North America (Anderson 1977). Size and number of fish were reported to have increased dramatically over the four year period. There is now more angling on the waters restricted to catch-and- release than on those where fish can be kept. Most importantly, the public has enthusiastically accepted this management program. The Yellowstone catch-and-release program, as well as other western programs, is often cited by anglers to pressure their fisheries agency into adopting such measures in their states. However, the support for no-kill regulations is not unanimous. There are still large numbers of anglers for whom taking home a fish is an important component of the fishing experience. The fisheries division thus faces the dilemma of how to supply both groups with the fishing experiences they seek. Any attempt to set aside special no-kill fishing areas will likely be m et with some resistance because they must be established in areas which currently permit taking of fish. Organized clubs are currently pressuring the Fisheries Division of the Michigan Departm ent of Natural Resources to implement catch-and-release fishing in Michigan. The attempted implementation of catch-and-release regulations for a section of the Au Sable River is the setting for this dissertation (Figure 1.1). SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS O F NO-KILL FISHING For no-kill regulations to be accepted and utilized requires that anglers adopt the attitude that "killing" a fish is no longer an important component of the fishing experience. This attitude or value orientation is relatively new to the sport of fishing, especially in the United States. Since the settling of this country the utilitarian attitudes towards fish and game have been dominate (Petulla 1980). A major goal of fishing was to catch fish for the table and success was measured by the number of fish in the creel. However, for an increasing number of anglers, "catching" a fish is no longer synonymous with "killing" a fish. There appear to be two likely forces responsible for this change of increasing nonconsumptivc values towards fish resources. One has been the depletion of our natural resources or the realization of the myth of unlimited fish and game populations. The second possible force is the growing importance of fishing as a recreation activity for a growing number of anglers. This is probably the result of an expansion in leisure time and the urbanization process. And as fishing becomes more important to these anglers the realization occurs that other aspects of the experience are more important than killing a fish. These two forces lead to the belief held by these anglers that their sport can survive and actually improve by simply not "killing" their sport. Human dimensions theory suggests that anglers develop or move through stages and thus, many anglers who are now advocating the no-kill philosophy began their fishing careers as "worm-dunkers" and killed their share of trout at some time. Bryan (1977) proposed that anglers become more specialized as involvement in the sport increases. The proposed changes involve increased "specialization" (changing from bait to lures to fly fishing), increased commitment to the sport (as AU SA B LE RIV ER W ATERSHED BOUNDARY & V IC IN ITY Figure 1.1. Location of AuSable River. m easured by a number of variables such as time spent fishing, importance of fishing, amount of equipment, etc.) and philosophical changes (particularly an increase in interest in catch-and-release fishing). It was also proposed that hunters go through similar stages in which earlier stages are m ore concerned with taking home game (Jackson et al. 1979, Jackson and Norton 1980). According to the current stage theory, sportsmen must pass through each o f the stages, spending time in each stage until "maturing" to the next stage. However, some anglers may begin as fly fishing specialists with an interest in no-kill fishing while other anglers may start with bait fishing and never switch to new methods. Thus, more advanced models of angling behavior must be proposed to account for these discrepancies. Certainly some types of internal changes do take place as an angler gains more experience with the sport. Discovering and classifying these changes can add greatly to understanding the socio-psychological dimensions of anglers. O ther theories may explain why some trout anglers are opposed to no-kill regulations. There may be a num ber of reasons besides the obvious utilitarian reason, "for food". For some anglers the keeping of fish has become part of the tradition and as Langenau (1979) indicated, tradition can be a powerful component of the experience. For example, the traditional fish fry at the end of the season or on special holidays; the traditional campfire breakfast of trout on the "opener" weekend; or traditional contests which have become a major component of the fishing experience for which no­ kill regulations could significantly impact on satisfactions. A num ber of other reasons for being opposed to no-kill regulations have been voiced. Some of these reflect a distrust of fisheries management, such as a belief that no-kill regulations will not improve the fishery or a belief that most anglers will not obey the regulations. O ther reasons reflect different aspects of the consumptive value (that of displaying or showing-off their abilities), such as a desire to keep a trophy fish or a concern that young children won’t have the opportunity to keep their first trout (note: this reason is also often cited by proponents of no-kill regulations, i.e., concern about their children’s opportunity to "catch" fish). A nother reason reflects an ethical issue; the concern about releasing injured fish. And another reason reflects a basic cultural value; the idea that releasing or keeping fish is a personal choice that each angler should be able to make. Thus, it appears that the opponents of no-kill regulations have a num ber of good reasons for 6 opposing catch-and-release areas and arc not simply a group of anglers who have not yet matured to higher stages as stage theories would suggest. R ather their values are well established and for one reason or another, killing a fish is an important component of the fishing experience and will likely be so for some time. HISTORY O F T H E AU SABLE RIV ER ISSUE Because of decreased numbers o f large brown trout in the Au Sable River, special restrictive regulations were implemented during the 1970’s to increase the number of large brown trout (Clark and Alexander 1984). In April 1979, experimental fishing regulations were imposed on the Mainstream from Burton’s Landing to Wakeley Bridge. The most important regulation was a slotted size limit which allowed harvest of trout between 8 and 12 inches and over 16 inches. The slotted size limit regulation was a controversial issue at the time. Early in the 1985 trout fishing season, interest and controversy again arose over the fishing regulations on the Mainstream of the Au Sable River from Burtons Landing to Wakeley Bridge. This 8.7 mile stretch is sometimes called the "Holy Waters". The current debate started with a petition calling for no-kill rules posted in Gates Lodge and Orvis Shop on the Au Sable River and gathered momentum following a pro-no-kill column in the Detroit Free Press. Although initial response showed the majority of letters received by the Fisheries Division favored no-kill, the issue had strong local opposition. Therefore, the Fisheries Division decided not to recommend no-kill until an opinion poll of their own could be conducted. A strategy for measuring public opinion was outlined in a September 23, 1985 memo to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC). After carefully reviewing public opinion and the available research relating to quality fishing regulations the Fisheries Division recommended: 1) Continuation of the research on the South Branch of the Au Sable River to determine effects of catch-and-release trout fishing regulations and annual updating of results from the study. 2) Continuation of the present 8 - 12-inch slot size limit on the Burtons Landing to Wakeley Bridge section of the M ainstream of the Au Sable River until April, 1987. 3) Adoption, in 1987, of a slot size limit permitting harvest of trout between 8 - 1 0 inches and those over 16 inches. However, in response to the large amount of support for no-kill fishing, the NRC established catch-and-rcleasc regulations for the "Holy Waters" in February, 1986 and ordered the Fisheries Division to initiate a study of the biological and social impacts of the regulation during its 5 year trial period. These regulations were to take effect April 26,1986 -- the opening day of trout season. A citizen group in the Grayling area (The Committee To Oppose Mandatory Catch-and-Release) and others filed a suit against the NRC opposing the new regulations. A restraining order, issued April 24,1986 by 46th Circuit Court Judge Alton T. Davis, halted the new catch-and-rcleasc rule. As a result the previous slot size limit (8 - 12 and over 16 inches) was in effect for the 1986 fishing season. In April 1987, a permanent injunction was issued against the catch-and-release regulation. The issue was appealed to a higher court and settled over the next two years with the establishment of the catch-and-release regulation on April 28,1989. STATEMENT OF T H E PROBLEM Catch-and-release fishing or no-kill fishing is an existing issue in Michigan and has reached the disruptive stage for the proposed no-kill regulation on the Au Sable Mainstream. There is growing pressure on the Fisheries Division both favoring and opposing the establishment of more no-kill areas. A thorough understanding of the no-kill issue including the attitudes of the participants, their beliefs about the no-kill regulations and important values impinging on the no-kill issue would help the Fisheries Division manage in the best interest of the public. This study focuses on a group of anglers that might be considered a single group (segment), Au Sable trout anglers. However, anglers fishing the Au Sable are not a homogeneous group. The need to further segment this group of anglers is demonstrated by the disruptive controversy over the use of no-kill fishing regulations. Fisheries managers are faced with the problem of how to satisfy the group of anglers who want catch-and-release areas while minimizing the impact on those who do not want no-kill regulations. In addition, a serious threat to the anticipated biological response of a no-kill regulation is any illegal harvest of the trout fishery. Compliance depends on a number of factors including angler knowledge of the regulations, visibility of enforcement efforts, and angler acceptance of regulation goals. Some indication of the nature of noncompliance behaviors and associated angler characteristics will enable the biological response to be better interpreted and provide insight into factors influencing effective management by regulations. The A u Sable River no-kill controversy provides an opportunity to analyze a fisheries management problem while advancing our understanding of socio-psychological processes which influence recreation behaviors and attitudes. The A u Sable River no-kill controversy also provides an opportunity to incorporate the hum an dimensions into fisheries management which Voiland and Duttweiler (1984) say are so often lacking. Probably the major gap between fisheries managers and social scientists is the difficulty for biologically trained fisheries managers to see the practical side of social theories of recreational behavior (or put the other way, the lack of practical research by social scientists). A function of this dissertation will be the practical application of human dimensions research. One such practical application of social research is market segmentation. Recreation specialization, satisfactions and motivations, and developmental theory can be incorporated into market segmentation by using these theories to develop a segmentation scheme. A MARKET SEGM ENTATION A PPRO ACH FOR MANAGING M ICHIGAN’S STREAM TROUT ANGLERS While the concept of market segmentation is not new, it has gained renewed attention in recent literature (Mahoney and Kikuchi 1985). The market segmentation strategy may be defined as the process of dividing a total market into subgroups that have relatively similar product needs for the purpose of designing a marketing mix that more precisely matches the needs of individuals in a selected segment or segments (Pride and Ferrall 1983). This strategy is based on four assumptions: (1) the market is composed of distinguishable segments or consumer groups with distinctive needs and preferences, (2) these different people can be identified and aggregated into relatively homogeneous and distinguishable m arket segments, (3) a single product will not be maximally appealing or satisfying to the entire market, and (4) that this effort of designing products to appeal to specific market segments will increase both the effectiveness and efficiency of a firm’s/agency’s marketing/management effort (Mahoney and Kikuchi 1985). Application of the market segmentation strategy to fisheries management is made difficult by the need to identify appropriate segmentation criteria/bases. The A u Sable River issue illustrates that even among fly-anglers on the A u Sable River who are a subset of Michigan stream trout anglers, there exist different segments with distinctive needs and preferences. A single product (e.g., a regulation) will not necessarily be equally appealing or satisfying to the entire market of Au Sable River fly-anglers. Furthermore, it is clearly inefficient for an agency to have their management efforts challenged in court. Thus, 3 of the 4 assumptions for application of a market segmentation strategy arc present in the Au Sable River no-kill issue. The final assumption that needs to be met before a market segmentation approach can be implemented is that these different anglers can be identified and aggregated into relatively homogeneous and distinguishable market segments. This was a major emphasis of this study. One additional point in the application of market segmentation to fisheries management is the comparison of a tangible product to an intangible regulation. For the most part, supply of a tangible product to one segment of the market is unaffected by the supply of a related product to a different market segment. But the supply of fishing resources is largely fixed and application of a regulation to one area to satisfy a segment of anglers will affect other segments of anglers. Thus, a market segmentation approach will not eliminate conflict among user groups nor the value of good public involvement procedures. A fisheries agency has the responsibility to provide anglers with satisfying fishing experiences. This is accomplished through habitat, fish population, and people management. People management is accomplished largely through the use of regulations which may greatly effect the angler’s satisfaction. Thus, an appropriate segmentation model should predict satisfaction levels with various types of regulations as well as other angler wants and needs. 10 GOALS and RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The overall goal of this study was to develop segmentation strategies to characterize Au Sable River and Michigan stream trout anglers, and to increase understanding of the sodo-psychological dimensions of catch-and-rcleasc fishing and behaviors towards no-kill regulations. Specifically, research objectives were to: 1. Collect baseline data on Au Sable River anglers. 2. Identify segments of anglers using the Au Sable River and trout anglers in general according to their recreational preferences and behaviors and other social characteristics. 3. Investigate attitudes, beliefs and values held towards no-kill regulations by angler segments. 4. Explore the notion of developmental stages in trout anglers. LIMITATIONS The results of this survey pertain to anglers fishing in Michigan for stream trout and may not be applicable to other states. Application to other states will be most related to the degree to which stream trout fishing opportunities arc similar to Michigan. No-kill stream trout fishing regulations are relatively new for anglers fishing in Michigan with most of the anglers' experience with catch-and-release regulations coming from out-of-state fishing. The results pertain to "stream" trout fishing and may not be applicable to "lake" trout fishing. Currently in Michigan, pressure has been applied to establish catch-and-release sections on streams. It is uncertain how the angling public feels about catch-and-release for trout on inland lakes or the Great Lakes. Also, this study is not generally applicable to other species of fish. Largemouth bass and smallmouth bass are two common species for which catch-and-release fishing regulations are often considered, however, few other fish species (at least in Michigan) are considered at present for catch-and-release regulations. The A u Sable River sampling method used site intercepts to contact anglers, however, many sections of the river have private access. Thus, many anglers with potentially different attitudes from those using public access may not have been contacted. A large sampling effort was conducted to minimize this effect. This effort contacted a sample of private landowners who use both private and public access. This sample can be used to estimate the attitudes of those anglers using private access. Nonresponse bias is thoroughly discussed in Chapter 4. An additional problem of this study is the reliability and validity of responses. Au Sable River anglers were contacted during a disruptive stage of the no-kill controversy and may have over­ reacted to the issue and expressed m ore extreme positions then they actually held. Many anglers in the statewide sample may have never thought about how they feel about no-kill regulations, therefore this survey may have produced opinions which are not strongly held. Also, respondents were asked to recall information, namely, days of fishing during the past year, which is probably difficult for a number of anglers to do accurately. Attem pts were made to minimize these effects. First, a num ber of different measures were used to assess attitudes towards no-kill regulations to provide a m ore reliable measure. Second, "don’t know" responses were available for many of the questions so that respondents were not forced to give an opinion. Third, many responses permitted a range of agreem ent or disagreement so that strength of opinion could be measured. Again, this does not force a respondent to give an all or nothing response. Finally, the statewide sample of anglers rated the accuracy of their response to the number of their fishing days to provide an estimate of the value of this item. C h a p te r 2 REVIEW O F T H E RELATED LITERATU RE This chapter is sub-divided into four parts. Part one addresses restrictive regulations and no-kill regulations in particular. The intent is not to make a biological decision on effectiveness of no-kill regulations but, rather, to sample the scientific literature because many anglers have attitudes based on what they believe the scientific literature shows. Part two covers the literature on market segmentation. Part three deals with the literature on angler motivations and satisfactions. And, part four is on the topic of developmental theories of recreational behavior. Part One RESTRICTIVE ANGLING REGULATIONS The trend in fishing regulations has been towards more restrictive and complex laws of which no-kill rules are considered the most restrictive, short of closing the fishery. No-kill regulations permit fishing but require that all fish be released after capture. No-kill regulations thus represent an end point in certain types of regulations such as bag sizes (which specify the number of fish which may be kept) and size limits (which specify the size of fish which may be kept). Some restrictive angling regulations will be reviewed to show how no-kill regulations are a subset of restrictive regulations. This review shows that there are many regulations available for managers to achieve a diverse set of objectives. Also, the social problems with establishing no-kill regulations are similar to establishing other restrictive regulations. Hunt (1970) summarized 13 years of evaluating experimental angling regulations applied to a wild brook trout fishery in Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin. Four general types of regulations were tested: bag limits, size limits, fish refuges and restrictions on fishing methods. 12 13 Bag Limits: Daily bag limits set upper limits on the allowable catches of individual anglers. Presumably by limiting the catches of individuals, the total harvest will be limited. This would allow more trout to survive and spawn, increasing numbers or to continue growing so that larger catch sizes result than would be true if no bag limits existed (H unt 1970). Bag limits have also been proposed for non-biological reasons such as: (1) distributing the total catch m ore evenly among anglers, (2) arbitrary goals for the anglers to attain, and (3) a means to prevent fish-hogging and waste. Bag limits provide no protection until the limit is reached and as H unt (1970) points out, few anglers actually catch their limit of trout. Most of the catch of wild brook trout consisted of one or two trout per trip and 50% of the anglers did not catch any trout. Thus, it would require very restrictive bag limits to substantially reduce the total catch. For example, if angling effort remained unchanged, cutting the bag limit from 10 to 5 would probably reduce the total catch by only 20%, not 50%. Hunt also reported that most of the limit catches were taken by a few skilled anglers who fished several times each season at Lawrence Creek. Although the experiments at Lawrence Creek were not designed to evaluate the psychological reactions of anglers to various bag limits, circumstantial evidence suggested that angling effort (behavior) was influenced by bag limits (H unt 1970). First, it was suggested that among the skillful anglers the bag limit acted as a stimulus to keep fishing until reaching the limit because more limit catches were observed than catches of one or two less than the allowable limit. Second, it was suggested that even though few anglers were able to catch a limit of ten trout, the opportunity to catch only five rather than ten per trip may have caused part of the decline in observed fishing pressure that occurred after the bag limit of five was adopted. One problem with bag limits not mentioned by Hunt is that anglers can continue fishing after a bag limit is reached and if a fish larger than the smallest fish currently in the bag is caught then the smaller (and usually dead) fish can be tossed out and the larger fish substituted. This likely would not be a problem with liberal bag limits but could seriously limit resource protection under very restrictive bag limits. 14 Size Limits: Size limits cause anglers to release trout that they might keep if it were legal to do so. Presumably, enough of these undersized trout will survive long enough to contribute to the fishery by being caught at a larger size or by adding to subsequent generations by spawning (Hunt 1970). Unlike bag limits which provide no protection until the limit is reached, size limits apply to every trout caught. According to H unt (1970), "the size limit, if wisely applied, is the best single regulation for preventing excessive angler harvest of brook trout populations." Size limits arc now recognized as the best regulation, biologically, for managing fish populations. While minimum size limits arc most common other types of size limits include slotted size limits where fish within a specified range may be kept (Clark and Alexander 1984) and maximum size limits where fish up to a specified size may be kept (Brousscau and Armstrong 1987). In their evaluation of regulations for brook and brown trout in Michigan streams Clark ct al. (1981) reported that "Total yield (defined as weight of trout caught and harvested plus weight of trout caught and released) increased as size limit increased and was maximum with a no-kill regulation. As size limit increased, the number of larger trout harvested increased but, at the same time, total number of trout harvested declined." However, simply increasing a minimum size limit may not always work to increase the sustained yield of larger fish. Dunning et al. (1982) reported a case where an increase in minimum size for northern pike resulted in a decrease in yield due to more harvest of the older, m ore productive females. Fish Refuges: Fish refuges close certain areas to fishing to insure the survival of some spawning trout which will produce a surplus of progeny that will immigrate to the adjacent fishing water and bolster the depleted fish population there (Hunt 1970). Hunt reported that brook trout refuges were a failure at the Lawrence Creek experiments, since large-scale emigration did not occur. Most of the trout born in the refuge stayed there throughout their life. Restrictions on Fishing M ethods: Most sport fishing is limited to some type of hook and line gear which in itself represents a radical limitation on the efficiency of capture compared to available I> 15 technology. Any further restriction on the various methods of hook and line fishing will further tend to reduce the total catch of trout from a body of water regardless of what methods arc eliminated (H unt 1970). This is because, over the course of a fishing season, the variable conditions of weather and water make each method more efficient on some days than other methods. Also, most anglers arc m ore proficient at a particular method of fishing and if their favored m ethod is prohibited, they must choose to fish elsewhere or fish less proficiently. Turner (1986) reported that prohibiting the use of natural bait at the North Fork of White River trophy trout area reduced angler use by about 20%. However, numbers of brown and rainbow trout caught increased dramatically. Snider and McKee (1982) also reported a drop in use with the prohibition of bait. H unt (1970) reported that the "fly fishing only" area was popular among fly fishermen. But there were no detectable responses by the trout populations that could be attributed to the presence or absence of the flics-only restriction. Anglers in the this area did have a consistently higher catch/hour compared to anglers in the any-lurc zone, which may be due to the possible attraction of better-than-averagc fly fishermen to the flics-only area. If such a regulation does attract expert fly anglers, and if nearly all of them keep the legal trout they catch, as they did at Lawrence Creek, then a flics-only regulation may not, by itself, prevent over-exploitation (Hunt 1970). NO-KILL REGULATIONS The most common reason for no-kill regulations is to produce "quality" fishing, usually measured in terms of catching larger fish. The major biological question becomes, "How well and under what conditions does it work?" Brook trout are less catchable then cutthroat trout but m ore catchable than brown trout and rainbow trout. Thus, restrictive regulations, including no-kill rules, will likely change species composition of the waters. For easily caught fishes, no-kill regulations may be necessary given even modest fishing pressure. A nderson (1977) stated that while the highly gullible native cutthroat trout responded immediately to low or no-kill rules in Yellowstone Park, the brown trout and rainbow trout did not respond similarly. Although the biomass and the number of older, larger brown and rainbow trout 16 increased, angling quality, as measured by the landing rate, did not improve except for expert anglers. This suggests stockpiling of large, uncatchable brown and rainbow trout in these waters. Anderson and Nehring (1984) reported that the catch rate of trophy-sized rainbow and brown trout (longer than 38 cm) was 28 times greater in the catch-and-release area than in the harvest area. While there are numerous other reported successes with catch-and-release regulations (Anderson 1977, Wcithman et al. 1977, Dcinstadt 1977, Pettit 1977, and Burkett 1981), some failures have also been reported (Hunt, 1977 and Graff and Hollendcr, 1977). G raff and Hollcndcr (1977) state that a "catch-and-release regulation does effect trout populations but not always in a predictable manner, nor in the way often anticipated by advocates of "quality" angling." They caution about the danger signals of ovcrprotcction: an increase in numbers with an accompanying decrease in condition factor and a decrease in growth rate. Catch-and-release regulations are desirable in the following situations if hooking mortality can be minimized: (1) when high catch rates arc desirable; (2) when fishing for food is of low priority; and (3) when length and creel limits arc not adequate to prevent stock depletion (Wcithman ct al. 1977). Hunt (1977) adds that: "Successful catch-and-release fisheries for stream trout arc more likely to develop if natural recruitment is low in or into specially managed sectors of the stream, or if recruitment can be controlled by adjusting stocking rates o f domestic trout so that: a) trout densities do not reach levels at which compensatory decreases in growth rates occur; b) the fishable stock is not dominated by yearlings having little sporting value because of their small size; and c) the reduced rates of angling mortality can be advantageously utilized to progressively stockpile greater than normal abundances of older-age trout having greater sporting value." Hooking mortality is a crucial factor when considering any type of catch-and-release fishing. Hooking mortality is influenced by a number of variables (species of fish, size of fish, type of bait used, hook size, site of hooking, angling and handling techniques, depth of catch, and water tem perature) and reported values have a large range among studies (Wydoski 1977). Since water tem perature is an important variable, hooking mortality is likely to change throughout the season. W hen increasing water tem perature causes higher hooking mortality later in the season, catch-and-release should be mandatory early and voluntary later in the season 17 (Alexander 1985). This maximizes use of the resource by allowing fish to be caught m ore than once early in the season by anglers that value catching fish and later (when hooking mortality is high) making the resource available to anglers that value the fish m ore as food. Also the fish m il have the early season as additional growing time before they may be caught and removed. Probably the most studied hooking mortality param eter has been the type of terminal gear used. Overall, higher mortality usually results with baited hooks (W arner 1978 and W arner and Johnson 1978). Shetter and Allison (1955, 1958) have shown hooking mortality rates with artificial flies to be only 2% compared to 5% for other artificial lures such as spoons and spinners, and 40% for natural baits. Anderson (1977) reported a hooking mortality of less than 8% for lures and flics and from 50-70% on baited hooks. Thus, gear restrictions are often considered necessary before catch-and-release rules are implemented. Often a baited hook is taken well inside the mouth by the fish thus increasing the chance that it will penetrate a vital organ. Research by Mason and H unt (1967) and W arner (1979) showed a much higher survival rate for deep hooked fish when the leader was cut and the hook left in place. Also, contrary to the belief of many anglers, much research shows that the use of barbless hooks docs not significantly reduce losses (Hunsaker et al. 1970, Falk and Gillman cited in Wydoski 1977). The method of handling has been shown to be important in the survival of fish caught by angling (Wydoski 1977). The adverse affects of handling fish during capture by anglers can be reduced by minimizing the handling time and taking care not to damage vital organs by squeezing a fish or holding the fish by the gills. The anatomical site of hooking is also related to mortality with the gill/gill arch and the esophagus area causing the highest mortality. HISTORY O F REGULATIONS ON TH E AU SABLE RIV ER The Au Sable River attracted anglers as early as 1873 when the railroad line to the present day town of Grayling was completed (Clark and Alexander 1984). In those days anglers came to catch the Michigan grayling which was the only member of the Salmonidae (salmon-trout) family native to the river. Early lumbermen called the grayling "white trout" or "Crawford County trout" (Hendrick­ son 1966). In 1874, when the fish were identified as grayling local residents changed the name of 18 their town from Crawford to Grayling. Grayling were abundant in the Au Sable as late as the 1880’s but became scarce by 1893. The last known grayling was caught in the E ast Branch of the Au Sable River about 1915. Timber removal from the banks, destruction of spawning grounds by floating logs, depletion of fish by heavy fishing, and competition from the newly introduced trout were considered as factors in the demise of the grayling in the Au Sable River. Rainbow trout and probably brook trout were privately planted in the A u Sable River in the 1870’s and in 1885 the State of Michigan began planting the river with brook trout (Clark and Alexander 1984). Brown trout were the last species to be introduced but today they dominate the river, making up 80 to 90 percent of the total weight of trout collected in recent biological surveys (Gowing and Alexander 1980). The introduced trout multiplied rapidly and in the early days (around 1900) it was said that anglers could catch 40 to 50 nice trout in a day (Hendrickson 1966). While trout are still highly-prized and abundant today, few of todays’ trout catches could equal the take of those early days. Today fishermen crowd the Au Sable at the opening of the season and again during important fly hatches, especially the "caddis" or Mayfly hatch (Hendrickson 1966). During these times in many areas, anglers may stand so close together that the back-cast of one entangles the forward-cast of another. However, at other times numbers of anglers are more m oderate and from mid- through late summer there are often times when anglers are quite scarce. The Au Sable has a long history of special regulations. The first quality-fishing regulation was established on the Au Sable River in 1901 raising the size limit on trout from 6 inches (then in effect statewide) to 8 inches (Clark and Alexander 1984). The first artificial flies-only rule was adopted in 1907 on the North Branch. Currently, 44 miles o f the river are restricted to flies-only fishing and another 14 miles to fishing with artificial lures only. There also has been a long history of trout research on the Au Sable and nearby rivers. The accumulated research probably represents the most extensive and longest series of data on trout streams anywhere in the world (Clark and Alexander 1984). A decline in the number of large brown trout in the Au Sable River threatened quality fishing in the Mainstream (Clark and Alexander 1984). No single factor was identified as the cause for the decline in growth of brown trout, but there were two leading hypotheses. The first stated that a considerable decrease in productivity of the river due to the closing of the Grayling Hatchery (mid1960’s) and an end to discharging sewage effluent from the city of Grayling into the river in 1971. The second hypothesis was based on a principle of population genetics that suggests that fishing under a minimum size limit removes the larger, faster growing trout and leaves behind the smaller trout to reproduce. Clark and Alexander (1984) discussed the effects of the slotted size limit on the Au Sable M ainstream fishery. The slotted size limit increased the harvest of smaller brown trout (8 to 12 inches) but the growth rate of brown trout did not change significantly and it did not significantly improve the catch of larger trout. This brings us to the current issue facing this section of the Au Sable Mainstream -- no-kill fishing regulations. Proponents hope that no-kill fishing regulations will increase the number of larger brown trout in the Au Sable M ainstream fishery. Part Two MARKET SEGM ENTATION SEGMENTATION M arket segmentation is defined as the process of dividing a total m arket into subgroups of people or organizations that have relatively similar product needs. The purpose then is to design a marketing mix of products that more precisely matches the needs of individuals in selected segments (Pride and Ferrall 1983). Segmentation is based on the theory that goods are chosen either singly or in combination to yield characteristics which provide utility to the consumer, and that different groups seek different characteristics (Adams 1979). Segmentation was introduced to marketing in the 1950's and became a central topic of marketing research and a common marketing strategy during the 1960's. Market segmentation has a solid theoretical base, having been derived from microeconomic models of price discrimination (Arndt 1974). It offers a strong demand- or customer-orientation and provides guidelines for improving resource allocations. 20 A segmentation base is a variable, dimension or characteristic of individuals, groups or organizations which serves as the basis for dividing a total m arket into m ore homogeneous submarkets. These bases may be classified into four groups: (1) socioeconomic-demographic, (2) geographic, (3) product-related, and (4) psychographic (Pride and Ferrel 1983). Segmentation of recreation markets has often been tailored to characteristics of the recreation products or services (Styncs 1985). Many researchers used attribute or benefit segmentation while some used geographic, psychographic and socioeconomic segmentation of recreation markets. The same benefits from segmentation of markets in the business environment apply to natural resources management and specifically to fisheries management. Segmentation m ore precisely defines the market in terms of consumer needs and wants. Michigan’s sport fishing market is quite fragmented and dynamic, and all fisheries managers now realize that there is no "average angler". If continuously applied, segmentation can greatly improve fisheries managers’ ability to meet changing market demands. For instance, decisions for managing fish population (species, size, location) and for setting of regulations can be made according to varying market demands. Further, promotion or information dissemination efforts can be more easily coordinated and targeted once market segments arc clearly defined. From a less applied perspective, segmentation is concerned with the appropriate way of classifying and aggregating data for a particular analysis (Stynes 1985). T here is no one "best" segmentation. According to Stynes (1985), "better" or "worse" depends upon the purposes to which the segmentation is to be applied. Determination of segmentation variables, num ber of segments, and most suitable segmentation methods should be based on a clear understanding of the intended use of the segmentation and the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives. Segments may be formed a priori or via cluster analysis. In the a priori approach segments are based on theoretical considerations or simple crosstabulations and Venn diagrams. Cluster analysis is an empirical method (Stynes, 1985). According to Stynes, the a priori m ethod is usually the best approach, particularly for the novice. Segments formed in this m anner generally are easier to identify and interpret compared to the cluster analysis approach. 21 Bryan’s (1977) work provides one example of the a priori approach. Using semi-structured interviews with trout anglers, he sorted anglers into four categories according to their frequency of fishing, the type of fishing setting they preferred, the fishing technique they used, and the level of their commitment to fishing. Manfrcdo and Anderson (1982) provide a second example of this approach combining preferred method of fishing with preferred setting to generate six categories of trout anglers. Driver ct al. (1984) applied the cluster analysis approach using survey data on the preference of Wyoming anglers for settings and for outcomes from fishing. Their analysis produced seven segments: outdoors, yield, solitude, social, general recreational, trophy and wild. However, these clusters did not define discrete groups of anglers. Buchanan ct al. (1981) provides an example of the application of cluster analysis to form discrete groups of anglers. Their work used survey items that measured the "perceived benefits" of fishing as reported by Wyoming anglers. This duster analysis approach produced three categories of anglers: trophy, wild and yield. The ultimate test of any segmentation rests on how useful the segmentation is for developing and implementing management and marketing strategics (Bicda and Kassarjian, d ted in Kikuchi 1986). A number of criteria have been suggested for evaluating market segments. I present those used by Kikuchi: Identifiabilitv: Segments must be recognizable and accessible. This is reasonably measured by sodocconomic characteristics and media habits. Substantiality: Segments must be substantial in size - there must be a sufficient number of people within each segment to justify designing distinct marketing efforts for each subgroup. Variation in Market Response: Segments must differ with respect to their needs/wants and market behavior so that distinct marketing programs can profitably be designed to serve them. Exploitabilitv: Distinguishing characteristics of the segments must lend themselves to marketing appeals or offerings that will achieve the intended results (1986; p. 37). 22 APPLICATION O F SEGMENTATION TO FISHERIES M ANAGEM ENT Kavanagh (1968) reported that it is possible to segment anglers on the basis of demographic characteristics (e.g., income) which correspond to the types of fishing experiences (e.g., salmon fishing, bottom fishing, or clam digging). While this approach has the advantage of utilizing identifiable demographic characteristics of anglers, it docs not m easure the benefits which the angler expects to enjoy as a result of his/her participation in a particular type of fishing activity. Driver and Cooksey (1977) described the advantages and methodology of segmenting anglers by multiple demographic characteristics and by preferred psychological outcomes. These same methods were used in studies of hunters (Brown et al. 1977, Hautaluom a and Brown 1978). Driver and Cooksey proposed that rccreationists engage in a particular activity to realize the preferred psychological outcomes that are somewhat unique to that activity. Anglers choose fishing because they value and expect to realize a bundle of four to eight m ore highly preferred psychological outcomes. Through market segmentation, the preferences and characteristics of subgroups of fishermen can be identified. Specific types of fishing opportunities can than be geared to the preferences of these different subgroups. Graefe (1980) presents an argument for segmenting anglers based on their frequency of fishing. H e found that the level of participation was related to motivations for fishing and to satisfactions derived from fishing. H e reported that: ...fishermen in the low-participation category placed greater importance on catching fish to eat, catching at least something, and catching a greater number of fish than fishermen in the high-participation category. Fisherm en in the high-participation category viewed the challenge of seeking and catching fish as relatively more important than low participants (1980). Fedler and Ditton (1986) proposed segmenting anglers into three groups based on levels of consumptive orientation (low, medium, and high). However, on the A u Sable River, both groups of anglers (those supportive and those opposing catch-and-release regulations) desire high catch rates. The conflict over these regulations evolves from the desire of the opposition group to retain the catch. The model proposed by Fedler and Ditton (1986) m easures only the importance of catching fish, not eating or keeping fish (consumption). Therefore, it is not applicable to segmenting the 23 groups of anglers using the Au Sable River. Adams (1979) segmented anglers on fishing attributes and fishing party composition. Her research suggested two distinct fishing experiences with respect to party composition: (1) a general demand for fishing trips without companions of any type, and (2) a specific demand for fishing trips without unrelated companions in particular. Benefits derived from the solitary experience include: (1) no obligation to confine fishing activities to family type areas, (2) an opportunity to interact with other individuals who share a common interest in fishing, (3) the thrill of competing with nature by catching wild fish, and (4) a chance to escape from family and/or social pressures (Adams 1979). Benefits derived from the "no friends" experience might include: (1) enjoying the conveniences of a family type area, (2) not feeling compelled to compete with friends who catch large fish, and (3) not being exposed to social pressures. Thus, party composition can be used to segment anglers because the different segments seek different benefits from the fishing experience. Kikuchi (1986) describes the segmentation process using Michigan’s sport fishing market. Several candidate segmentation bases were selected: (1) species fished, (2) species fished and the corresponding fishing locations, (3) modes of fishing, (4) methods of fishing, (5) fishing attributes sought, and (6) fishing benefits sought. The first four bases represent a segmentation approach based upon anglers’ actual fishing behavior (use/purchase) and the last two represent a segmentation approach based upon anglers’ behavioral predispositions (psychological factors). Kikuchi’s study compares these two popular approaches to segmenting a market via cluster analysis. Kikuchi reported that: The attribute segmentation produced eight angler segments with differing attribute seeking orientation, ranging in size from 8% to 17% of the sample. The species-location segmentation yielded eight segments with distinguishable fishing participation patterns, varying in size from 4% to 22%. The attribute sought segments were slightly m ore identifiable, while both yielded segments of substantial size. The attribute sought approach yielded m ore exploitable differences on behavioral predispositions (e.g. fishing benefits and attributes sought), while the species-locat­ ion segments better discriminated actual behavior (e.g. fishing participation patterns). Management evaluation of the two approaches slightly favored the attribute sought approach (1986). 24 H e concluded that: Michigan’s sport fishing m arket is a heterogeneous mixture of angler subgroups; socioeconomics were not very useful for identifying angler segments defined by either approach; and both attribute and spccies-location variables arc useful bases for segmenting the market. One convenient way to classify anglers is according to species sought. However, Fedler and Ditton (1986) found that there is little evidence to support this approach. Preference for catching a particular species does not appear to be a major objective for most anglers (Hiett ct al. 1983). The 1979 Atlantic and Gulf Coast Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (U.S. Departm ent of Commerce 1980) found substantial proportions of anglers who reported seeking no particular species while Ditton ct al. (1981) reported that anglers often seek multiple species. Part Three ANGLER SATISFACTIONS and MOTIVATIONS This section focuses on research on angler motivations and satisfactions. It is not intended as a comprehensive review of angler attitudes. This literature is useful for the identification of potential segmentation bases. MOTIVATIONS and SATISFACTIONS Although many studies have described recreational satisfactions, few studies have identified the determinants of satisfaction. Ditton et al. (1981) suggested that discrepancy theory was one of the most promising explanations for recreational satisfaction. Discrepancy theory states that satisfaction is determined by the differences between the outcomes one wants or thinks he/she should receive (motivations) and the perceived outcomes the person actually receives (fulfillment of motives) (Lawler 1973). Thus, motivations may be may the basis for evaluating the fishing experience. Lawler proposed the following principles as critical aspects of satisfactions: 1. Satisfaction is essentially an evaluative judgment made by individuals on the difference between what a person feels he/she should receive and what he/she perceives he/she actually receives. 25 2. Satisfaction is a multi-faccted concept; numerous factors enter the satisfaction decision. 3. These factors arc differentially important (i.e., weighted differently) in evaluating overall satisfaction (1973). In their study of hunters, Hultsman and Hultsman (1988) reported that making a successful kill was the best predictor of hunting satisfaction but that expectation greatly m ediated satisfaction. For hunters who expected a high success rate, the relationship between success and satisfaction was strong. For hunters who did not expect a high success rate, the success-satisfaction relationship was weaker. Thus, if this relationship holds true for anglers, fisheries managers could improve satisfaction for certain situations by simply giving anglers a m ore realistic expectation for success. Much early research on satisfactions attempted to link specific satisfactions with various specific activities (Buchanan 1983). However, recent attention has focused upon variability of satisfactions within individual activities. It is well documented that within any activity there may exist subgroups of users who receive different satisfactions (Hautalaoma and Brown 1978). Clearly it may be beneficial to management to identify these subgroups. Some researchers have suggested that variability in satisfactions within activities may be the product of varying levels of commitment to that activity (Bryan 1977, 1979 and Jacobs 1980). Haas (1979) has suggested that variability in angler satisfaction within activities is the effect of environmental attributes on activities occurring at different recreation sites. Buchanan (1983) believes that a large amount of the variability of satisfactions results from failure by researchers to consider the entire package of activities that a recreationist might engage in on a particular trip. Taking the activity packages approach, Buchanan (1983) studied people who identified fishing as their primary reason for visiting a site. As expected, catching fish was the dominant satisfaction desired by all anglers. O ther important satisfactions were related to an overall relaxation/stress reduction dimension and an intra-group affiliation dimension. Buchanan’s results indicated that secondary activities also effect the satisfactions attributed to fishing (the primary activity in this instance). Buchanan (1983) showed that three of the top five satisfactions attributed to fishing (physical rest, escaping personal and social pressures, and being with friends) had significant positive 26 correlations to secondary activities. Some secondary activities included: (1) visiting with others, (2) going to town, (3) relaxing, (4) sitting around campfire, (5) going for a walk, (6) hiking, (7) taking photos, (8) power boating, and (9) sailing. These results, as well as most research on fishing satisfactions, show that fishing is a multidimensional experience encompassing considerably more than casting a line into the water to catch a fish. What the research suggests is that, "greater attention must be paid to the level of specificity at which data are collected and the appropriate level of specificity to which a specific study will be generalized" (Buchanan 1983). Knopf et al. (1973) used a "behavioral approach" to explore the question of why people fish. Their model of recreation behavior was based on a "problem solving" model of human behavior which stated that, "the choice of recreation environments an d /o r activities is strongly influenced by problem states that either cannot be, or for some reasons are not resolved in nonrecrcational environments." Thus, anglers fish for different reasons based on their "unmet needs" and these motivations not only differentiate fishing from other recreational activities but also influence the choice of fishing method and environmental setting. Knopf et al. (1973) concluded that fishermen were strongly motivated by four unmet needs: temporary escape, achievement, exploration and experience of natural settings. For example, they demonstrated that the closer the fishermen lived to an urban area, the m ore the fishermen reported a need to escape. Also, they demonstrated a difference between anglers on the importance of achievement as a motivation for fishing. Low-income anglers attached m ore importance to achieve­ ment as a reason for fishing than did high-income anglers. According to their model, low-income groups might be more frustrated in fulfilling achievement needs in nonrecreation pursuits and might find greater fulfillment in fishing than high income groups. Knopf et al. demonstrated the value of their model to understand resource user conflicts. They explored the underlying cause of conflicts between fishermen and canoeists on Michigan’s Au Sable River. They showed that the importance of companionship (affiliation) was high for many Au Sable canoeists while it was low for the Au Sable anglers. Anglers who expressed a high need to experience nature were the most affected by canoeists. This further dem onstrates that motivations for fishing vary among different types of anglers. 27 Motivations for fishing represent a potential basis for segmenting anglers into homogeneous groups. Managerial practices then can be implem ented to serve the various angler segments with specific unmet needs. And, fisheries managers can implement practices which spatially or temporally separate these users who have incompatible motives. Importance of Motivations / Satisfactions: 'Identifying the diverse reasons why people fish, what they expect from their fishing experiences, and sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction all tic closely to the perceived quality of fishing opportunities and the marketing of recreational fishing" (Fedler 1984). Ley (1967) reported that fishing provides escape from the pressures of everyday life, a chance to seek relaxation, and an opportunity to be close to nature. Success related variables arc usually considered less important as motivations for fishing. In a study of Michigan stream trout anglers, Fcnskc (1983) reported that "number of fish caught" and "size of fish caught" ranked fifth and sixth among eight factors important to a fishing trip. However, fisheries managers often consider the main benefits of fishing to be catching fish and disagree with these psychological benefits of fishing (Nielsen 1976, Ditton 1977). Ditton and Graefe (1975) explained: Traditionally, management has focused on the fishery resource itself, based apparently on the assumption that greater harvest produces greater satisfaction. U nder this approach, the goal of management is to increase supply, to cut down the time between bites. And fishing satisfaction is often measured in terms of total harvest, catch of a particular species, or catch per unit effort (1975). Fenske (1983) demonstrated this point when she stated: In an attempt to measure angler satisfaction with the quality of fishing, respondents were asked to rate fishing as excellent, good, average, poor or very poor. G reat Lakes anglers were the most satisfied with their sport with 58.9% indicating fishing was better than average... (1983). In Fenske’s study satisfaction was not directly measured; the assumption was made that fishing quality equated with satisfactions. This controversy over the benefits of recreation fishing continues to exist today despite considerable evidence supporting the greater importance of psychological benefits. Hendee and Bryan (1978) reviewed 30 studies on recreational fishing. Nature, relaxation, escape and 28 companionship were reported most frequently as motives for going fishing. The importance of catching fish was clearly secondary to many other psychological benefits derived from recreational fishing. In a national survey of saltwater fishermen, the num ber of fish caught was associated with reported satisfaction (Hiett et al. 1983). Very satisfied fishermen tended to catch more fish than fishermen who were slightly or not at all satisfied. W hen asked what their reasons were for their reported level of satisfaction, fishermen with high satisfaction indicated that being with other people and "other"rcasons were important. Less satisfied fishermen mentioned the number of fish caught as the most important reason. These findings suggest a multi-dimensional nature of satisfaction where specific satisfactions contribute to produce total satisfaction for a fishing experience. Even when "success" is rated low in importance it is still considered in evaluating satisfaction. In a study of Maryland charter boat fishermen Fedler (1984) confirmed that fishermen place high priority on relaxation, interaction with nature, social interaction and escape from the daily routine or demands of life while placing a relatively low priority on catching fish. However, since fulfillment of relaxation, nature and escape motivations for fishing were not found to be important indicators of satisfaction, it was assumed that they were generally obtained by charter fishermen in the study. Few situations would normally arise during the fishing experience that would block their fulfillment. Fedler (1984) found that specific aspects of the fishing experience appear to be most important in determining fishing satisfaction as suggested by discrepancy theory. Apparently, charter fishermen have unique standards by which they measure their fishing experience. Helpfulness of the crew was one such important aspect which is not relative to other types of fishing. While catching and eating fish were relatively unimportant motivations for charter fishing, when all factors are considered simultaneously, the number and kinds of fish caught played a major role in determining satisfaction. Further, the importance of the number of fish caught seemed to be a subjective evaluation on the part of the fishermen since neither differences in the number of fish caught by individual fishermen or their fishing group had any relation to overall satisfaction. Fedler (1984) concluded that the major general reasons for fishing are fulfilled by the 29 experience. It is the relative lack of fulfillment of minor reasons for fishing or specific aspects that can cause dissatisfaction. Thus, while size and number of fish caught arc relatively unimportant they do contribute to the fishing experience and most importantly, the fisheries manager has more control over these factors than many of the other psychological benefits from fishing. Stoffle et al. (1984) had similar conclusions in their study of Lake Michigan salmon and trout anglers. They reported that the number of fish caught was important as a public indicator of success but not in the total evaluation of the fishing experience. FLY FISHING and ATTITUDES RELATED TO FLY FISHING Katz (1981) reported that: Fly fishing, as a leisure pursuit prior to the decades of the 1950s and 1960s, was a rather elitist sport. After World W ar II, the development of synthetic rod-building materials (notably solid fiberglass, later followed by hollow glass) and the advent of synthetic fly line which replaced costly silk lines, created a technology in the hands of the masses. Improved transportation, especially the family automobile, opened the hinterland to the general public. Although fly fishermen in contemporary society remain a minority faction among sport fishing participants, the sport has appreciated a renaissance during the decades of the 1960s and 1970s. This rebirth was marked by a proliferation of periodical publications dealing with the sport of fishing in general, and much later with an abundance of special interest publications... The decade of the 1970s was marked by an explosion of new literature by contemporary writers, who dealt with every aspect of the sport (1981; p. 9). During this period there was also a proliferation of private conservation organizations such as Trout Unlimited, The Federation of Fly Fishermen, Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, and The Anglers of the Au Sable. Probably the most significant effect of the increase in fly fishing is the development of new attitudes and values towards fishing, the resource and management. As Bryan stated: As levels of angling specialization increases, attitudes and values about the sport change. Focus shifts from consumption of the fish to preservation and emphasis on the nature and setting of the activity (1977). With the increase in fly fishing and development of new values, "quality fishing" became the buzz-word among fisheries managers during the 1970s (Carpenter et al. 1977). Carpenter et al. defined quality as, "what every angler seeks in an angling experience" and stated that, "having a definition of quality is what a fishery biologist needs to insure that he maintains fishery attributes 30 important to anglers." This led to studies to determ ine if quality m eant the same thing for all anglers, and if not, to identify and segment the various groups for management purposes based on definitions of quality. Carpenter ct al. (1977) studied stream trout anglers to determine if quality was the same for anglers under different types of stream trout management. They specifically compared anglers using streams managed as wild trout fisheries to anglers using streams managed as catchable fisheries. They concluded that quality was not the same for the two groups of anglers sampled and that management systems attract anglers who’s philosophy is consistent with the management philosophy underlying the systems. The catchable trout stream is yield oriented. Emphasis on products of fishing and catching fish is often improved by stocking hatchery-reared trout. The wild trout system is not yield oriented. Emphasis is on the act of fishing, not necessarily catching fish. The opportunity to catch fish in a wild trout system is maintained by natural recruitment and in most instances require that anglers do not kill many fish to maintain the system. Probably one benefit from fly-only regulations, which many fly anglers are often hesitant to mention, is being segregated from other anglers (especially bait and lure anglers). Butler and Dolscn (1988) stated; "Conflicts between dissimilar angler sub-typologies (e.g., fly fishermen and bait fishermen do not share the same pools well) are known to diminish the recreational experiences, while conversely, positive interactions with other anglers of similar philosophy and experience expectation will prove to enhance the angling experience." This benefit should not be overlooked, but instead should be considered a legitimate benefit of special regulations and its contribution to anglers’ satisfactions should be researched. Part Four D EVELOPM ENTAL PHENOM ENA Research suggests that many anglers who are now spouting the no-kill philosophy began their fishing careers as "worm-dunkers" and killed their share of trout at some time (Bryan 1977). Bryan stated that anglers become more specialized as involvement in the sport increases. Bryan defined 31 specialization as increasing use of fly fishing, or changing from bait and lures to fly fishing. He proposed a philosophical change of an increase in catch-and-release fishing along with specialization. A similar pattern of attitude changes was observed in hunters who also go through stages in which the earlier stages arc more concerned with taking home game (Jackson et al. 1979, Jackson and Norton 1980). The stage concept maintains that a sportsman passes successively through each of the stages. However, the apparent support for the stage concept may be due also to the "changing times". For example, Kcllcrt (1980) reported that older people in his sample had stronger utilitarian attitudes. This may not mean that people become m ore utilitarian as they age. It is more likely that older peoples’ attitudes were formed during a tim e when utilitarian attitudes were m ore common. Becoming interested in no-kill fishing o r progressing on to fly fishing may be due to the "time in history" aspect rather than to a progression through attitude or behavior stages. It is possible that beginning anglers can start with fly fishing and an interest in no-kill fishing. At present both theories are possible and the stage concept can not be discounted. Certainly attitude changes take place as an angler gains m ore experience with the sport. Discovering and classifying these changes can add greatly to our understanding of the socio-psychological dimensions o f anglers. A brief summary of the literature which guided this research on the developmental nature of trout fishing is presented here. DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES Jackson et al. (1979) identified specific developmental stages that most hunters appear to pass through from beginning years to final stage. Satisfactions, motivations and hunting behavior fell into a predictable pattern of development. Five distinct stages were identified: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shooter Stage: satisfactions were closely tied to being able to "get shooting". Limiting-Out Stage: satisfactions were dependent upon killing game or obtaining bag limits. Trophy Stage: emphasis of activity is directed towards selectivity of game, reflecting the hunter’s idea of a trophy (quality versus quantity of game). Method Stage: characterized by an increased intensity about hunting and emphasis is on method of hunting and specialized skills. Sportsman Stage: satisfaction is obtained by the total hunting experience. 32 It was implied that many unethical and illegal behaviors were common among hunters in the early stages. Incidence of these behaviors might be reduced if hunters advanced more quickly through the early stages or if m ore opportunities for shooting and success were provided for those in the earlier stages. Thus, identifying the hunter stage of clientele could provide managers with valuable information on how best to manage a resource for the public. The stage theory not only suggests that different groups have different motivations but proposes how they might change in predictable ways. The stage theory can probably be applied to a number of recreation forms. Attem pts have been made to show that anglers also move through predictable stages. Bryan (1977) proposed that trout anglers "tend to become more specialized over time" moving in predictable ways on a num ber of variables. These variables include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Equipment preferences Tim e spent fishing Importance of fishing Species preference Am ount of equipment Orientation to fish M anagement philosophy Attitudes towards consumption Bryan (1977) developed a fishermen typology based on degree of specialization (specifically, amount of participation, technique and setting preference). The types were: 1. 2. 3. 4. Occasional Fishermen -- those who fish infrequently because they are new to the activity and have not established it as a regular part of their leisure activity, or because it has not become a major interest. Generalists - fishermen who have established the sport as a regular leisure activity and use a variety of techniques. Technique Specialists -- anglers who specialize in a particular method, largely to the exclusion of other techniques. Technique-Setting Specialists — highly committed anglers who specialize in method and have distinct preferences for specific water types on which to practice the activity. Bryan stressed that the concept of recreational specialization refers to a continuum of behavior from the general to the specialized. Bryan proposes that fly fishermen are the most specialized among anglers. However, this neglects the possibility that bait or lure anglers can also become specialized; or the possibility that a beginning angler may start at the highest level (fly fishing) yet lack the experience that the definition implies for that level. 33 Research by Katz (1981) showed that as the level of involvement (activity) increased among fly fishermen their concern about the environment increased and that there were differences in attitudes about management philosophies between fishermen in high versus low involvement levels. In other words, there may be changes within fly anglers also. What the findings of Bryan and Katz suggest is that anglers do appear to go through changes over time in relation to their sport. W hether these changes are unique for specific types of trout anglers or apply to all trout anglers is unknown. Formally, cognitive development refers to growth in ability to acquire, organize, and use information — as a cognitive skill acquired with time and experience (Williams 1984). According to Flavell (1972) the three requirements for a developmental analysis of any behavior include: (1) specifying a set of acquisitions (what it is that develops), (2) identifying the order and processes involved, and (3) defining the time dimension of the sequence. For Flavell (1972) the items in a developmental sequence may refer to a structure, skill, concept, belief, attitude, bit of knowledge, or any other type of cognitive unit that a developmental psychologist might define and study. Skill or knowledge may be most useful to measure trout fishing development. If the stage theory is valid, Kohlbcrg’s (1971) finding of the importance of one’s peers in moral development may be useful in understanding the development of ethical behavior among sportsmen. Kohlberg states that to effectively raise the individual from one level of ethical behavior to a higher level, requires that the person become involved with an individual or group already at that higher level of development. The vehicle whereby modification of ethical behavior or the adoption of new values is achieved is by gaining group approval. Similarly, the influence of fishing organizations on the development of ethics, motivations and ultimate acceptance of catch-and-release fishing may be of great importance. Chapter 3 RESEARCH M ETHODS In April 1986, the Fisheries and Wildlife Departm ent of Michigan State University began a study to collect baseline data on the characteristics and behaviors of anglers on the Au Sable River. This project used a sample of Au Sable River anglers and a statewide sample of Michigan stream trout anglers to study attitudes, motivations, preferences and fishing behaviors (Figure 3.1). The two samples were also used to explore compliance behaviors and associated attitudes. A U SABLE RIVER ANGLERS FIELD INTERVIEW Anglers entering or leaving the stream at public access sites along the A u Sable River were asked to respond to one of two questionnaires. The long form (Appendix A) required about eight to ten minutes to complete. Questionnaires were color coded to indicate the collection location. A short form (Appendix B) was available for anglers in a hurry or to be used if there were too many anglers at the site to permit using the long survey. W hen anglers could not be intercepted, an envelope containing a short form, a letter explaining the study (Appendix C), a complimentary pencil and a stamped, addressed envelope were left on the car windshield. Anglers who filled out this short survey were sent the remainder of the field interview in the mail (Appendix D ). A second mailing with a cover letter was sent to non-respondents (Appendix E). All questionnaires were coded with a four-digit num ber so that questionnaires could be identified and matched with a follow-up questionnaire. Anglers were never approached while fishing in the stream in so as to not disturb their fishing experience. 34 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGLER STUDY: AUSABLE RIVER USERS AND STATEWIDE SAMPLES AUSABLE ANGLERS SURVEY1: INTERVIEW AT 5 SITES STATEWIDE SAMPLE (SUM/86) SHORT FORM ONSITE/LONG FORM MAILED INTERVIEW 304 C om plete LONG FORM (FIELD) (360 C om pleted) (N = 1491) (71% RETURN) (SPRING/87) LEFT ON CAR 150 R e tu rn LONG FORM (MAIL) (N = 454) (85% RETURN) SURVEY 2: FOLLOW UP (MAIL) (N = 742) (82.2% RETURN) (FALL/88) Figure 3.1. SURVEY 3: MAILED SURVEY 4: REGULATIONS (MAIL) (N = 192) (N = 296) (B8% RETURN) (82% RETURN; _______ (WINTER/88)________ Sampling scheme of AuSable River anglers and Michigan statewide trout anglers used for this research. 36 Sampling A reas & Schedule: Interviews on the Au Sable River were conducted at access points in five different river sections (Figure 3.2): Section 1: The proposed no-kill section from Burtons Landing to Wakeley Bridge on the Au Sable River Mainstream Section 2: A u Sable River Mainstream from Wakeley Bridge to M cMasters Bridge Section 3: North Branch from Sheep Ranch to Kellogg Bridge Section 4: South Branch no-kill section Section 5: South Branch downstream of no-kill section to Smith Bridge The study began April 26, 1986, opening day of trout season, and continued through October 5, 1986. Interviews were conducted on weekends till June and on most weekdays during the summer (Appendix F). Interviewers worked all weekends and holidays. Sampling times (8 am - 6 pm or 2 pm - midnight) and sample sections were randomly selected. The two South Branch sections were sample together. FOLLOW -UP SURVEY All participants who completed the interview, either in the field or by return mail, were sent a follow-up survey in the late fall and early winter 1986. This mailing included additional questions that emerged during the study (Appendix G). Two mailings of the follow-up survey were conducted to achieve adequate return rates (Appendix H). INSTRUM ENT DEVELOPM ENT, VALIDITY and RELIABILITY Survey items were considered for inclusion in the instrument if they met one of the following criteria: 1. Does the item shed some light on the catch-and-reiease controversy? 2. Can the item be useful in segmenting stream trout anglers? 3. Does the item have useful management implications for Au Sable River anglers? 37 NORTH BRANCH SS c T ickj 3 QUALITY FISHING 20NE S £C T tO > i 1 PROPOSEO QUALITY C&R FISHING ZONE SECT Z GENERAL REGULATION GRAYLING MAINSTREAM QUALITY FISHING ZONE INCLUDES SOUTH BRANCH Figure 3.2. 4.5 Ml OF C&R SECTION 5 Location of AuSable River study sections, 1986. 38 Item questions were also assessed for clarity and understanding. Ambiguous questions were either reworded or omitted. The first weekend (April 26-27, 1986) was used to pre-test the preliminary field instrument. Revisions were made after the pre-test to produce the field instrument. Additional items that emerged during the study were included in the follow-up survey developed at the end of the field season. DESCRIPTION O F T H E A U SABLE RIVER FIELD INTERVIEW Fishing Related Item s: Fishing related items were included to determ ine the relationship of success to satisfaction for Au Sable River anglers (items 1-3). Site Attributes: Site attributes were included to get an understanding of which site attributes Au Sable River anglers consider important (item 8). No-Kill Issue: Items 9 - 1 3 sampled attitudes towards special regulations and the proposed no­ kill regulation for the Mainstream. Most other items in the survey were useful for describing the differences in attitudes towards the proposed no-kill regulation. Compliance: Items 14 - 17 were exploratory questions on compliance which was Phase II of this project. These items are not discussed in this report. Potential Segmentation Variables: Number of fishing days (item 18), fishing method ( # 19), preferred fish species ( # 20), motivations for trout fishing ( # 21), trout releasing behavior ( # 23), membership in fishing organizations ( # 24), fly tying ( # 25), years of trout fishing experience ( # 26) and self-reported experience ( # 27), importance of trout fishing ( # 28), and money invested in trout fishing equipment ( # 29) were all considered as potential segmentation variables. Miscellaneous O ther Items: Au Sable River areas fished in (item 22), trout fishing after dark ( # 30), party size ( # 5), and number of fishing days at site ( # 6) were items potentially important for management of Au Sable River anglers. Demographics: Demographic variables are potentially important in the identification of market segments (items 1-6, pg. 6). 39 A ddress: Participants were asked to supply their mailing address so that follow-up surveys could be mailed to them if they agreed. DESCRIPTION O F FOLLOW -UP SURVEY TO AU SABLE RIV ER ANGLERS Items important to the understanding of the no-kill controversy included: preferred Au Sable River area (item 1), intended response to a mandatory catch-and-release regulation ( # 2), property ownership ( # 3-6), reasons for approving the proposed no-kill ( # 9-14), reasons for disapproving the proposed no-kill ( # 15-24), and beliefs related to the proposed no-kill ( # 25-34). Item 7, importance of catching trout, was potentially a segmentation variable. Participants were also given the opportunity to exclude themselves from a future survey dealing with attitudes towards and compliance with trout fishing regulations and an opportunity to receive a summary copy of the project’s results. ESTIM ATE O F NON-RESPONSE BIAS A n estimate of non-response bias for those who completed the short field interview but not the remainder mailed to them later was based on the nearly 100% response rate by those who completed the field interview. An estimate of non-response bias for the follow-up survey was made based on the completed field interview. Interviewer bias was also considered. STATEW IDE MICHIGAN STREAM TR O U T ANGLERS SELECTION O F SAMPLE Anglers were selected from the pool of anglers who purchased a 1986 Michigan trout stamp. This stamp is required by all anglers who fish for and keep trout or salmon in Michigan waters. The 1986 sample was the most current sample available since this study began just before the beginning of the 1987 fishing season (April 1). A sample size of 1,600 was randomly selected from the 370,494 trout stamps sold in 1986 (Jamsen, M DNR, Fisheries Division, personal communication). 40 ADM INISTRATION O F M ICHIGAN TR O U T ANGLER SURVEY All questionnaires were mailed out at the same time (March 9, 1987) by bulk rate mailing (Appendix I). Research has shown that bulk rate mailing reduces returns in some cases but the difference is small (Linsky 1975). Address correction was requested to assure return of all undcliverablc mailings with correct addresses where possible. This allowed a better estimate of non­ response due to undcliverablc questionnaires. There were four mailings of questionnaires with each mailing consisting of three enclosures: 1) a survey, 2) a cover letter, and 3) a pre-paid return envelope. The non-response mailings were sent out on April 27, 1987; June 1, 1987; and July 6, 1987 (Appendix J). The cover letters explain the purpose and value of the study and the importance of their participation in the study. The questionnaire was coded with a four-digit num ber to allow for repeat mailings to nonrcspondcnts. These procedures follow recommendations of Dillman (1978). H alf of the sample group was sent a pre-postcard (March 2, 1987) which informed anglers that they would receive a survey in the mail while the other half were sent a rem inder postcard two weeks after the first mailing of the survey (Appendix K). The return rate at the time of the second mailing of the questionnaire was almost identical for both sub-samples (pre-postcard vs. reminder postcard). Thus, both techniques appeared to be equally effective in encouraging return of the questionnaires. Participants also were informed that those who returned their completed surveys would be entered in a random drawing for a prize (about $50 worth of gear) donated by a major tackle manufacturer. INSTRUM ENT DEVELOPM ENT, VALIDITY and RELIABILITY Items for the survey instrument were based on principles of market segmentation, developmental stage theories, and angler motivations and attitudes. Survey items were considered for inclusion in the instrument if they met one of the following criteria: 1. Can the item be compared with the sample of Au Sable River anglers? 2. Can the item be useful in segmenting stream trout anglers? 3. Does the item clarify developmental stage theories for anglers? 4. Does the item have useful management implications for Au Sable River anglers or stream trout anglers in general? 41 Item questions were reviewed by peers for clarity and understanding. Ambiguous questions were either reworded or omitted. The draft instrument was pre-tested by randomly selecting 30 anglers from the sample pool of anglers. A 31.6% (n= 6) return rate was obtained (1 undcliverablc survey). The returned surveys were examined for responses and potential clarity problems. The draft instrument was then revised accordingly. DESCRIPTION O F T H E M ICHIGAN TR O U T ANGLER SURVEY The survey (Michigan Trout Angler Survey) was identified to anglers as a project of Michigan State University, Departm ent of Fisheries and Wildlife. The complete survey is included in Appendix I. Because the main interest of the study was in stream trout anglers, a filter question was used to exclude non-stream trout anglers from most of the questions since their responses would not be appropriate (item 3). Items For Comparison With Au Sable River Sample: Variables used to compare Au Sable River anglers with a sample of Michigan stream trout anglers included: num ber of fishing days (item 1), preferred fish species ( # 2), fishing methods ( # 4), years of trout fishing experience ( # 7), self-reported experience ( # 8), motivations for trout fishing ( # 10), importance of trout fishing ( # 11), trout releasing behavior ( # 12), importance of trout fishing ( # 13), attitudes towards proposed no-kill regulation on Au Sable River ( # 25, 26), attitudes towards special regulations ( # 31-33), membership in fishing organizations ( # 41) and demographic variables ( # 43-47). Many of these items were also important in segmenting trout anglers. Items For Developmental Stages O f Anglers: Items considered im portant for determining the developmental nature of trout fishing included: preferred method for stream trout fishing ( # 5), preferred stream trout species ( # 6), method of stream trout fishing first used ( # 9), years of trout fishing experience ( # 7), and trout fishing phases ( # 37). Items With Management Implications: Items considered to have potential management implications for Au Sable River anglers and Michigan stream trout anglers in general included: favorite Michigan trout stream ( # 14), important attributes of preferred trout fishing sites ( # 15, 42 16), 1986 trout fishing data ( # 17-24), and compliance with regulations ( # 34-36). Miscellaneous Items: G reat Lakes fishing ( # 38), motivations for G reat Lakes fishing ( # 39), G reat Lakes fishing phases ( # 40), and hunting ( # 42) were miscellaneous items added to test some ideas. Also, an item which categorized an angler’s response to num ber of fishing days was included which asked the participant to describe his/her answer as cither: (1) accurate, (2) close approximation, or (3) just a guess. Participants were also given the opportunity to exclude themselves from a future survey dealing with attitudes towards and compliance with trout fishing regulations. ESTIM ATE O F NON-RESPONSE BIAS Although no non-response bias study was conducted, the cover letters with the third and fourth mailings of surveys to non-respondents included a short list of reasons for not responding. Anglers were encouraged to check off their reason and return the letter if they did not wish to participate in the study. This permitted a rough estimate of the nature of non-response bias. TR O U T FISHING REGULATIONS SU RVEY Beattie (1981) stated that regulations would intuitively appear to have a great influence on hunting satisfactions. H e reported that, "Conservation officers are plagued with questions about why certain laws exist, game departments are chastised on occasion for not responding to the wishes of hunters, and some hunters have quit hunting because of what they perceive as excessive regulation of sport hunting." This survey explores trout anglers attitudes and behaviors towards trout fishing regulations (Appendix L). SELECTION O F SAMPLE Au Sable River Sample: O f the 610 Au Sable River anglers, 571 (93.6%) agreed to receive a questionnaire about compliance with fishing regulations. Two hundred of these anglers were randomly selected (systematic random-start selection). 43 Statewide Michigan Stream Trout Angler Sample: O f the 727 stream trout anglers, 626 (86.1%) agreed to receive a questionnaire about compliance with fishing regulations. Three hundred of these anglers were randomly selected (systematic random-start selection). Because a lower return rate was expected for this group, a larger sample size was used to assure adequate returns. ADM INISTRATION O F M ICHIGAN TR O U T FISHING REGULATIONS SU RVEY All questionnaires were mailed out at the same time (January 18,1988) by bulk rate mailing. Address correction was requested. A reminder postcard followed one week later (January 25, 1988). Two follow-up mailings of questionnaires were made to non-respondents on M arch 1, 1988 and April 15, 1988. The first mailing consisted of three enclosures: 1) a survey, 2) a cover letter, and 3) a pre­ paid return envelope, while the last two mailings also included a check-off list of reasons for not participating in the study for those not wishing to return a completed survey (Appendix M). INSTRUM ENT DEVELOPM ENT, VALIDITY and RELIABILITY Survey items were chosen to meet one of the three criteria: 1. Satisfactions with trout fishing regulations 2. Attitudes towards trout fishing regulations 3. Compliance with trout fishing regulations Each item was discussed accordingly in addition to being reviewed for clarity and understanding. Ambiguous questions were either reworded or omitted. The instrument was not pre-tested. DESCRIPTION O F M ICHIGAN TR O U T FISHING REGULATIONS SURVEY The survey (Your Opinions About Michigan Trout Fishing Regulations) was identified to anglers as a project of Michigan State University, Departm ent of Fisheries and Wildlife. The complete survey is included in Appendix L. Only the parts of this survey that pertain to potential segmentation variables identified from the previous surveys are analyzed and discussed in this report. Additional analysis will be contained in a report to the Michigan D epartm ent of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. 44 Items 2-5 and 46 measure satisfactions with fishing regulations. Attitudes towards fishing regulations arc m easured by items 6-25. Intended compliance with trout fishing regulations is measured with items 29-37. Self reported compliance with regulations is m easured by items 41-45 and 47. ESTIM ATE O F NON-RESPONSE BIAS Non-response bias was not studied. However, nonrespondcnts were asked to check their reasons why they did not wish to participate. This list of reasons was included in the last two mailings to non-respondents. This permitted an estimate of the nature of non-response bias. DATA ANALYSIS D ata were entered into the IBM mainframe computer by Michigan State University (MSU) Key Punch Services. Data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSX) software. A significance level of = 0.05 was used to determine significance. A discussion of the statistical treatm ent is included with the description of the results. M ARKET SEGM ENTATION VARIABLES Segmentation variables were developed from an a priori approach rather than an empirical (cluster) analysis of the data. The data were used to determine the type and degree of relationships between the proposed segmentation variables and other angler characteristics. Five criteria were used to select the potential segmentation variables. One criterion used in selecting the segmentation bases was that they would form a measurable continuum. A second criterion was that the segmentation variables contribute to an understanding of the Au Sable River "no-kill" issue as well as predict catch-and-release attitudes in general. A third criterion was that segmentation should be related to attitudes, intentions and actual behavior towards fishing 45 regulations. A fourth criterion was that the segmentation bases predict various angler preferences. A final criterion was that the segmentation bases be easily measured. Three potential segmentation bases were proposed for Michigan stream trout anglers: (1) fly­ fishing specialization, (2) non-consumptive orientation, and (3) trout fishing intensity. These variables are described below: 1. A fly-fishing specialization scale was created based on frequency of fly fishing versus use of bait a n d /o r lures. The scale is divided into five segments of stream trout anglers: LEV EL LEV EL LEV EL LEV EL LEV EL 2. 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: N EV ER fly fish SOM ETIM ES fly fish O FTEN fly fish and OFTEN use bait a n d /o r lures OFTEN fly fish and SOMETIM ES use bait a n d /o r lures O FTEN fly fish and NEVER use bait and/or lures The non-consumptive orientation variable is based on the importance of "eating fish" as a reason why an angler trout fishes. Anglers rated the importance of "eating fish" on a scale of 0 (NOT A REASON) to 9 (VERY IM PORTANT REASON) from which five non-consumptive levels were defined as follows: IMPORTANCE SCALE VALUE 9 7 - 8 4 - 6 1 - 3 0 3. NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 The trout fishing intensity scale was created using a sum of two variables: (1) the number of days of trout fishing and (2) the percent of trout fishing days relative to total days of fishing: 46 ABSOLUTE NUMBER OF TROUT FISHING DAYS ASSIGNED VALUE LESS THAN 10 DAYS - 1 10 TO 19 DAYS - 2 20 TO 29 DAYS - 3 30 TO 39 DAYS - 4 40 DAYS OR MORE - 5 PERCENT OF TROUT FISHING DAYS RELATIVE TO TOTAL FISHING DAYS ASSIGNED VALUE LESS THAN 30 PERCENT 1 30 TO 49 PERCENT 2 50 TO 69 PERCENT 3 70 TO 89 PERCENT 4 90 TO 100 PERCENT 5 SUM OF THE ABOVE TWO SCALES & X TROUT FISHING DAYS') 2 3 5 7 9 - 4 6 8 10 TROUT FISHING INTENSITY LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 Chapter 4 ANALYSIS O F RESULTS The following chapter begins with summaries of the response rates for the various Au Sable River surveys, the statewide trout angler survey and the trout fishing regulations survey with considerations of non-response bias. Next a description of Au Sable River anglers with comparisons to the statewide trout angler sample is presented. Part three is an analysis of attitudes towards catch-and-rclcase regulations and part four is an analysis of potential segmentation variables. This chapter ends with an analysis of the developmental nature of trout Fishing. Part One SURVEY RESPONSE RATES AND NON-RESPONSE BIAS A U SABLE RIVER ANGLER SURVEYS A total of 848 Au Sable River anglers were contacted in the study locations during the 1986 trout fishing season. Anglers were interviewed only once during the season. Anglers were interviewed in the field and completed either the full survey (6-pages) or the first 2 pages and were sent the remainder in the mail. For some, the two-page interview was left on car windshields with a stamped, addressed envelope and those returning the two-page interview were mailed the remainder of the survey. Complete Field Interview: Complete field interviews (n=360) were conducted on the Au Sable River study areas. Less than 1 percent of all anglers contacted refused to participate. 47 48 Short Field Interview: Short field interviews (n=314) were conducted on the Au Sable River study areas. Ten of these short interviews did not include mailing addresses, the rest (n=304) were sent the rem ainder of the survey in the mail. A n 82.2 percent return rate was obtained giving a total of 250 complete surveys. Short Interview Forms Left on the Car Windshields: Short interview forms were left on 181 cars, of which 120 parties (cars) responded (66.3% return rate) producing 174 short surveys since more than one survey was left on each car. Twenty-four of these short surveys did not include mailing addresses, the rest (n = 150) were sent the remainder of the survey in the mail. A 90 percent return rate was obtained giving a total of 135 complete surveys. Follow-up Survey to Au Sable River Anglers: Follow-up surveys (n=742) were mailed out in the fall of 1986 to collect additional information. A total of 610 usable surveys were returned for a return rate of 82.2 percent. BIAS - A U SABLE RIVER AN GLER SURVEYS Survey M ethod Bias: Three types of methods were used: (1) complete survey conducted in the field (99% response rate); (2) short survey conducted in the field and the rem ainder of the survey was sent by mail (82% response rate); and (3) short survey left on car to be filled out by the angler and returned by mail (66% return rate) and then the remainder of the survey was sent by mail (90% response rate). The overall return rate for the survey left on the car was 59%. There are two possible reasons for any differences found between these surveys: (1) non­ response bias, and (2) survey method used (personal interview vs. written survey). Non-response bias is not a problem for the survey completed in the field since less than 1% of the anglers contacted refused to participate. Non-response is probably not a large problem with the short survey conducted in the field since an 82% return rate was obtained. Dillman (1978) suggests that a return rate of 80% or better is adequate enough to minimize the effects of non-response bias. Non­ response bias may be more of a problem with the third survey m ethod — leaving the short survey on the car —since only a 59% return rate was obtained from this method. This method may be biased 49 in favor of m ore motivated respondents since a second contact to increase responses was not possible. These three methods must be compared holding location constant since they were not used equally in all A u Sable River locations. For example, 36% of the car surveys were from the no-kill section (since this area was difficult to sample the car survey method was necessary to increase sample size) while only 8% of the long field surveys and 14% of the short field surveys were from the no-kill section. Those in the no-kill section were more favorable towards no-kill regulations. Two locations were picked to compare survey method biases: (1) the Mainstream Quality Section and (2) the South Branch No-kill Section. For other locations the car survey method had sample sizes too small to make adequate comparisons. Twenty-three variables were compared for survey method biases: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. total days fished num ber of trout fishing days num ber of days spent fishing in no-kill areas money invested in fishing equipment education income age years of experience attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation importance of trout fishing estimated percent of anglers keeping trout illegally number of A u Sable River areas fished in fish releasing behavior tie flies frequency of keeping trout from no-kill areas self-rated experience membership in fishing organizations six motivations for trout fishing: a. to eat fish b. for fun and excitement c. for companionship d. to relax e. to enjoy nature f. to use fishing equipment Only one variable was significantly different when compared between the two survey methods on the M ainstream Quality Section. Anglers in the complete field survey method fished in an average of 3.2 areas while anglers in the short field survey and the car survey averaged 3.7 areas (F= 3.4984, df=2, p=.0317). 50 Two variables showed significant differences from the South Branch No-kill Section: (1) the motivation for trout fishing, "to cat fish", and (2) estimated percent of anglers keeping trout. Anglers in the complete Geld survey gave "to eat fish" a 1.4 rating (on a scale of 0, NO T A REASON, to 9, VERY IM PORTANT REASON), anglers in the short field survey gave it a 2.0 rating and anglers in the car survey gave it a 0.8 rating (F=3.2277, df=2, p=.0436). Thus, the main difference was between the two short surveys. Anglers in the complete field survey estimated that about 14% of the anglers in the no-kill section were keeping trout, anglers in the short field survey estimated 17% and anglers in the car survey estimated 27% (F=3.8517, df=2, p=.0263). Survey method bias is not a problem with this study. Only three of 46 statistical tests (23 variables for two locations) showed significant differences between methods used. For the three significant variables the differences among survey methods were very small. Interviewer Bias: Two interviewers were used to collect interviews. Since interviewer bias is a possible problem in studies of this type a number of variables were examined for interviewer bias: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation frequency of keeping fish from a no-kill area membership in fishing organization Au Sable River areas fished in importance of trout fishing fish releasing behavior importance of fly-fishing only areas importance of no-kill areas total days fished motivations for trout fishing a. to eat fish b. for fun and excitement c. for companionship d. to get away and relax e. to enjoy nature f. to use fishing equipment Three variables had significant differences — means, F-values and significance are listed below: 1. Au Sable River areas fished in: 3.1 vs. 2.7 (F=4.4626, d f= l, p=.0353) 2. M otivation- - to enjoy nature: 8.6 vs 8 3 (F=6.0128, d f= l, p=.0128) 3. M otivation- - to use fishing equipment: 5.6 vs. 4.5 (F= 10.8316, p=.0011) These differences are not large and may be more due to regional differences than interviewer biases since one interviewer spent more time on the South Branch (mean list first above) and the other 51 interviewer m ore time on the N orth Branch (m ean listed second above). This was checked by looking at these three variables by interviewer holding location constant. Two locations had large enough samples from both interviewers to make good comparisons: (1) Mainstream Quality Section and (2) N orth Branch. These six tests yielded two with significant results: (1) A u Sable River areas fished in was significant for the North Branch (m ean=3.1 vs. 2.3, F = 5.2425, d f= l, p =.0246), and (2) motivations -- "to use fishing equipment" was significant for the Mainstream (mean = 5.4 vs. 3.6, f= 10.7455, d f= l, p=.0013). Only two of 30 statistical tests (15 variables for two locations) showed significant differences between methods used. Considering that the two significant variables were only significant at one location each, interviewer bias is not a problem with this study. Non-response Bias - Follow-up Au Sable River Angler Survey: Six variables were compared for non-response bias. Two comparisons were conducted with each variable. First a chi-square test of significance was conducted between the original sample (n=742) and those that responded to the follow-up survey (n=610) to determ ine whether the response rate is high enough to adequately reflect the same attitudes and behaviors of the original sample, i.e., a m easure of non-response bias. Second, a chi-square test was conducted between the respondents (n=610) and the non-respondents (n = 742-610=132) to the follow-up survey to determine the difference between respondents and non­ respondents. The follow-up survey was found to adequately represent the original sample on all variables tested as no significant differences were found between the follow-up survey and the original survey on any of the variables tested: 1. attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation for the M ainstream Quality Section (XI = 1.538, df=6, p=.9569) 2. membership in fishing organizations (X2=0.191, df= 1, p=.6623) 3. tie flies (X*= 1.082, d f = l, p=.2983) 4. self-rated experience (X2= 1.943, df=3, p=.5843) 5. importance of trout fishing (XJ= 4.253, df=3, p=.2354) 6. trout releasing behavior (X2= 0.754, df=3, p=.8604) 52 However, the non-respondents were found to be different from respondents on four of these variables (significant variables are marked with an asterisk (*) below): * 1. attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation for the Mainstream Quality Section (X2= 15.247, df=6, p=.0184) 2. membership in fishing organizations (X2=2.140, d f = l, p=.1435) * 3. tie flies (X =11.352, df =l , p=,0008) * 4. self-rated experience (X2= 18.328, df=3, p = .0004) * 5. importance of trout fishing (X2= 36.395, df=3, p<.0001) 6. trout releasing behavior (X2= 7.327, df=3, p = .0622) Non-respondents had a greater percentage of anglers who were undecided about no-kill (23.2%) than respondents (14.9%) and there were fewer non-respondents who strongly approved of no-kill (27.6%) compared to respondents (39.1%) (Table 4.1). M ore respondents tied flies (65.5%) compared to non-respondents (49.2%) (Table 4.2); there were fewer "beginners" (8.6%) in the respondent sample than in the non-respondent sample (20.8%) (Table 4.3); and there were far fewer anglers who ranked trout fishing relatively low in importance in the respondent sample (3.9%) than in the non-respondent sample (17.7%) (Table 4.4). Therefore, the follow-up survey is biased towards the more experienced, dedicated trout angler. Surprisingly, respondents and non-respondents were similar on membership and trout releasing behavior. It was expected that members were m ore likely to respond to a survey. Apparently, non­ members were motivated to respond to this survey in order to get their opinions counted. The controversial nature of the proposed Au Sable River no-kill likely stimulated a better than normal response per effort. Thus, this analysis suggests that non-response is associated more with strength of attitude than actual position on the catch-and-relcase issue. 53 Table 4.1. Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation analyzed by respondents vs. non-respondents to the follow-up mail survey to Au Sable River anglers.* A T T IT U D E TOWARDS P R O PO SE D N O - K I L L R E G U L A TIO N STRONGLY D IS A P P R O V E D IS A P P R O V E S L IG H T L Y D IS A P P R O V E U N D E C ID E D S L IG H T L Y A PPRO V E A PPR O V E STRONGLY A PPRO V E TO TA L 606 ‘cHI-SQUARE=15.247, D F = 6 , N O N -R E S PO N D E N T S # % 20 14.9 11 8 .2 3 2 .2 31 23.2 6 .7 9 23 17.2 37 27.6 R E SPO N D E N T S ... # % 84 13.9 8 .4 51 5 .9 36 90 14.9 20 3 .3 88 14.5 237 39.1 100.0 134 100.0 P=.0187 Table 4.2. Fly tying analyzed by respondents vs. non-respondents to the follow-up mail survey to Au Sable River anglers.* T IE F L IE S Y ES NO T O TA L C H I-S Q U A R E = 1 1 . 3 5 2 , RE SPO N D EN TS # % 389 65.5 205 34.5 N O N -R E S PO N D E N T S # % 64 49.2 50.8 66 594 130 D F=1, 100.0 100.0 P= . 0 0 0 8 Table 4.3. Self-rated experience analyzed by respondents vs. non-respondents to the follow-up mail survey to Au Sable River anglers.* S E L F -R A T E D E X P E R IE N C E B E G IN N E R SOMEWHAT E X P E R IE N C E D E X P E R IE N C E D EX PERT R E SPO N D EN TS # % 51 8 .6 166 27.8 202 50.7 77 12.9 TO TA L 100.0 • DF II A n II C H I-S Q U A R E = 1 8 . 3 2 8 , 596 0004 N O N -R E S PONDENTS % # 20.8 27 38 29.2 38.5 50 15 11.5 130 100.0 54 Tabic 4.4. Importance of trout fishing analyzed try respondents vs. non-respondents to the follow-up mad survey to Au Sable River anglers. IMPORTANCE OF TROUT FISH ING MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITY MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER A C T IV IT IE S IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT t o NOT VERY IMPORTANT RESPONDENTS % # 187 3 1 .4 TOTAL ..... ■ ~ -.. UC H I-S Q U A R E = 3 6 .3 9 5 , n o n -:RESPONDENTS # 43 % 3 3 .1 260 12 5 4 3 .7 2 1 .0 44 20 3 3 .8 1 5 .4 23 3 .9 23 1 7 .7 595 1 0 0 .0 130 1 0 0 .0 D F=3, P < . 0 0 0 1 STATEW IDE M ICHIGAN TR O U T AN G LER SURVEY Sixteen hundred surveys were sent with 109 undcliverablc, giving a sample size of 1491, of which 1056 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 70.8 percent. In addition, 87 (20.0%) of the 436 non-respondents used the postcard to indicate their reasons for not responding to the trout angler survey. In a study of anglers who fish for trout in Michigan, Fenske (1983) obtained a 63% return rate from 1981 trout stamp purchasers. Fenske used only two mailing of questionnaires each time followed by a postcard reminder. This study included four mailings of the questionnaire with only the first mailing followed by a postcard reminder. It appears that the extra mailings increase response rate only slightly and that more effort will be needed to increase response to above 80 percent. NON-RESPONSE BIAS - STATEW IDE M ICHIGAN TR O U T ANGLER SU RVEY Although a 71% return rate is considered very good there is some concern for non-response bias with this sample (Dillman 1978). Survey research consistently shows that non-respondents have a lower level of interest in the subject and are less likely to have opinions on the topic of the survey (Suchman 1962, Filion 1975, Kanuk and Berenson 1975, Gigliotti 1983). Thus, one possible reason 55 for non-rcspoasc to this survey may have been lack of interest in this topic. The bulk of the survey was about stream trout fishing, yet the sample was chosen from 1986 trout stamp purchasers without regard to type of trout fishing. Thus, anglers who do not stream trout fish may have decided that the survey did not apply to them and did not respond. This was strongly suggested by the nonrespondents who returned a non-response card indicating their reasons for not participating in the survey (Table 4.5). Non-respondents to the first and second mailings of the Michigan trout angler survey were asked to return their cover letter if they did not wish to participate in the study and to indicate why they did not wish to participate by checking-off their reasons on a list of five possible reasons plus an open-ended choice. Eighty-seven (20.0%) of the 436 non-respondents responded to the cover letter survey for their reasons for non-response to the trout angler survey. Only 10 (11.5%) gave no reason for their non-response, 44.8% gave one reason, 29.9% gave two reasons, and 13.6% gave three or m ore reasons. The open-ended choice was selected most often by the non-respondents (41.4%) (Table 4.5). W ith this choice anglers nearly always focused on their lack of fishing or trout fishing during the past season and the subsequent belief that their input would be "unimportant". This means that low intensity users are likely to be under-represented. However, this bias is not great since the response rate may represent only about 12% of the sample (29.2% non-response rate times 41.4% picking this reason for non-response). While respondents indicated that little or no fishing was a major reason for not returning their survey, it did not necessarily follow that fishing or trout fishing was unimportant to them since these reasons were checked by only 18.4% and 26.4% of the respondents, respectively. "I do not like filling out surveys," was picked by the second largest group of non-respondents (34.5%). This reason and the reason, "I do not have the time to fill out a survey," (26.4% of the non-respondents) are reasons that do not necessarily reflect biases in the param eters measured in the Michigan trout angler survey. Few (12.6%) non-respondents indicated a mistrust in the survey. 56 Table 4 3 . Reasons given by anglers for not participating in the Michigan trout angler survey.* NUMBER OF REASONS RESPONSES 16 1 . F i s h i n g i s n o t i m p o r t a n t t o m e. 2 . T r o u t f i s h i n g i s n o t i m p o r t a n t t o m e. 23 3. I do n o t have th e tim e t o f i l l o u t a su rv ey . 23 30 4. I do n o t l i k e f i l l i n g o u t s u rv e y s . 5. I r e a l l y d o n 't t r u s t t h i s su rv e y o r i t s use. 11 6. O th e r: 36 TOTALS 139 N u m b er o f c a s e s = 8 7 . % OF CASES 1 8 .4 2 6 .4 2 6 .4 3 4 .5 1 2 .6 4 1 .4 1 5 9 .7 O ne area of concern in the use of surveys to collect data on participation frequencies is "recall” (Chase and H arada 1984). In this study, anglers were asked to recall "number of fishing days" for an entire fishing season (1 year). Wyncr (1980) reported that social desirability was related to response error and Sudman and Bradburn (1974) suggested that since leisure activities are generally perceived as socially desirable activities it is likely that they will be over-reported, especially when they are frequently occurring activities. Chase and Godbey (1983) reported that self-reports of participation frequency at a tennis club and a swimming club were greatly overestimated. For this study anglers were asked to describe their answers to the fishing frequency questions as: (1) accurate, (2) close approximation or (3) just a guess. Most (58.8%, n=607) described their answers as a "close approximation" while 38.0% (393) described their answers as "accurate" and only 3.2% (33) described their answers as "just a guess". Anglers reporting less participation were m ore likely to describe their reported participation rates as accurate (Table 4.6). Since the data were categorized into levels of participation, recall accuracy should not greatly bias this study. 57 Tabic 4.6. Total days fished during the 1986 fishing season by the statewide sample of trout stamp purchasers analyzed by self-reported level of accuracy/ SELF-REPORTED ACCURACY ACCURATE CLOSE APPROXIMATION JU ST A GUESS MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED 2 9 .6 4 8 .6 5 2 .3 STD DEV 3 2 .9 5 4 8 .0 6 6 4 .3 0 NUMBER 392 60 5 33 4 1 .5 4 4 .5 4 1030 TOTAL F=23.6 7 6 8 , D F = 2 /1 0 2 7 , P C .0 0 0 1 , ETA SQUARED=.044 TR O U T FISHING REGULATIONS SURVEY A survey on opinions about Michigan trout fishing regulations and compliance with regulations was sent out in early 1988 to a sub-sample of anglers from both the Au Sable River sample and the statewide stream trout angler sample. Overall, 500 surveys were sent with 13 undeliverable giving a sample size of 487, of which 413 were returned for a response rate of 84.8%. In addition, 18 (24.3%) of the 74 non-respondents to this survey returned a postcard listing their reasons for not responding to this questionnaire. Au Sable River Sample: O f the 610 Au Sable River anglers, 571 (93.6%) agreed to be sent a questionnaire about compliance with fishing regulations. Two hundred of these anglers were randomly selected (systematic random -start selection) and sent a survey with 9 undeliverable giving a sample size of 191, of which 171 were returned for a return rate of 89.5%. Statewide Michigan Trout Angler Sample: O f the 727 stream trout anglers, 626 (86.1%) agreed to be sent a questionnaire about compliance with fishing regulations. Three hundred of these anglers were randomly selected (systematic random-start selection) and sent a survey. Four were undeliverable giving a sample size of 296. Returns equaled 242 for a return rate of 81.5%. NON-RESPONSE BIAS - T R O U T FISHING REGULATIONS SURVEY While the return rates for the compliance survey were quite good (89.5% for Au Sable River anglers and 81.5% for the statewide sample) it must be rem em bered that first, this sample was 58 drawn from anglers who completed the previous surveys and thus includes that type of non-response bias and second, these anglers were given a chance to exclude themselves from this survey and thus are self-selected. The overall response rate is thus: A tJ SABLE RIVER SAMPLE: 93.6% (self-selected) X 91.5% (completing field survey) X 82.2% (completing follow-up survey) X 89.5% (completing compliance survey) = 63.0% STATEW IDE SAMPLE: 86.1% (self-selected) X 70.8% (completing survey) X 81.5% (completing compliance survey) = 49.7% The most significant difference between anglers who agreed to be sent a survey on trout fishing regulations and those anglers who did not want to be sent a survey was their rating of the importance of trout fishing. On a scale of 1 (M OST IM PORTANT) to 6 (NOT VERY IMPORTANT) Au Sable River anglers who agreed to be sent a compliance survey rated trout fishing as 1.9 compared to a 3.0 for those not wishing to receive a survey on trout fishing regulations (F=38.1799, d f= l/5 6 8 , p<.0001, ETA SQUARED = .063). Michigan stream trout anglers who agreed to receive the compliance survey rated trout Fishing as 3.2 compared to 4.0 for those not wishing to receive the survey (F = 29.2653, df= 1/710, p<.0001, ETA SQ UA RED = .040). The two main reasons for not returning the compliance survey were "I do not like filling out surveys" (50.0% of cases) and "I do not have the time to fill out this survey" (38.9% of cases) (Table 4.7). Only one non-respondent (5.6%) reported that they did not trust this survey. Non-response bias is not an important factor in this study. Variables from this survey are not reported as representing specific populations such as Au Sable River anglers or stream trout anglers. They are used only to demonstrate the usefulness of the identified segmentation bases. 59 Tabic 4.7. Reasons given by anglers for not participating in the compliance survey. NUMBER O F REA SO N S__________________________________________________R E S P O N S E S 1 . F i s h i n g i s n o t i m p o r t a n t t o m e. 2 . T r o u t f i s h i n g i s n o t i m p o r t a n t t o m e. 3 . I am n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r to p ic . 4. I do n o t h av e t h e tim e t o f i l l o u t a su rv ey . 5. I do n o t l i k e f i l l i n g o u t s u rv e y s . 6. I r e a l l y d o n 't t r u s t t h i s su rv e y o r i t s use. 7. O th e r: TOTALS "N um ber o f c a s e s = 1 8 . % OF CA SES* 1 2 5 .6 1 1 .1 2 1 1 .1 7 9 3 8 .9 5 0 .0 1 2 24 5 .6 1 1 .1 1 3 3 .4 Part Two DESCRIPTION O F A U SABLE RIV ER ANGLERS COM PARISON W ITH M ICHIGAN STREAM TR O U T ANGLERS Demographics: The Au Sable River sample was 96.6% males which was significantly greater than the Michigan trout angler sample (92.6%) ( X 2= 10.896, df=2, p=.0010). The Au Sable River sample had significantly higher education levels and income levels than the Michigan trout angler sample (Appendix N, Tables 1 and 2) . M ean age of Au Sable River anglers (41.1 years) was similar to the Michigan trout angler sample (40.2 years) (F= 1.7784; df= 1/1462; p=.1826). Fishing M ethods Used for Stream T rout: In general, fly fishing is used for stream trout fishing by Au Sable River anglers far more often than the sample of Michigan trout anglers while lures and especially bait arc used less often than the Michigan trout angler sample (Appendix N, Table 3). As expected, a much greater percent of Au Sable River anglers tic fiics (62.6%) than the general Michigan trout angler sample (13.6%) (X2=370.066, df =l , pc.0001). Preferred Fish Species: This question was open-ended -- O f all fish species, what one species do you most prefer to fish for? Au Sable River anglers mainly preferred fishing for trout (87.3%) while the statewide sample preferred fishing for species other than trout (71.5%) (X2=518.091, df =l , p<.0001). However, the statewide sample of trout anglers who preferred trout were more likely to name a specific trout species (brown, brook or rainbow) (52.7%) compared to the A u Sable River sample (30.5%) (X2= 32.513, df =l , p,.Q001). O f the anglers which selected a specific trout most Au Sable River anglers preferred brown trout (50.3%) while the statewide favorite was brook trout (56.0%) (Appendix N, Table 4). Bass was most often preferred by trout anglers who did not prefer trout. This was true both Au Sable River trout anglers (25.5%) and Michigan trout anglers (22.4%). Walleye were preferred by 19.2% and 19.3%, respectively (Appendix N, Table 5). More of the Michigan trout angler sample 60 61 than the A u Sable River sample preferred salmon (21.8% vs. 11.7%) and stcclhcad (12.0% vs. 0.0%) while a higher num ber of A u Sable River anglers reported "no preference" (14.9% vs. 1.7%). In addition, the Michigan trout angler sample was asked to pick (fixed choice question) their preferred stream trout species. "No preference" was picked by the greatest percent of anglers (39.7%) with brook trout the most often preferred specific trout species (30.0%) followed by rainbow trout (15.3%) and brown trout (14.4%). There was no significant difference on preferred trout species for the Michigan trout angler sample between the open- and closed- type of question (Appendix N, Table 6). Importance of Trout Fishing: Stream trout fishing was a much more important recreational activity for the A u Sable River anglers than those anglers in the general statewide trout angler survey (Appendix N, Table 7). For the Au Sable River sample, 73.6% reported that stream trout fishing was the most important recreational activity or more important than most other recreational activities compared to only 27.8% for the statewide sample. Trout Fishing Experience: Two measures of trout fishing experience were used: self rated experience and years of experience. Self-rated fishing experience was greater for the Au Sable River sample where 61.2% rated themselves as "experienced" or "expert" compared to only 33.9% for the statewide Michigan trout angler sample (Appendix N, Table 8). Also, the Au Sable River sample reported a significantly higher mean number of years of trout fishing experience (183 years) than the statewide sample of trout anglers (16.6 years) (F = 5.7300; df= 1/1444; p=.0168), however, this difference is not great. Membership in Trout Fishing Organizations: About half of the Au Sable River anglers (n=371, 50.6%) reported they were members of at least one fishing organization compared to only 10.4% (n=75) of the Michigan trout angler sample (X2=274.677, df =l , p<.0001). Many (n=110, 29.6%) of these members were members of two or more organizations. Most (n=307, 83.4%) of the Au Sable River anglers who were members were members of Trout 62 Unlimited (TU ) and 23.1% (n=85) were members of the Fly Fishing Federation (FFF). O ther organizations included: "a local anglers club" (n=51), Michigan FFF (23), M UCC (13), BASS (12), Stcelhcaders (10), and "other" (24). Only 19.7% (n=14) of the statewide sample of stream trout anglers who were mem bers were members of TU and only 2.8% (2) were m em bers of FFF. The highest percent belonged to BASS (22.5%) followed by Stcelhcaders (16.9%), "a local anglers club" (15.5%), M UCC (2.8%) and "other" (33.8%). Thus, 42.1% of all Au Sable River anglers belonged to TU (50.0% X 83.4%) compared to 2.0% (10.4% X 19.7%) for the statewide trout angler sample. Trout Releasing Behavior: Anglers were asked if they released legal sized trout. A significantly higher percentage of Au Sable River anglers (29.4%) release all their trout than the statewide sample of trout anglers (4.0%) (Appendix N, Table 9). Fishing Intensity: Au Sable River anglers reported similar total fishing days for the 1986 fishing season (43.4 days) to the Michigan trout angler sample (45.9 days) (F= 13734; df= 1/1462; p=.2414). However, Au Sable River anglers reported significantly more days of trout fishing in 1986 (28.2 days) than the statewide trout angler sample (8.9 days) (F= 188.4395; df = 1/1463; p<.0001). Thus, the percent of fishing days devoted to trout fishing is significantly greater for A u Sable River anglers (68.6%) than for the statewide sample of trout anglers (223% ) (F=875.0615; df= 1/1443; p<.0001). In addition, A u Sable River anglers reported more fishing days in waters with designated catch-andrelease regulations (5.6 days) than the statewide trout angler sample (0.9 days) (F= 116.5549; df = 1/1461; p<.0001). Motivations for T rout Fishing: Anglers rated the importance of six motivations as a reasons for trout fishing on a scale of 0 (NOT A REASON) to 9 (VERY IM PORTANT REASON). The Au Sable river anglers were different from the Michigan statewide trout angler sample on all six of the measured motivations for trout fishing (Appendix N, Table 10). However, the differences are not as great as this analysis suggests since for both groups the rank order of importance is the same for the first four highest valued reasons (Figure 4.1). T o enjoy nature", "to get away and relax" and "for fun 63 AU SABLE SAMPLE NATURE STATEWIDE SAMPLE RELAXATION FUN C O M PA N IO N SH IP EO U IPM EN T EAT FISH 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ^ NOT VERY IMPORTANT A REASON REASON IM PORTANCE SCALE Figure A.I. Relative importance of six motivations for trout fishing of AuSable River anglers and Michigan stream trout anglers (with 95% Confidence Intervals). 64 and excitement” were all ranked as the most important reasons for trout fishing followed by "companionship” for both the Au Sable River anglers and the Michigan statewide trout angler sample. The difference results from Au Sable River anglers ranking "enjoyment of fishing equipment" as fifth and "eating fish" as last while this was reversed by the statewide trout angler sample. Importance of Catching Trout: Eight items were used to measure the importance of various aspects of catching trout. These items arc compared singly here. Four items are success related, two arc trophy related, one item is species oriented and one is technique oriented. Results on three of the success related items were not significant, however, a higher percent of Au Sable River trout anglers would not go fishing if they thought they would not catch trout (47.8%) compared to 263% of the statewide Michigan trout angler sample (Appendix N, Table 11). Both of the trophy related items were significant although the differences were not great. A slightly higher percent of Au Sable River anglers felt that catching bigger trout or trophy trout was important compared to the statewide sample of trout anglers (Appendix N, Table 12). As expected, a higher percent of Au Sable River anglers than the statewide sample of trout anglers indicated that species of trout was important (Appendix N, Table 13). Also, trout fishing method was very important to Au Sable River anglers with 92.4% slightly agreeing (24.4%) or strongly agreeing (68.0%) that it was important compared to only 63.2% of the statewide sample slightly agreeing (353% ) or strongly agreeing (27.9%) (Appendix N, Table 14). Attitude Towards "Fly-Fishing Only" Regulations: As expected, Au Sable River anglers strongly supported regulations creating special "fly-fishing only" areas with 45.8% listing such areas as crucial and 28.8% as very important compared to only 3.7% and 6.2%, respectively, for the statewide Michigan trout angler sample (Appendix N, Table 15). Most (59.1%) of the statewide sample reported that special "fly-fishing only" areas were not important to them compared to only 7.7% of the Au Sable River sample. 65 Attitude Towards Catch-and-Release Regulations: Catch-and-rclcasc regulations were more strongly supported by Au Sable River anglers than the statewide sample, although catch-and-rcleasc was not nearly as important as "fly-fishing only" regulations. Nearly half (48.1%) of the Au Sable River anglers listed "no-kill" areas as crucial or very important compared to only 12.5% of the statewide sample of trout anglers (Appendix N, Table 16). In addition, anglers were asked if they felt that the number of "no-kill" (catch-and-release) trout areas should be increased, decreased or stay the same. Most (56.0%) of the A u Sable River anglers wanted more "no-kill" areas compared to only 17.7% for the statewide sample (Appendix N, Table 17). A similar percentage of anglers from the two samples wanted the num ber of "no-kill" areas to decrease. Most (48.4%) of the statewide sample of trout anglers listed "NO OPINION" compared to only 14.3% of the Au Sable River anglers. Attitude Towards the Proposed Au Sable River No-Kill Regulation: For this comparison, trout anglers in the statewide sample were omitted if they were not familiar with the proposed "no-kill" regulation for the Au Sable Mainstream Quality Fishing Section from Burtons Landing to Wakcley Bridge. Most (n=533, 73.9%) of the anglers in the statewide sample did not know of the Au Sable catch-and-release issue. Very few of the Au Sable River anglers were unfamiliar with the issue and those who were became familiar with the issue as a result of the interview. The greatest difference between the two groups was that a greater percent of Au Sable River anglers strongly supported the proposed "no-kill" regulation (37.1%) compared to 25.7% of the aware anglers in the statewide sample (Appendix N, Table 18). W hen the attitude positions are collapsed to simply approve, disapprove or undecided the two samples are similar. SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS O F AU SABLE RIVER ANGLERS Anglers Contacted bv Study Location: The highest percent of anglers were contacted in the M ainstream Quality Section (34.9%) (Appendix O, Table 1). Most anglers had been fly-fishing when contacted (n=785, 92.8%) with 16 (1.9%) spincasting and 45 (5.3%) bait fishing. Most anglers had 66 been wading (n=727, 85.8%) when contacted, 88 (10.4%) were fishing from a boat, and 32 (3.8%) were fishing from shore. Primary Reasons for Selecting a Fishing Site: Overall, "tradition" was listed as a primary reason most often (54.9% of the anglers) for selection of a fishing area (Appendix O, Table 2). "More fish", "easy access" and "larger fish" were the next three most popular choices being listed as a primary reason. There arc some important differences in reasons for selection when different locations arc compared (Appendix O, Table 2). For example, "easy access" was not very important to anglers on the no-kill section of the South Branch, only 15.0% of the anglers picked it as a primary reason for fishing there while 47.9% reported "easy access" as a primary reason for fishing the M ainstream below Wakeley Bridge and 43.7% for the Mainstream Quality section. Many anglers apparently believe that the no-kill section on the South Branch is effective since 62.5% of the anglers in that section reported "expected larger fish" as a primary reason for fishing there and 51.7% of the anglers checked "expected more fish" as a primary reason for fishing there, which was much higher than for any of the other locations. Site Fishing Davs: Anglers were asked how many days they had fished the previous year (1985) within the study location in which they were contacted. About one-third (n=286, 33.9%) reported zero days, followed by 236 (28.0% reporting 1-5 days, 129 (15.3%) reporting 6-10 days, 113 (13.4%) reporting 11-20 days, 51 (6.0%) reporting 21-30 days and 28 (33% ) reporting more than 30 days. Site fishing days ranged from a mean of 5.3 days for anglers fishing the South Branch no-kill section to 9.9 days for anglers fishing the North Branch although the difference was not significant (F = 2.0982; df=4/835; p=.0792). Night Fishing: About two-thirds (n=480, 66.6%) of the Au Sable River anglers reported that they trout fish after dark in the study location in which they were contacted. A significantly greater 67 percent of the anglers in the two South Branch study locations fish after dark compared to the other three locations (Appendix O, Table 3). Party Size: The most common party size was two (n=431, 51.1%) followed by single anglers (26.4%), three (14.9%), four (5.7%) and five or more (1.9%) in the party. Party size did not significantly vary among the five study locations (F= 1.9550; df= 4/836; p=.0995). Au Sable River Areas Fished In: Au Sable River anglers were asked which areas on the Au Sable River system they had fished or planned to fish during the 1986 fishing season. There were eight categories to choose from: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. M ainstream above Burtons Landing M ainstream below Wakclcy Bridge M ainstream Quality Section North Branch Quality Section South Branch No-kill Section South Branch Quality Section excluding the no-kill section East Branch O ther tributaries of the A u Sable River Anglers fished a mean of 3.3 of the above Au Sable River areas. Only 17.5% of the anglers reported that they fished in only one of the above areas (Appendix O, Table 4), and 22.7% of the anglers reported that they fish in five or more of the above areas. About three-fourths (74.3%) of the respondents reported that they fish the Mainstream Quality Section (Appendix O, Table 5). Over half (51.9%) reported that they fish the South Branch No-kill Section. Few anglers reported they fish the East Branch (10.7%), other tributaries (11.4%) and above the M ainstream Quality Section (21.5%). (Note: these three areas were not sampled while the other five areas included the interview locations.) Preferred Au Sable River Areas: In the follow-up survey Au Sable River anglers were asked which area they most preferred. The M ainstream Quality Section was preferred by the greatest percent of anglers (30.4%) followed by 17.3% preferring the North Branch and 15.8% the South 68 Branch No-kill Section with 14.8% having no preferred Au Sable River fishing site (Appendix O, Table 6). Money Invested in Specialized Trout Fishing Equipment: Amount of money which anglers have invested in specialized trout fishing equipment (including only specialized clothing, waders, vests, rods, reels, line, lures and flics, and fly tying a n d /o r rod making equipment) varied widely among the Au Sable River anglers (Appendix O, Table 7). The values ranged from $0 to $25,000 with a mean of $1,708.96 (SD = $2576.29) a median of $800.00 and a mode of $1,000.00 (n=77, 10.8%). Au Sable River Property Owners: In the follow-up survey of Au Sable River anglers almost one-fourth (n = 142, 233% ) of the anglers reported that they or their family owned property on or near the Au Sable River system. H alf (n=71, 50.0%) reported that their property was on or close to the Mainstream, 32 (22.5%) the North Branch, 28 (19.7%) the South Branch and 11 (7.7%) "other" or blank. Sixty-two (44.0%) of this group of property owners reported that their property borders the river, 29 (20.6%) reported that their property was within one-fourth mile o f the river and 50 (35.5%) had property m ore than one mile from the river. Most (n=74, 52.5%) used their property on vacations, holidays a n d /o r weekends, 33 (23.4%) were year-long residents, 27 (19.1%) used their property seasonally (eg. summer) with 7 (5.0%) listing "other" uses. Residence: Local residence is defined here as Crawford and Roscommon County residents. The Au Sable River sample consisted of 55 (6.7%) local residents, 621 (75.7%) non-local Michigan residents and 144 (17.6%) out-of-state anglers. Many of the non-local Michigan anglers were from Oakland and surrounding counties, and Kent, Bay, Saginaw and Midland Counties (Appendix P). Most (66, 45.8%) of the out-of-state anglers were from Ohio, 17 (11.8%) from Illinois, 14 (9.7%) from Indiana, 8 (5.6%) from Wisconsin and 39 (27.1%) from elsewhere, including 3 from Canada. The Au Sable River sample had a significantly higher percent of out-of-state anglers (n = 1 4 4 ,17.6%) than the statewide sample (n=57, 7.8%) (XJ=32.135, d f= l, pc.0001). 69 1986 Harvest Characteristics: The mean catch rate for all A u Sable River study locations in 1986 was 0.82 trout per hour of effort (SD=1.15) (includes all sizes). There were no significant differences among the five study locations (F = 03047; d f= 4,535; p=.8748). Anglers caught a mean of three trout although the greatest percentage of anglers (n=189, 34.9%) caught no trout (Appendix O, Table 8). O f those anglers catching trout, most (n=283, 80.2%) did not keep any trout. However, this number also includes those anglers who did not catch any legal-sized trout. A mean of 0.43 trout were kept by anglers with 31 anglers (8.8%) keeping one trout, 17 (4.8%) keeping two trout, 13 (3.7%) keeping three trout and nine anglers (2.5%) keeping four or m ore trout. Of those anglers catching trout over half (n=187, 53.1%) released legal-sized trout. Note that those not releasing legal-sized trout may not have caught any lcgal-sizcd trout. Anglers released a mean of 1.4 legal-sizcd trout. The anglers who caught trout were asked to report their largest trout caught that day. Mean size was 9.7 inches (SD=3.35) and ranged from 3 inches to 26 inches with the most often reported size being 8 inches (Appendix O, Table 9). Satisfaction: Most anglers (n=356, 67.2%) reported that they were extremely satisfied (19.6%) or satisfied (47.5%) with their fishing trip that day (Appendix O, Table 10). Satisfaction on a scale of 1 (EXTREM ELY SATISFIED) to 6 (EXTREM ELY DISSATISFIED) varied slightly by study location ranging from a mean of 2.2 for anglers on the North Branch to 2.7 for anglers on the South Branch excluding the no-kill section (Appendix O, Table 11). O f b tere st is the relationship between satisfaction and trout catching success. Four variables were used to measure trout catching success: (1) total number of trout caught, (2) catch rate per hour, (3) size of largest trout caught, and (4) num ber of trout kept. Satisfaction was directly related to the total number of trout caught, the catch rate, the size of the largest trout c a u g h t, and the number of trout kept (Appendix O, Table 12). 70 A U SABLE R IV E R USERS AM ONG T H E STATEW IDE SAMPLE A u Sable River U se; About two-thirds (n=507, 68.9%) of the statewide trout angler sample reported that they trout fished in streams during the 1986 fishing season, of which 22.1% (n=112) reported that they fished in the Au Sable River system. Sixty (53.6%) of this group reported that they fished in the special "Quality Fishing Areas" on the Au Sable River, of which, 45 reported to have fished in one or m ore of the four Quality fishing sections -- the other 15 anglers did not know exactly which section they had fished in. Twenty-six anglers reported fishing in the M ainstream Quality Section in 1986, 22 in the North Branch Quality Section, 20 in the South Branch Quality Section excluding the no-kill section, and 12 in the South Branch No-kill Section. In addition, the statewide trout angler sample (n=736) were asked to list their favorite Michigan trout stream. The Au Sable River was mentioned by 56 anglers (7.6%), 358 (48.6%) listed a stream other than the Au Sable River, 311 (42.3%) listed "NONE" and 11 (1.5%) left the response blank. Estimated Use: Calculations were made for total individual use of the M ainstream Quality Section and the South Branch No-kill Section based on 370,494 trout stam ps sold for 1986 (Jamsen, DNR Fisheries Division, personal communication, 2-16-88); a sample size of 1492 which assumes that non-respondents did not fish in the Au Sable River Quality Sections; and the num ber who reported fishing in the Mainstream Quality Section and the South Branch No-kill Section. CALCULATIONS: MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 26 / 1492 X 370,494 = 6458 95% C.I. = Pr [p 1.96 pq/n-1] p .00664 .01079; .02407 3318; 7401 Thus, the estimate for the number of individuals using the Mainstream Quality Section is 6,458 anglers with 95% confidence limits from 3,998 anglers to 8,918 anglers. 71 CALCULATIONS: SO UTH BRANCH NO-KILL SECTION 12 / 1492 X 370,494 = 2980 95% C.I. = Pr [p 1.96 pq/n-1] p .00453388 .00350902; .01257676 1300; 4660 Thus, the estimate for the number of individuals using the South Branch No-kill is 2,980 anglers with 95% confidence limits from 1,300 anglers to 4,660 anglers. Part Three A T T IT U D E TOW ARDS T H E PR O PO SED A U SABLE RIVER MAINSTREAM CATCH-AND-RELEASE (NO-KILL) REGULATION and RELATED VARIABLES Demographics: Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation was not related to sex (F=.0828; df= 1,715; p=.7736). Attitude was related to residence with most (63 5 % ) local residents (Crawford and Roscommon Counties) disapproving of the proposed no-kill regulation while 55.5% of the Michigan non-local residents and 70.2% of the out-of-state residents approved of the proposed no-kill regulation (Table 4.8). Anglers who own (or their family owns) property o n/or near the Au Sable River system were more opposed to the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulations than non-owners (Table 4.9). Those favorable to the proposed A u Sable River no-kill regulation had a higher income level and education level than those who disapproved of the proposed no-kill regulation (Appendix Q, Tables 1 and 2). Those opposed were slightly older than those favorable towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation (Appendix Q, Tabic 3). Table 4.8. Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation analyzed by residence. ATTITUDE TOWARDS PROPOSED NO-KILL REGULATION APPROVE DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED TOTAL LOCAL* (N-52: 7.OX) 25. OX 63.5X 11. 5X RESIDENCE MICH. NON-LOCAL (N-557: 75.3X) 55.5X 27. IX 17.4X 100.OX 100.OX fX2—45 .883 . DF-4. P<.00011 ’Local - Crawford and Roscommon Counties 72 OUT-OF STATE (N-131: 17.7X) 70.2X 16. OX 13.8X 100.OX 73 Tabic 4.9. Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation analyzed by owning property. ATTITUDE SCALE -3 STRONGLY DISAPPROVE -2 DISAPPROVE -1 SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE 0 UNDECIDED / NO OPINION 1 SLIGHTLY APPROVE 2 APPROVE 3 STRONGLY APPROVE OWN PROPERTY ON/NEAR THE ATTITUDE AU SABLE RIVER SYSTEM SCALE (MEAN! YES 0.0 NO 1.1 TOTAL 0.9 STD DEV 2.39 2.12 NUMBER 141 458 2.19 599 [F-25.7895; DF-1,597; PC.0001; ETA SQUARED-.0414] Other Attitudes Toward Special Regulations: The attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream no-kill regulation was strongly related to the importance of catch-and-release (no-kill) regulations in general (Table 4.10). Part of this strong relationship may have been influenced by the controversy of the Au Sable River issue at the time of the survey. The questions about the importance of catch-and-release areas was asked before the anglers were asked to comment about their attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulations which may have caused some anglers to use the general question to voice their opinions about the specific issue. The correlation between the importance of no-kill areas in general and the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation was .8026 (n=712, p=.000) for the Au Sable River sample compared to only .6279 (n=183, p=.000) for the statewide Michigan trout angler sample which would not be as strongly influenced by the controversial issue because the general attitude was measured after the specific attitude towards the proposed Au Sable. River no-kill regulation was measured. The importance of "fly-fishing only" trout fishing areas was also related to the attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation but was not nearly as strong as the importance of 74 catch-and-rclcasc trout fishing areas. A Pearson correlation between the attitude towards the proposed A u Sable River no-kill regulation and the importance of fly-fishing only areas to Au Sable River anglers was .3820 (n=711, p=.000) which was similar to the correlation of these same two variables in the statewide Michigan trout angler sample (Pearson corr.=.3295, n =183, p=.000). The importance of fly-fishing only areas and catch-and-release areas had a higher correlation (Pearson corr.= .5240, n=711, p=.000). Those favorable to the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation rated fly-fishing only areas as being more important than those opposed to the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation or undecided (Table 4.11). Table 4.10. Importance of catch-and-release regulations in general analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-rclcasc regulation. IM PORTAN CE OF C A T C H -A N D -R E L E A S E A REAS I N S T A T E 1. C R U C IA L 2. VERY IM PORTAN T 3. IM PO RTA N T 4. SOMEWHAT IM PO RTA N T 5. S L IG H T L Y IM PO RTA N T 6. NOT IM PO RTA N T A T T IT U D E TOWARDS IM PORTAN CE AU SA B L E N O -K I L L R E G . SC A L E (MEANI NUMBER S T D DEV STRONGLY D IS A P P R O V E 5 .8 0 .7 2 100 D IS A P P R O V E 61 4 .9 1 .4 8 S L IG H T L Y D IS A P P R O V E 4 .4 1 .4 8 37 U N D E C ID E D / NO O P IN IO N 3 .8 1 .7 0 114 S L IG H T L Y APPRO V E 3 .0 1 .1 5 29 A PPR O V E 104 2 .8 1 .2 8 267 STRONGLY A PPRO V E 1 .4 0 .7 2 TO TA L [F = 2 2 3 .7 1 0 9 ; 3 .1 DF= 6 , 7 0 5 ; 1 .1 5 P < .0 0 0 1 ; ETA S Q U A R E D = . 6 5 5 6 ] 712 75 Tabic 4.11. Importance of fly-fishing only regulations in general analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-rclcasc regulation. IM PO RTA N CE O F F L Y - F I S H I N G ONLY AREAS I N S T A T E 1. C R U C IA L 2. VERY IM PORTAN T 3. IM PORTAN T 4. SOMEWHAT IM PO RTA N T 5. S L IG H T L Y IM PORTAN T 6. NOT IM PORTAN T A T T IT U D E TOWARDS IM PORTANCE AU S A B L E N O - K I L L R E G . SC A L E (MEAN1 S T D DEV NUMBER 1 .8 1 101 STRON GLY D IS A P P R O V E 2 .8 61 D IS A P P R O V E 1 .8 4 2 .9 37 1 .4 3 S L IG H T L Y D IS A P P R O V E 2 .2 114 1 .7 0 U N D E C ID E D / NO O P IN IO N 2 .6 27 S L IG H T L Y A PPR O V E 1 .1 0 2 .1 1 . 1 0 1 0 4 A P PR O V E 2 .1 267 STRON GLY A PPR O V E 0 .7 0 1 .4 TOTAL 2 .1 [ F = 2 5 .5 5 2 2 ? DF=6 , 7 0 4 ; P < .0 0 0 1 ; 1 .3 1 711 ETA S Q U A R E D = .1 7 8 8 ] Importance of Trout Fishing: Trout fishing was more important to both those who strongly approved and those who strongly disapproved of the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation than it was for those with less strongly held opinions (Table 4.12). The correlation between the importance of trout fishing and strength of the attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation was .2307 (n=706, p = .000) while the correlation between the importance of trout fishing with the attitude itself was only .0828 (n=706, p=.014). 76 Tabic 4.12. Importance of trout fishing analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-rclcasc regulation. IM PO R T A N C E O F TROUT F I S H I N G SC A LE 1. MOST IM PO R T A N T R E C R E A T IO N A L A C T IV IT Y 2. MORE IM PO R T A N T TH E MOST OTHER A C T I V I T I E S 3. IM PO R T A N T 4. SOMEWHAT IM PO RTA N T 5. S L IG H T L Y IM PO RTA N T 6. NOT VERY IM PO RTA N T A T T IT U D E TOWARDS IM PORTAN CE PR O PO SE D N O - K I L L R E G . S C A L E fMEANl S T D DEV NUMBER STRONGLY D IS A P P R O V E 1 .8 0 .8 6 99 D IS A P P R O V E 2 .2 61 0 .9 2 S L IG H T L Y D IS A P P R O V E 2 .3 1 .0 0 37 U N D E C ID E D / NO O P IN IO N 2 .4 114 1 .1 5 S L IG H T L Y A PPR O V E 2 .1 27 0 .8 2 A PPRO V E 2 .2 104 0 .9 8 STRONGLY A PPR O V E 1 .8 264 0 .7 8 TO TA L [F = 7 .9 0 8 5 ; 2 .0 D F = 6 ,6 9 9 ; P < .0 0 0 1 ; 706 0 .9 2 ETA SQ U A R E D = . 0 6 3 6 ] Trout Fishing Behaviors: Trout releasing behavior was very strongly related to the attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation (Appendix Q, Table 4). Anglers who were more favorable towards the proposed no-kill regulation released a greater percent of their legal catch. Anglers who disapproved of the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation had more years of trout fishing experience (Appendix Q, Table 5). There was no relationship between the attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation and self-rated experience (F = 0.3839; d f= 3,703; p=.7646). Anglers were more favorable towards the no-kill regulation who were members of fishing organizations, who preferred trout over other species, or who tied flies (Appendix Q, Table 6). There was no significant relationship between attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation and whether or not an angler trout fished after dark (Appendix Q, Table 6). Anglers with strongly held opinions (strongly approve or strongly disapprove) had the most money invested in 77 trout fishing equipment (strongly approve = $2431, strongly disapprove = $1956) (Appendix Q, Table 7). Motivations for Trout Fishing: The motivation’ "to cat fish", was strongly related to the attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation (Table 4.13). The importance of eating fish decreased as approval of the proposed no-kill regulation increased. The motivations, "for fun and excitement", "for companionship", "to get away and relax", and "to enjoy nature" were not significantly related to the altitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no­ kill regulation (Appendix Q, Table 8). "To enjoy fishing equipment" was a slightly more important reason for trout fishing for those who favored the proposed no-kill regulation than for those who opposed the no-kill regulation (Appendix Q, Table 8). Table 4.13. The motivation for trout fishing, "to cat fish" analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-rclcasc regulation. 0 NOT A REASON 1 2 IMPORTANCE OF EATING FISH SCALE 3 4 5 6 7 ATTITUDE TOWARDS PROPOSED NO-KILL REG. STRONGLY DISAPPROVE DISAPPROVE SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / NO OPINION SLIGHTLY APPROVE APPROVE STRONGLY APPROVE TOTAL IMPORTANCE OF FISH CONSUMPTION fMEAN') 5.2 4.4 3.8 3.8 3.2 2.4 1.0 2.8 STD DEV 3.27 3.00 2.77 2.86 2.83 2.64 1.86 2.57 8 9 VERY IMPORTANT NUMBER 100 60 37 114 28 104 263 706 [F-44.2720; DF-6, 699; PC.0001; ETA SQUARED-.2754] DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / NO OPINION APPROVE 4.7 3.8 1.5 3.14 2.86 2.29 TOTAL 2.8 2.65 [F-104.9085; DF-2,703; PC.0001; ETA SQUARED-.2299] 197 114 395 706 78 Importance of Catching Trout: Eight questions measured various aspects of the importance of catching trout to the anglers’ satisfactions of which four were significantly related to attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation (Appendix Q, Table 9). The largest relationship was for the statement, "How I catch a trout is as important to me as actually catching one." While most (n=557, 9 2 5 % ) Au Sable River anglers agreed (slightly or strongly) with this statement, the few who disagreed were significantly more opposed to the proposed no-kill regulation than those who agreed with the statement. Most (473, 78.6%) of the Au Sable River anglers agreed (slightly or strongly) that type of trout caught was not important. There was no relationship between importance of type of trout and attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation. Importance of catching trout items 1, 3 and 8 (sec Appendix Q, Table 9 for description of items) were combined to form a "success" scale. The importance of "success" was indirectly correlated with attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation, i.e., "success" was less im portant to those anglers who were favorable towards the proposed no-kill regulation (Pearson corr = -.149, p<.001, n=583). The importance of catching trout items 2 and 4 were combined to form a "trophy" scale. The importance of "trophy" was directly correlated with attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation, i.e., catching "big" trout was more important to those anglers who were favorable towards the proposed no-kill regulation (Pearson corr = .144, pc.001, n=585). Primary Reasons Why Anglers Approve of the Proposed No-kill Regulation: The primary reason selected by a majority (78.0%) of the Au Sable River anglers who approve of the proposed no-kill was "this area is a high quality area and deserves the most protective type of fishing regulations" (Table 4.14). Only 21.2% of the anglers who approve of the proposed no-kill believe it is an important means of reducing crowding (some even believe that it will eventually increase crowding once the fishing improves). Over half the anglers support the no-kill primarily because they believe that the size and numbers of trout caught will increase. 79 Table 4.14. Primary reasons why Au Sable River anglers approve of the proposed no-kill regulation for the Au Sable River Mainstream. PRIMARY REASONS FOR WHY ANGLERS APPROVE OF THE NO-KILL REGULATION THIS AREA IS A HIGH QUALITY AREA AND DESERVES THE MOST PROTECTIVE TYPE OF FISHING REGULATIONS. X OF CASES fn-3451 78.0 IT WILL INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE FISH TO BE CAUGHT. 53.9 IT WILL INCREASE THE NUMBERS OF FISH TO BE CAUGHT. 51.6 TROUT ARE TOO VALUABLE TO BE KEPT. 46.7 IT WILL REDUCE CROWDING IN THE PROPOSED AREA. 21.2 Primary Reasons Why Anelers Disapprove of the Proposed No-kill Regulation: For the anglers who disapprove, loss of "personal choice" was their most frequent primary reason (72.1%) (Table 4.15). Few anglers (17.0%) were opposed to the proposed no-kill because of a belief that it would harm the local economy. About half (48.5%) of this group of anglers reported a belief that "no-kill m il not improve fishing" as a primary reason for their opposition to the proposed no-kill regulation. Yet, only about 10% would change their position and accept the proposed no-kill if biological evidence from the South Branch study indicated that no-kill would produce satisfactory results in the M ainstream. As expected, of those who would change their position and accept the proposed no-kill regulation, most (47.1%, n= 8) were only slightly opposed to the proposed no-kill regulation, 29.4% (5) were opposed and 23.5% (4) were strongly opposed. The relationship between attitude and whether they would change their attitude and accept the proposed no-kill regulation if evidence suggested that catch-and-release would be successful was significant (X2= 29.091, df=16, p=.0233, e ta =.2523). 80 Tabic 4.15. Primary reasons why Au Sable River anglers disapprove of the proposed no-kill regulation for the Au Sable River Mainstream. PRIMARY REASON FOR WHY ANGLERS DISAPPROVE OF THE PROPOSED NO-KILL RELEASING OR KEEPING FISH IS A PERSONAL CHOICE THAT EACH ANGLER SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE. X O F CASES fn-165) 72.1 I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP FISH TOO INJURED TO . SURVIVE IF RELEASED. 52.1 NO-KILL REGULATIONS JUST SERVE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. 49.7 NO-KILL WILL NOT IMPROVE FISHING. 48.5 I WANT TO KEEP SOME FISH TO EAT. 39.4 I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP A N OUTSTANDING TROPHY FISH. 26.1 ANGLERS WILL SHIFT FROM THE "NO-KILL" AREA AND INCREASE FISHING PRESSURE IN OTHER AREAS IMPORTANT TO ME. 21.8 THE NO-KILL REGULATION WILL HARM THE LOCAL ECONOMY. 17.0 Beliefs Related to the Proposed No-kill Regulation Held bv Au Sable River A nders: All ten beliefs measured were significantly related to the anglers’ attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation (Table 4.16). Anglers who approved of the no-kill regulation felt that: (1) there was a shortage of no-kill areas in the State, (2) the proposed no-kill regulation would benefit the local economy, (3) the Mainstream Quality Section was over-fished, and (4) they had more trust in the Departm ent of Natural Resources than those who disapproved of the proposed no-kill regulation. Anglers who disapproved o f the no-kill regulation felt that: (1) enough of the trout caught are released to maintain quality fishing, (2) the no-kill regulation was unfair to landowners, (3) hooking mortality would be too high, (4) the Mainstream should be stocked to improve fishing, (5) the proposed no-kill regulation would not be enforced adequately, and (6) that the use of special fishing regulations should only be based on biological evidence. 81 A forward stepwise multiple regression (with 0.05 probability of F-to-enter) with attitude towards the proposed A u Sable River no-kill regulation as the dependent variable and these ten beliefs as independent variables gives an adjusted R-square of .7334 with seven variables in the equation (Table 4.17). The opinion that "there is a shortage o f no-kill areas in the State" was the best predictor of attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation with an adjusted Rsquarc of .6018. The opinion that "anglers using the M ainstream Quality Section already release enough of the trout that arc caught to maintain quality fishing" was the second variable to enter the equation raising the adjusted R-square to .6859. O f the opposed (towards the proposed no-kill regulation) group of Au Sable River anglers, 45 (27.6%) agreed with the statement that "releasing trout is not effective because of hooking mortality" of which only 6 (13.3%) would change their attitude if evidence showed that catch-and-release was effective. Ninety (55.2%) anglers of the opposed group disagreed with this statement that "releasing trout is not effective because of hooking mortality” of which 9 (10.0%) would change their attitude if evidence showed that catch-and-release was effective. This evidence along with the fact that this belief did not enter the multiple regression equation (above) suggests that anglers opposed to the proposed Au Sable River catch-and-rclcasc regulation were not opposed because of a belief that the regulation would not be effective. 82 Tabic 4.16. Au Sable River angler opinions analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable Mainstream no-kill regulation. 1 2 3 4 5 OPINION SCORE - STRONGLY AGREE - AGREE - UNDECIDED - DISAGREE - STRONGLY DISAGREE ATTITUDE OPINION SCORE STD DEV NUMBER OPINION 1: There is a shortage of no-kill areas in the State. [F-312.193, DF-2, P<.0001, ETA SQUARED-.513] APPROVE 1.8 0.87 367 UNDECIDED 3.0 0.84 64 DISAPPROVE 3,9 1.02 166 Mean 2.5 1.31 597 OPINION 2: Anglers using the Mainstream Quality Section already release enough of the trout that are caught to maintain quality fishing. [F-238. 525, DF-2, PC.0001, ETA SQUARED -.445] APPROVE 3.9 366 0.85 UNDECIDED 3.0 65 0.79 166 DISAPPROVE 2,2 0,90 Mean 3.3 1.15 597 OPINION 3 : The no-kill regulation for the Mainstream landowners. [F-1 5 9 .116, DF-2, PC.0001, ETA SQUARED'-.348] APPROVE 4.1 1.02 UNDECIDED 3.2 1.19 DISAPPROVE 2.3 1,22 Mean 3.5 1.36 is unfair to 366 65 168 599 OPINION 4 : The proposed no-kill regulation will benefit the local economy. [F-150. 169, DF-2, PC.0001, ETA SQUARED-.335] APPROVE 2.4 1.02 367 UNDECIDED 3.4 0.89 64 DISAPPROVE 4,0 0,92 167 Mean 3.0 1.20 598 OPINION 5 : Releasing trout is not effective because most of the hooked trout die anyway. [F-73.188, DF-2. PC.0001, ETA SQUARED- .197] APPROVE 4.4 0.81 366 UNDECIDED 3.6 1.16 65 DISAPPROVE 3.4 168 1,25. Mean 4.0 1.11 599 83 Table 4.16. Continued. STD DEV NUMBER ATTITUDE OPINION SCORE OPINION 6: The Mainstream Quality Section is overfished. [F-41.898, DF-2, PC.0001, ETA SQUARED- .123] 367 APPROVE 2.4 1.03 65 UNDECIDED 2.6 0.92 DISAPPROVE 3,3 162 l_,.l.Z 599 1.13 Mean 2.7 OPINION 7: The Mainstream [F-25.796, DF-2, PC.0001, APPROVE UNDECIDED DISAPPROVE Mean should be stocked to improve fishing. ETA SQUARED- .078] 365 3.6 1.39 66 2.7 1.20 169 2.7. 1.41 600 3.2 1.43 The proposed no-kill regulation on the Mainstream wil not be enforced adequately. [F-19.284, DF-2, PC.0001, ETA SQUARED-,,061] APPROVE 2.8 367 1.03 UNDECIDED 2.6 65 0.95 168 DISAPPROVE 2.2 1.07 600 Mean 2.6 1.07 OPINION 8: OPINION 9: I trust the Department of Natural Resources to manage the Au Sable River fishery in a fair and reasonable manner. [F-16.231, DF-2, P<.0001, ETA SQUARED-.052] APPROVE 366 2.5 1.00 UNDECIDED 65 2.3 0.94 DISAPPROVE 3.0 1,34 169 Mean 600 2.6 1.13 OPINION 10: The use of special fishing regulations should only be based on biological evidence. [F-7.934, DF-2, P-.,0004, ETA SQUARED-.,026] APPROVE 366 2.9 1.26 UNDECIDED 64 2.7 1.11 DISAPPROVE 2.5 1,27 167 Mean 2.8 1.26 597 84 Tabic 4.17. Stepwise multiple regression: Prediction of attitude towards the proposed A u Sable River no-ldll regulation with beliefs held by the anglers (0.05 probability of F-to-entcr criteria).1 STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VARIABLES2 OPINION 1 OPINION 2 OPINION 3 OPINION 4 OPINION 9 OPINION 6 OPINION 7 BETA IN - .7 7 6 2 .3 7 1 8 .1 9 6 5 - .1 5 3 3 - .0 8 0 4 - .0 6 8 5 .0 4 6 6 F VALUE 8 7 0 .1 5 1 6 2 8 .8 5 0 4 6 8 .1 3 6 3 7 5 .4 6 2 3 0 9 .4 3 9 2 6 2 .7 5 9 2 2 6 .9 8 7 SIGN. OF F .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .. .0 0 0 OPINIONS 8 . 1 0 . 5 1 5 8 .5 4 9 8 -1 0 'L i s t w i s e d e l e t i o n o f m i s s i n g d a t a - - 575 c a s e s w e re i n t h e e q u a tio n . V a r i a b l e s a r e d e s c r i b e d i n T a b le 4 .1 6 . Table 4.17. Continued. STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R.-SOUARE .6 0 2 5 .6 8 7 0 .7 1 0 6 .7 2 4 5 .7 3 0 8 .7 3 4 8 .7 3 6 7 R-SQUARE CHANGE .6 0 2 5 .0 8 4 5 .0 2 3 6 .0 1 3 9 .0 0 6 2 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 1 9 ADJUSTED R-SOUARE .6 0 1 8 .6 8 5 9 .7 0 9 1 .7 2 2 6 .7 2 8 4 .7 3 2 0 .7 3 3 4 8 -1 0 .7 3 7 3 .0 0 0 6 .7 3 2 6 F-CHANGE 8 7 0 .1 5 1 1 5 4 .6 4 0 4 6 .6 0 5 2 8 .9 1 1 1 3 .2 1 6 8 .6 3 6 4 .0 1 2 .4 3 7 SIGNIFICANCE OF F-CHANGE .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 3 .0 4 6 .7 2 7 Intended Response if the Proposed Au Sable River No-kill Regulation W ere To Be Implem ented: Almost half (46.9% , n=284) would fish the Au Sable M ainstream Quality Section "about the same" amount if the proposed no-kiU were implemented, while 24.0% (145) would fish there m ore often, 15.7% (95) would fish there less often and 13.4% (81) would stop fishing there. The intended response to the proposed no-kill regulation if implemented is strongly related to the attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation (Table 4.18). O f particular importance is the intensity of the attitude. This is a highly polarized issue since many respondents selected extreme responses of either strongly approve (37.0%) or strongly disapprove (14.1%). The importance of 85 making a distinction on attitude intensity is illustrated by the difference of impact on fishing behavior within both the approve and disapprove groups. For example, 57.7% of those who "strongly approve" will fish m ore often if the no-kill regulation is implemented, however, only 133% who "approve" and 2 3 % who "slightly approve" will fish m ore often. This trend is consistent since 51.2% of those who "strongly disapprove" would stop fishing there if the area became no-kill compared to 27.8% and 26.3% for those who "disapprove" and "slightly disapprove". A linear regression of attitude towards the proposed no-kill regulation on intended response to the no-kill regulation if implemented gives an adjusted R-squarc of 349 (F=722.775, df= 1/592, p<.0001). The addition to the above equation of the general attitude towards catch-and-release regulations (importance of no-kill areas) gives a total adjusted r-squarc of .583 (F = 414.644, df= 2/591, p<.0001). Table 4.18. Relationship of attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation and intended response in fishing behavior if the proposed no-kill regulation is implemented.’ ATTITUDE STRONGLY APPROVE APPROVE SLIGHTLY APPROVE UNDECIDED SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE DISAPPROVE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE INTENDED FISHING RESPONSE TO NO-KILL STOP LESS MORE SAME CN-801 fN-941 (N-145) CN-2811 OX 0.5X 41.8X 57. 7X 1.0X 5.7X 13.3X 80. OX 22.5X 10. OX 2.5X 65. OX TOTAL (N-6001 100X 100X 100X 4.9X 57.4X 24.6X 13. IX 100X OX OX OX 39.5X 22.2X 20.7X 34.7X 50.OX 28. OX 26.3X 27.8X 51.2X 100X 100X 100X ’CHI SQUARE-459.959, DF-18, DEPENDENT)-0.750 PC.OOOl, ETA (WITH ATTITUDE From the intended response and number of days fished the previous year at that site, I estimated about a 29% drop in fishing pressure for the first year of implementation of the catch-and-rclcasc regulation on the Au Sable River M ainstream Quality Section. This was based on the following assumptions: 1. The estimate of those who would "stop" fishing if a no-kill regulation were implemented is accurate. 2. The average decrease for those who reported they would "fish less" is 50% for the first year. 3. Those who reported that they would "fish more" do not increase their fishing the first year because the biological benefits of a no-kill regulation would not be very great the first year. CALCULATIONS: INTENDED RESPONSE FISH MORE FISH SAME FISH LESS STOP FISHING THEREFORE: SAMPLE SIZE 143 X 268 X 93 X 80 X SITE DAYS 8.0 7.8 9.7 13.3 - TOTAL DAYS 1144 2090 902 1064 5200 X DAYS 22.0 40.2 17.3 20.5 100.0 The estimated decrease in fishing pressure for the first year as a result of the catch-and-release regulations is: 1064 + 1/2(9021 5200 - 29.IX Note that the estimated decrease in fishing pressure (29%) is greater than that based on just the number who would stop fishing (80/600 = 13.3%) (Table 4.18). This is because those who reported that they would stop fishing did the most fishing in that area (13.3 days). Admittedly, this is a crude estimate of expected decrease in fishing pressure as a result of the catch-and-release regulation on the Au Sable River. An estimate with better confidence would require a more precise estimate of fishing pressure and behavioral intentions. Part Four SEGM ENTATION BASES FO R STREAM TR O U T ANGLERS Three potential segmentation bases were proposed for Michigan stream trout anglers: (1) fly­ fishing specialization, (2) non-consumptive orientation, and (3) trout Ashing intensity. Fly-fishing specialization is based on frequency of fly fishing versus use of bait a n d /o r lures. Non-consumptive orientation is based on the importance of "eating fish" as a reason why the angler trout fishes. Trout fishing intensity is based on the number of trout fishing days and the percent of fishing days spent fishing for trout. This section reports the results regarding these three segmentation bases for understanding and managing the State’s trout angling public. These three segmentation bases arc described on pages 45 - 46. A U SABLE RIV ER ANGLERS COM PARED W ITH STATEW IDE TR O U T ANGLERS The Au Sable River sample had a much higher percent of highly specialized fly-anglers than the statewide sample of Michigan stream trout anglers largely because the Au Sable River sample heavily drew from the Quality Fishing Sections which have a "fly-only" regulation (Table 4.19). The comparison demonstrates that the fly-only regulation does indeed attract and concentrate the more specialized anglers. This suggests that the "fly-only" regulation is a product that an "identifiable" segment of Michigan stream trout anglers use and desire very much. The Au Sable River sample had a much higher percent of anglers in the higher levels of non-consumptive orientation than the statewide sample of Michigan trout anglers (Table 4.20). The Au Sable River sample had a much higher percent of anglers in the higher levels of trout fishing intensity than the statewide sample of trout anglers (Table 4.21). 87 88 Tabic 4.19. Levels of fly-fishing specialization in the Au Sable River sample compared to a statewide sample of Michigan stream trout anglers.* F L Y -F IS H IN G S P E C I A L I Z A T IO N LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 AU SA B L E :R IV E R SAM PLE NUMBER PER C EN T 3 .7 27 8 .7 63 5 .0 36 28.1 202 54.4 392 720 ■ M ETH OD), (2) method stage occurs first and once a method is mastered the challenge then becomes to catch a large (trophy) trout by the m ethod (M ETH O D — > TROPH Y), or (3) a development of these two stages occurs simultaneously. Jackson ct al. also implied that many unethical and illegal behaviors were common among hunters in the early stages. This research found that intention to violate decreased with fly-fishing specialization and non-consumptive orientation but was unrelated with trout fishing intensity. One explanation for the decrease in intention to violate with fly-fishing specialization may be that the importance of using fly fishing equipment is more important than violating regulations to improve success. The decrease in intention to violate with non-consumptive orientation suggests that since keeping fish is not important there is no little need to violate regulations. Since intention to violate was not related to trout fishing intensity this suggests that anglers can develop (become intense trout anglers) based on different needs, supporting the multiple pathways of development hypothesis. If so, this suggests that violation behavior is related to motivations for fishing and will thus be more prevalent in those stages where catching and keeping fish is most important. A nother interesting question is, what effect do regulations have on the development of trout anglers? For example, different bag limits may cause anglers to develop through the limiting out stage at different speeds. Small bag limits may permit anglers to limit out m ore often causing them to progress more quickly. G ear restrictions, such as fly-only areas, may encourage some anglers to try new fishing methods. Answers to these questions may show how fisheries managers can help reduce illegal and unethical behaviors among trout anglers. 165 SUMM ARY O F RECOM M EN DED RESEARCH This research effort produced a large data base on trout anglers but also generated many questions. A num ber of research topics and suggestions have been mentioned throughout this discussion and for convenience arc summarized here. * IM PACT O F CATCH-AND-RELEASE REGULATION ON T H E A U SABLE RIVER Future studies should monitor the impact on user groups after implementation of catch-andrelease regulations on the Au Sable River M ainstream Quality Fishing Section. A suggested schedule would be the first year, fifth year and tenth year to document long term effects. A more extensive study would be to monitor yearly use along with the biological response. This would look at the relationship of angler response to fish populations. For example, if the catch-and-rclcasc regulations results in increased numbers of larger trout, how will the angling public respond to this and how much of an increase in fish stocks will be necessary for an angler response? The overall question being, how do anglers respond to various characteristics of fish populations? Also, further research is needed to measure the degree of success that supporters expect or would be satisfied with. • FU R TH ER A U SABLE RIVER RESEARCH Site Attributes: Future research should compare the importance of site attributes at a number of different river systems around the state. The importance of the A u Sable River site attributes can only be fully understood by comparing them with other trout fishing streams throughout the state. This may help identify future areas where anglers may demand catch-and-release regulations. Also, this information will be needed to allocate Michigan’s trout resources. Preferred Trout Species: Further research should be conducted on the importance of catching a mixed bag to Au Sable River anglers (as well as statewide trout anglers). This may be particularly important since the Au Sable River provides three species of trout and special regulations, such as, catch-and-release, may affect species composition. 166 • M EM BERSHIP IN FISHING ORGANIZATIONS D oes fly-fishing specialization and non-consumptive orientation increase due to membership in fishing organizations or do only certain already established angler types join certain organizations? • REFIN EM EN T O F INSTRUM ENT Segmentation Bases: Similar studies should be conducted on other unique waters around the state to determ ine reliability and validity of these segmentation bases. A classification of the state’s trout resources and the type of users (segments) will be necessary for the statewide allocation of trout resources. Developmental Nature of Trout Fishing: Simply measuring years of trout fishing experience may be an inadequate measure of trout fishing experience. It was suggested that a new measure of experience should include a measure of the "quality”, which includes such aspects as the amount of time spent fishing each year, as well as the number of years fished. Also, it was recommended to measure the present level of attitudes and behaviors in addition to studying the change in attitudes and behaviors over time when researching the developmental nature of fishing. For example, the change in the "use of vacation time for trout fishing" was similar for all levels of fly-fishing specialization. However, different predictions would be made if anglers in the different specialization levels had similar amounts of vacation time spent for trout fishing compared to different amounts of vacation time spent for trout fishing. • CONTRIBUTION TO UNDERSTANDING TR O U T ANGLERS Motivations For Trout Fishing: Some of the motivations for trout fishing were identified as universal, i.e., equally important to all trout anglers, such as nature enjoyment, relaxation, and excitement. Yet, these dimensions, especially, nature enjoyment, may be defined differently by different anglers. Therefore, research was recommended to further establish the meaning of these dimensions to the various types or segments of anglers. Important differences between angler types could have both theoretical and management implications. 167 Specialization: The fly-fishing specialization variable neglects the difference between bait and lure anglers. Therefore, research was suggested which m ore closely examines the difference between bait fishing and lure fishing for trout. Public Involvement: Research should identify the public involvement strategics most acceptable to angler segments so that disruption may be minimized and benefits to anglers maximized. Regulations: Also, research should explore angler attitudes towards regulations and their subsequent behavior. While this research suggests that attitude was the most important predictor of behavioral intention, other mediating factors may improve the predictive ability of attitudes. Also, what arc the reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction with trout fishing regulations? * DEVELOPM ENTAL TH EO R Y Drop-Out and Recruitment: A developmental approach to the study of the drop-out rate and recruitment rate for trout anglers was suggested. For example, anglers may become satiated at one stage but fail to adopt or link new motivations with fishing and thus drop out. This represents a new approach to understanding drop-out and recruitment. Different Pathways of Recruitm ent: Future research on the developmental nature of trout fishing should consider the model proposed in this study which proposes that development and specialization can follow multiple pathways. Once the different pathways are identified the developmental sequences can be described for each pathway. For example, research was suggested to look at the developmental difference between anglers who start with trout fishing compared to anglers who start with other species and then begin to fish for trout. Also, research should consider whether trout fishing is a developmental stage of fishing. Importance of Success: Research is needed to explore the importance of success (numbers of fish) and where and how the importance of trophy fish fit into a developmental model. Effects of Regulations: Research is also needed to explore the effect that regulations have on the development of trout anglers. For example, do more restrictive regulations cause anglers to become less consumptively oriented? 168 SUM M ARY O F M AJOR CONTRIBUTIONS O F THIS RESEARCH 1. One contribution of this research was the collection of a large sociological data base on Au Sable River anglers and Michigan stream trout anglers. Since the Au Sable River is an intensively managed fisheries with many experimental regulations this data base will permit future researchers to explore changes in user groups over time due to implementation of various management efforts as well as other trends. A major finding was that Au Sable River anglers are more specialized, less consumptive and more intense trout anglers than the average statewide stream trout angler. One implication of this finding is that data from stream trout anglers in general do not describe Au Sable River anglers. For example, support for fly-only regulations is very high among Au Sable River anglers but not among trout anglers in general. However, this also means that these special regulations may be excluding many potential anglers from these sections of the Au Sable River. A next step would be to determine whether the benefits received by the specialized fly anglers are greater than the loss to the non-fly anglers excluded from these sections. 2. A second contribution of this research was the identification of the major factors that contributed to the Au Sable River no-kill controversy. Many of the findings will be applicable to future catch-and-release regulations that are likely to occur in Michigan. Past research has given the impression that specialized anglers support catch-and-release, however, one valuable finding of this research was the identification of specialized, consumptive-oriented anglers. This research also suggests that catch-and-release regulations may impinge upon other important values of anglers, namely, freedom of choice. W hat this means for the fisheries manager is that, in most cases, implementation of catch-and-release regulations will likely be controversial and good public involvement procedures will be necessary. 169 3. A third major contribution was the identification and descriptive analysis of three potential segmentation variables for stream trout anglers - fly-fishing specialization, non-consumptive orientation, and trout fishing intensity. This does not mean to imply that there arc only three segmentation bases useful for stream trout anglers, as the literature has shown many possible variables which could be used to segment anglers. However, based on the criteria used here to evaluate potential segmentation bases these three variables seem best suited for segmentation of Michigan stream trout anglers. One important criterion was the ability to predict attitudes towards trout fishing regulations since regulations arc a major tool of fisheries managers which have a potential to impact on angler satisfactions. O ne valuable use of these segmentation variables by fisheries managers would be for quick summaries of user groups at various sites. These three variables summarize the sociological characteristics as well as the wants and needs of stream trout anglers. O f course, a second use of these variables would be to apply a market segmentation approach to the management of stream trout anglers. 4. A final c o n trib u tio n ^ this research was the exploration of developmental processes in trout anglers and the formation of an alternative theory to the Bryan model of specialization. This research can not support (or reject) the notion that all anglers pass through developmental stages, however, some reasons are suggested as to why it may be difficult to identify developmental stages in anglers. One reason may be that anglers pass through different stages at different rates. This was suggested by the fact that anglers reported that many attitudes and practices had changed over time but few of these were related to years of trout fishing experience. A nother reason may be that anglers develop through different pathways. A major contribution of this study was the identification of "specialized" bait and lure anglers (measured by trout fishing intensity which is a measure of trout fishing specialization as opposed to concentration on other species of fish). The importance of the proposed modified model of development and specialization among trout anglers was the distinction between specialization and development. Specialization was defined as the fixation on an aspect of fishing and development was defined as a process of change in fishing. The m odel shows that 170 specialization can result from developmental changes but it is not necessary for that to occur, for example anglers can start with fly fishing and specialize on that method. Development can be a num ber of sequential changes but probably the most useful theoretically and on a practical level arc changes in motivation for fishing. LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, S. W. 1979. Segmentation of a recreational fishing market: a canonical analysis of fishing attributes and party composition. J. Leisure Research 11(1):82-91. Alexander, G. R. 1985. Potential effects of delaying the opening day of fishing season on yield and production of rainbow trout in a small Michigan lake. Fisheries Research Report No. 1928, Michigan D epartm ent of Natural Resources, Lansing. Anderson, J. A. 1977. The Yellowstone Park experience with catch-and-release fishing. Pages 7-9 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roclofs, cds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Anderson, R. M. and R. B. Nchring. 1984. Effects of a catch-and-release regulation on a wild trout population in Colorado and its acceptance by anglers. North American J. of Fisheries M anagement 4:257-265. Arndt, J. 1974. M arket segmentation. Oslo: The Norweigian School of Economics and Business Administration. Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. American Institute of Planners 35:216-224. Beattie, K. H. 1981. The influence of game laws and regulations on hunting satisfactions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9:229-231. Brousscau, C. S. and E. R. Armstrong. 1987. The role of size limits in walleye management. Fisheries 12(l):2-5. Brown, P. J., J. E. Hautaluom a and S. M. McPhail. 1977. Colorado deer hunting experiences. Paper presented at 42nd N. Am. Nat. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf., Atlanta, Ga. Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout fishermen. J. Leisure Research 9(3):174-187. . 1979. Conflict in the great outdoors: toward understanding and managing for diverse sportsmen preferences. Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama Sociological Studies # 4 . 99pp. Buchanan, T., J. E. Christensen, and R. J. Burdge. 1981. Social groups and the meanings of outdoor recreation activities. Journal of Leisure Research 13(3):254-266. Buchanan, T. 1983. Toward an understanding of variability in satisfactions within activities. J. Leisure Research 15(1):39-51. Burkett, D. P., P. C. Mankin, G. W. Lewis, P. R. Beaty, W. F. Childers, and D. P. Philip. 1981. Evaluation of catch-and-release largemouth bass fishing as a management practice. Aquatic Biology Section, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. 171 172 Butler, J. R. and D. E. Dolsen. 1988. Trout angler satisfactions and preferences and their implications to future management programs. Paper presented at the Symposium "Trout and the Trout Angler", La Crosse, Wisconsin. June 9-11. Carpenter, M. R., J. M. Deinstadt and D. R. Bowlus. 1977. Attitudes of trout stream anglers and their relation to trout stream management. Pages 19-25 ia R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, cds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Chase, D. R. and G. Godbey. 1983. The accuracy of self-reported participation rates: A research note. Leisure Studies 2:231-235. Chase, D. R. and M. Harada. 1984. Response error in self- reported recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research 16(4):322-329. Chipman, D. C. and L. A. Hclfrich. 1988. Recreational specializations and motivations of Virginia river anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries M anagement 8:390-398. Clark, R. D., Jr. 1983. Potential effects of voluntary catch and release of fish on recreational fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries M anagement 3:306-314. Clark, R. D., Jr. and G. R. Alexander. 1984. Effects of a slotted size limit on the brown trout fishery of the Au Sable River, Michigan. Fisheries Research Report No. 1927. Michigan Departm ent of Natural Resources, Lansing. , and . 1985. Effects of a slotted size limit on a multispecies trout fishery. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 1926, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Clark, R. D., Jr., G. R. Alexander and H. Gowing. 1980. Mathematical description of trout stream fisheries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:587-602. , -----, a n d . 1981. A history and evaluation of regulations for brook trout and brown trout in Michigan streams. North American J. of Fisheries Management 1:1-14. Creighton, J. L. 1981. The public involvement manual. Abt Books, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 333pp. Deinstadt, J. M. 1977. Catch-and-release angling in California’s wild trout streams. Pages 119-124 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ditton, R. B. and A. R. Graefe. 1975. Sport fishermen and their behavior. Texas A & M Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Ditton, R. B. 1977. Human perspectives in optimum sustainable yield fisheries management. Pages 29-41 in H. Clepper, ed., M arine Recreational Fisheries 2, Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D. C. Ditton, R. B., A. R. Graefe, and A. J. Fedler. 1981. Recreational satisfactions at Buffalo National River: some measurement concerns. Pages 9-18 in Some recent products of river recreation research. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report No. NC-63. 173 Driver, B. L. and R. W. Cooksey. 1977. Preferred psychological outcomes of recreational fishing. Pages 27-41 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Driver, B. L., C. Phillips, E. Bcrgcrscn, and C. Harris. 1984. Using angler preference data in defining types of sport fisheries to manage. Trans. 49th N. Am. Wildlife Conference 49:82-90. Dunning, D. J., Q Ross, and J. Gladden. 1982. Evaluation of minimum size limits for St. Lawrence River northern pike. North American J. of Fisheries M anagement 2:171-175. Fcdlcr, A. J. 1984. Elements of motivation and satisfaction in the marine recreational fishing experience. Pages 75-83 in R. H. Stroud, ed., Marine Recreational Fisheries 9. Sport Fishing Institute, Savannah, Georgia. Fcdler, A. J. and R. B. Ditton. 1986. A framework for understanding the consumptive orientation of recreational fishermen. Environmental Management 10(2):221-227. Fcnskc, J. L. 1983. Attitudes and attributes of anglers who fish for trout in Michigan. Michigan Departm ent of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. Fisheries Research Report No. 1916. Filion, F. L. 1975. Estimating bias due to nonresponse in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 39:482-492. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: A n introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Flavell, J. 1972. Analysis of cognitive developmental sequences. Genetic Psychology Monographs 86:279-350. Gigliotti, L. M. 1983. A public assessment of concerns and beliefs about forest application of sludge. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Gigliotti, L. M. and R. B. Peyton. 1985. Utility of a public acceptance survey for forest application planning: A case study. Pages 367-382 in D. W. Cole, C. L. Henrey and W. L. Nutter, eds., The Forest Alternative for Treatm ent and Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Wastes. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Gowing, H. and G. R. Alexander. 1980. Population dynamics of trout in some streams of the northern lower peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Departm ent of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 1877, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Graefe, A. R. 1980. The relationship between level of participation and selected aspects of specialization in recreational fishing. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station. 155pp. Graff, D. R. and B. A. Hollender. 1977. Catch-and-release fishing — the Pennsylvania experience. Pages 137-149 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Haas, G. 1979. User preferences for recreation experience opportunities and physical resource attributes in three Colorado wilderness areas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Hautaluoma, J. and P. Brown. 1978. Attitudes of the deer hunting experience: a cluster-analytic study. J. Leisure Research 10(4):271-287. 174 Heberlcin, T. A. 1976. Some observations on alternative mechanisms for public involvement: The hearing, public opinion poll, workshop and quasi-expcrimcntal. Natural Resources Journal 16:197-212. Hcndce, J. C. and J. Bryan. 1978. Social benefits of fish and wildlife conservation. Pages 234-254 ia W estern Proceedings, 58th Annual Conference of the W estern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, San Diego, Cal. Hendee, J. C., R. C. Lucas, R. H. Tracy, T. Stead, R. N. Clark, G. H. Stankey and R. A. Yarnell. 1976. M ethods for acquiring public input. Pages 125-144 in J. C. Pierce and H. R. Docrkscn, eds., W ater Politics and Public Involvement. Ann A rbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hendrickson, G. E. 1966. Michigan’s Au Sable River - today and tomorrow. Geological Survey Bulletin # 3 , Lansing, Michigan. Hictt, R. L., K. A. Chandler, A. K. Rcnierc, and A. R. Bolstcen. 1983. Socio-economic aspects of marine recreational fishing. Report prepared for the National M arine Fisheries Service. 101pp. Hunsakcr, D., II., L. F. Marnell, and F. P. Sharpe. 1970. Hooking mortality of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Progr. Fish-Cult. 32(6):231-235. Hunt, R. L. 1970. A compendium of research on angling regulations for brook trout conducted at Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin. Dept, of Natural Resources, Research Report 54, Madison, Wisconsin. . 1977. A n unsuccessful use of catch-and-release regulations for a wild brook trout fishery. Pages 125-136 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Huntsman, W. and J. Huntsman. 1988. Constraining hunting opportunities: Is satisfaction affected? In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. June 6-9. Jackson, R., R. Norton and R. Anderson. 1979. Improving ethical behavior in hunters. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 44:306-318. Jackson, R. and R. Norton. 1980. "Phases" the personal evolution of the sport hunter. Wise. Sportsman. Nov./Dec. pp. 17-20. Jacobs, P. 1980. Commitment and goals: the test of an outdoor recreation conflict model. M aster’s Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Kanuk, L. and C. Berenson. 1975. Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of M arketing Research 12:440-453. Katz, M. S. 1981. An assessment of intra-group differences in conservation attitudes and environmentalism as a function of activity involvement among fly fishermen. Ph. D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, Dept, of Physical Education, University Park, PA. Kavanagh, N. J. 1968. The economics of recreational uses of rivers and reservoirs. W ater and W ater Engineering 72 (October):401-408. Kellert, S. 1980. Contemporary values of wildlife in American society. Pages 31-60 in W.W. Shaw and E.H. Zube, eds., Wildlife Values. Center for Assessment of Noncommodity Natural Resource Values, Institutional Series Report # 1 , University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 175 Kellert, S. R. and P. J. Brown. 1985. Hum an Dimensions information in wildlife management, policy, and planning: Introductory comments to the special issue on human dimensions in wildlife management. Leisure Sciences 7(3):269-280. Kikuchi, H. 1986. Segmenting Michigan’s sport fishing market: evaluation of two approaches. Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, Dept, of Park and Recreation Resources, East Lansing, MI. Knopf, R. G , B. L. Driver, and J. R. Bassett. 1973. Motivations for fishing. Pages 191-202 in J. C. Hendec and C. Schoenfeld, eds., Hum an Dimensions in Wildlife Programs: Proceedings of the 38th N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf., Washington, D. C. Kohlbcrg, L. 1971. Stages of moral development as the basis for moral education. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. Langenau, E. E., Jr. 1979. Hum an dimensions in the management of white-tailed deer: a review of concepts and literature. Wildlife Division Report No. 2846. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing. Langenau, E. E. Jr., and R. B. Peyton. 1983. Policy implications of human dimensions research for wildlife information and education programs. Trans. Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conf. 39:119135. Lawler, E. E. 1973. Motivations in work organizations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. 224pp. Ley, R. 1967. Why anglers really angle. Field and Stream 71(10):109-110. Linsky, A. S. 1975. Stimulating response to mailed questionnaires: a review. Public opinion Quarterly 39:82-101. Mahoney, E. M., and H. Kikuchi. 1985. A market segmentation and economic analysis of Michigan’s sport fishing market. Paper presented at the Symposium on Social Assessment of Fisheries Resources, Kettunen Center, Michigan, September 3-6. Manfredo, M. and D. Anderson. 1982. Recreational preferences of Oregon trout fishermen. In Proceedings of Forest and River Recreation Research Update. D. W. Lime (ed.) Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 64-69. Mason, J. W. and R. L. Hunt. 1967. Mortality rates of deeply hooked rainbow trout. Progr. FishCult. 29(2):87-91. Nielsen, L. A. 1976. The evolution of fisheries management philosophy. M arine Fisheries Review 38(12):12-23. Pettit, S. W. 1977. Steelhead catch-and-release research and regulations on the Clearwater River, Idaho. Pages 169-175 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Petulla, J. M. 1980. Historic values affecting wildlife in American society. Pages 23-30 in W.W. Shaw and E.H . Zube, eds., Wildlife Values. Center for Assessment of Noncommodity Natural Resource Values, Institutional Series Report # 1 , University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Pride, W. M., and O. C. Ferrell. 1983. Marketing: Basic Concepts and Decisions. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 176 Romsa, G. H. and S. Girling. 1976. The identification of outdoor recreation m arket segments on the basis of frequency of participation. Journal of Leisure Research 8(4):247-255. Rosener, J. B. 1978. Matching method to purpose: The challenge of planning dtizcn-participation activities. Pages 109-121. in S. Langton, ed., Citizen Participation in America. Lexington Books, D. C. H eath and Co., Lexington, Mass. Shcttcr, D. S. and L. N. Allison. 1955. Comparisons of mortality between fly-hooked and wormhooked trout in Michigan streams. Michigan Departm ent of Conservation, Inst. Fish. Res., Misc. Publ. No. 9, Ann Arbor, Michigan. , and . 1958. Mortality of trout caused by hooking with artificial lures in Michigan waters, 1956-1957. Michigan Department of Conservation, Inst. Fish. Res., Ann Arbor, Michigan. Snider, W. M. and D. C. McKee. 1982. The response of a bait angler dominated trout fishery to catch-and-release. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 82-8. California Dept, of Fish and Game. Stofflc, R. W., R. V. Jensen, and D. L. Rasch. 1984. "Filling the box", evaluating the utility of social science research for fisheries management policy. Paper presented to the 1984 American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Styncs, D. J. 1985. A review and evaluation of market segmentation applications in recreation and tourism. Paper presented at the 1985 NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, Dallas, TX, October 25-28. Suchman, E. A. 1962. An analysis of bias in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly 26:102-111. Sudman, S. and N. M. Bradburn. 1974. Response effects in surveys. Chicago: Aldinc Publishing Company. Turner, S. T. 1986. The effects of restrictive Fishing methods upon catch, harvest and survival of trout in M cramec River. Missouri Department of Conservation. 55pp. U.S. Departm ent of Commerce. 1980. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1979. National Marine Fisheries Service, Current Fisheries Statistics No. 8063. Voiland, M. P. and M. W. Duttweiler. 1984. W here’s the humanity? A challenge and opportunity for the fisheries community. Fisheries 9(4):10-12. W arner, K. 1978. Hooking mortality of lake-dwelling landlocked Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107(4):518-522. . 1979. Mortality of landlocked Atlantic Salmon hooked on four types of fishing gear at the hatchery. Prog. Fish-Cult. 41(2):99-102. W arner, K. and P. R. Johnson. 1978. Mortality of landlocked Atlantic Salmon fSalmo salar) hooked on flies and worms in a river nursery area. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107(6):772-775. W eithman, A. S., R. O. Anderson, and A. A. Ciuffa. 1977. Catch-and-release fishing for largemouth bass on H unter’s Lake — 1963 to 1977. Pages 109-118 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. 177 Williams, D. S. 1984. A developmental model of recreation choice behavior. Pages 31-37 la G. H. Stankcy and S. P. McCool, eds., Proceeding — Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior, Missoula, Montana. Wood, D. B. and J. J. Kennedy. 1983. Effects of stocking albino trout on angler utility. Journal of Leisure Research 15(3):179-183. Wydoski, R. S. 1977. Relation of hooking mortality and sublcthal hooking stress to quality fishing management. Pages 43-87 in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds., Proc. of Symposium: catch and release fishing as a management tool. Humboldt State University, Cal. Wyncr, G. A. 1980. Response errors in self-reported number of arrests. Sociological M ethods and Research 9:161-177. APPENDIX A Complete field interview for An Sable River anglers t 178 A ppendix A S URVEY OF A N G L E R S I N THE AU S A 8 L E R I V E R MA I N S T R E A M Q U A L I T Y F I S H I N G Z ONE ( B U R T O N S L ANDI NG ON WAKELY B R I D G E ) TODAY' S LOC. DATE _____________________________ (mo. - day - y r . j INT. T I ME : I AC C E S S POI NT P lease complete t h i s survey a ccording to t o d a y ' s f is h in g t r i p the Mainstream Q uality Section ( B u rto n s Landing to Wakely 8 r 1 d g e ). YOUR 1. 2. RESPONSES 4. THIS S URVE Y WI L L BE TREATED AS Ho w m a n y h o u r s h a v e y o u f l s n e d so f a r t o d a y ( t n e M a i n s t r e a m " Q u a l 1ty F i s h i n g " s e c t i o n ) ? _________ HOURS HAVE NOT YET S T ART E D - - - > Ho w many trout did you catch int h i s Ho w m a n y trout did you keep? ____________ Ho w m a n y release? "1e g a 1- s 1z e d " ___________ A b o u t how Inches? 3. TO large was fish the (8-12 largest section or > trout 16 you 1n 1n CONFI DENTI AL thissection GO TO QUESTI ON A t o d a y ? ___ __________ Inches) caught? did you ________ Considering all f a c t o r s , how s a t i s f i e d a r e y o u w i t h y o u r fishing trip today? (check one) 1. E XT RE ME L Y S A T I S F I E O 2. SATISFIED 3. SLI GHTLY S A T I S F I E D 4. SLI GHTLY D I S S A T I S F I E D 5. OISSATISFIED ~ ~ 6. E XT RE ME L Y D I S S A T I S F I E D Fishing method 1n (check F LY fishing 2 ) ? FISHING party: S HORE WADI NG ________ S P I N C A S T I N G 5. Number 6. Not c o u n t i n g t h i s you spent f i s h i n g year? DAYS s e a s o n , a b o u t how ma n y t h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e Au 7. Would a " n o - k i l l " in the f u t u r e ? YES regulation N O ________ BOAT BAI T _________ > prevent WHY: 1 you days, Sable 1f a n y , have River last from f i s h i n g here 179 8. Appendix A T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l o t h e r t y p e s o f r e g u l a t i o n s 1 n t h e Au S a o l e River System. Ho w I m p o r t a n t w e r e e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g reasons for your s e l e c ti o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e c tio n of the river for your trip today? P l e a s e r e s p o n d by c h e c k i n g w hether each item Is a prim ary r e a s o n , somewhat Im p o rtan t reason, or not a reason for your s e l e c t i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r se c tio n of the r i v e r for t o d a y 's t r i p . pi U M A r y RE AS ON 1. E AS Y TO A C C E S S RI VER 2. C L O S E TO H O ME / C A B I N OR CAMPGROUND 3. A FRI END 4. T HOUGHT THE RE WOULD FEWER ANGL ERS 5. E X P E C T E D TO CATCH L ARGE R F I S H 6. EXPECTED FISH 7. TRADI TI ONAL F I S HI NG I ' M F A M I L I A R WI TH TO CATCH there 9. Ho w I m p o r t a n t o n l y " a r e a 1n any NOT A RE AS ON THE S U GGE S T E D We r e SOMEWHAT I MP O R T A N T other IT BE MORE AREA primary reasons for coming here? Is I t to you to have a s p e c i a l Michigan t o t r o u t f i s h 1n? 1 . CRUCI AL 2 . VERY I MP OR T ANT 3 . I MP OR T ANT 4 . SOMEWHAT I MP OR T ANT 5 . S L I G H T L Y I MP O R T A N T 6 . NOT I MP OR T ANT 2 “f l y - f i s h i n g 180 A ppendix A 10. Ho w i m p o r t a n t i s 1 t t o y o u r t o n a v e a s p e c i a l in Michigan to t r o u t f i s h 1n ? 1 . C R UC I A L 2 . VERY I MP ORT ANT 3 . I MP ORT ANT 4 . SOMEWHAT I MP OR T ANT 5 . S L I G H T L Y I MP ORT ANT 6 . NOT I MP ORT ANT 11. In y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t a r e t h e p u r p o s e s o r b e n e f i t s " n o - k i l l " r e g u l a t i o n 1s s u p p o s e d t o p r o v i d e ? 12. Do y o u f e e l trout areas 13. Ho w d o y o u f e e l a b o u t t h e p r o p o s e d n e w " n o - k i l l " r e g u l a t i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n of the AuSable R iv er (B u rto n s Landing to Wakely B r i d g e ) ? 1 . S T RONGLY AP P ROVE 2 . AP P ROVE 3 . S L I G H T L Y AP P R OVE 4 . UN DE C I DE D 5 . SLI GHTLY DI S AP P ROVE 6 . DI SAPPROVE 7 . S TRONGLY D I S A P P R O V E Wh y 14. do you t h a t th e number o f " n o - k i l l " 1n t h e s t a t e s h o u l d b e : 1 . I NCREAS ED 2 . DE C R E AS E D 3 . STAY THE SAME 4 . NO O P I N I O N feel that way? that area a (catch-and-release) ______________________________________________________ In y o u r o p i n i o n , 1f t h i s area (B u rto n s Landing to Wakely Bridge) were designated " n o - k ill" what p e rce n t of the a n g l e r s would Ignore the r e g u l a t i o n and keep t r o u t ? Include t h o s e f i s h i n g from canoes, at n i g h t , landowners along the r i v e r and o t h e r a n g l e r s . X OF THE ANGL E RS NO O P I N I O N 15. "no-kill" What your I n f l u e n c e do yo u chances of catchi 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. KEEPI NG TROUT think t h e s e v i o l a t i o n s would have ng large trout? GREATLY REDUCE MY CHANCE S SOMEWHAT RE DUCE MY C HANC E S S L I G H T L Y REDUCE MY C HANC E S WI LL HAVE NO E F F E C T ON MY CHANCE S NO O P I N I O N 3 on 181 A ppendix A 16. I n y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t p e r c e n t o f t h e a n g l e r s who I l l e g a l l y K e e p t r o u t o n t h i s s t r e t c h w o u l d be c a u g h t by l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o ffice rs? T. ________ NO O P I N I O N 17. Ho w o f t e n d o if t h i s were 18. A b o u t how m a n y t h e 1985 se a s o n ty p es of f i s h i n A b o u t how m a n y fishing for tr o A b o u t how m a n y fishing 1n a n y 19. Wh a t fishing you th in k a "no-kil 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. you would keep l" section? NEVER A FEW S OME T I ME S OF T E N VERY OF TEN do you use OF T E N FLY 2. LURES/SPINCASTING 3. BAIT 20. Of catch here for DAYS DAYS DAYS trout? S OME T I ME S NEVER FISHING FISHING a 11 for? 21. you days did you f i s h during ( l a s t y e a r ) , f o r al 1 g ? ......................................................................................... of th o s e days were spent u t ? ...................................................................................... of th o se days were spent designated "no-k1ll" a re a s ? .... methods 1. trout fish species, what species do you most prefer to fish ________________________________________________ A n g l e r s t e n d t o f 1sh f o r a number of r e a s o n s . Below a r e six general reasons a n g lers give for fish in g th a t I will read to you. I would l i k e you to r a t e from z e r o (0) to n in e ( 9 ) t h e I m p o r t a n c e o f e a c h r e a s o n f o r wh y y o u t r o u t fish. A z e r o m e a n s t h a t 1 t 1 s n o t a r e a s o n f o r why y o u t r o u t f i s h and a t th e o t h e r end a 9 I n d i c a t e s t h a t i t 1s a v e r y I m p o r t a n t r e a s o n f o r why y o u t r o u t f i s h . R E A S O N S FOR WHY YOU TROUT F I S H - RATED FROM 0 - 9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. TO CATCH F I S H TO E A T ................................................................................... TO CATCH F I S H FOR FUN AND E X C I T E M E N T ................................ F OR C O M P A N I O N S H I P ( F R I E N D S S / O R F A M I L Y ) ....................... TO GET AWAY AND R E L A X ................................................................................ TO E NJ O Y N A T U R E ................................................................................................... TO US E MY F I S H I N G E Q U I P M E N T .............................................................................. 4 182 22. What this a r e a s on t h e A u S a h l e R i v e r s y s t e m h a v e season or plan to fish t h i s season? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 23. Wh e n y o u f 1 s h , do Do y o u If fish you : belong yes, 25. Do y o u 26. Ho w 27. Ho w d o for tie many trout your years you 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. any l i s t : own have rate 1n areas fished where It 1s legal to R E L E A S E ALL TROUT CAUGHT R E L E A S E MOST LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT KE E P MOST LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT KE E P ALL LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT ( U P L EGAL L I M I T ) fishing organizations? YES keep TO THE _____ NO ____________________________________________________________ flie s? you yourself YES been as trout a EXPERI ENCED Ho w I m p o r t a n t 1 s your other types fishing? 2. 29. to please SOMEWHAT 28. you AU S AB L E R I V E R MAI NS T RE AM ABOVE BURT ONS L ANDI NG AU S AB L E R I V E R MAI NS T RE AM BELOW WAKELY B R I O G E E A S T BRANCH AU S AB L E R I V E R NORTH BRANCH AU S AB L E R I V E R " N O - K I L L " S E C T I O N ON THE SOUTH BRANCH AU S A B L E R I V E R SOUTH BRANCH AU S ABL E E XC L UDI NG THE " N O - K I L L " S E C T I O N OT HE R T R I B U T A R I E S OF THE AU S ABL E R I V E R AU S ABL E R I V E R MAI NS T R E AM " Q U A L I T Y F I S H I N G " S E C T I O N ( B U R T O N S L A N O I N G TO WAKELY B R I D G E ) . 1. 2. 3. 4. 24. A ppendix A trout NO fishing? angler? EXPERI ENCED ________________ YEARS BEGI NNER EXPERT t r o u t f i s h i n g to you In r e l a t i o n to a l l of r e c r e a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g o t h e r t y p e s of MOST I MP OR T ANT R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T Y MORE I MP O R T A N T THAN MOST OTHER R E C R E A T I O N A L ACTIVITIES I M P O R T A N T , BUT S E VE RAL OTHER R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T I E S ARE MORE I MP OR T ANT SOMEWHAT I MP O R T A N T , BUT RANKED R E L A T I V E L Y LOW COMPARED TO C E R T A I N OTHER R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T I E S S L I G H L Y I MP ORT ANT NOT VERY I MP OR T ANT A b o u t how m u c h m o n e y d o y o u h a v e I n v e s t e d 1n s p e c i a l i z e d trout fishing equipment including only sp e c ia liz ed c lo th in g , waders, vests, rods, reels, line, l u r e s and f l i e s , fly tying or rod making equipm ent. S_______________________ 5 183 30. Do you fish for trout A ppendix A a fte r dark in this section? YES NO Do y o u plan I N F O R MA T I O N ABOUT to fish What 1s your sex? 2. Wha t 1s your age? 3. Wh a t Is the 4. What 1s your 5. What wage 1s y o u r earners 7. 9. 6. In what (and a fte r dark tonight? YES NO YOURS E L F I. 1. 3. 5. here highest MALE _______ YE ARS FEMALE OF AGE l e v e l y o u c o m p l e t e d 1n s c h o o l ? 1 . GRAOE S CHOOL 2 . SOME H I G H S CHOOL 3 . H I G H S CHOOL D I P L O MA 4 . SOME C O L L E G E 5 . A S S O C I A T E DE GR E E ( 2 - Y R ) 6 . C O L L E G E D E G R E E ( B . S . OR B . A . ) 7 . SOME G R A D U A T E , ME D I C A L OR LAW S CHOOL 8 . ADVANCED D E G R E E ( M . S . , P h . D . , M . D . , D . 0 . , D .D . S . , D. V . M . , J . 0 . ) present primary occupation? total fa m1ly 1ncome in your household ) 7 before UNDER $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $15,000 to $19,999 $25,000 t o $29,999 $35,000 t o $39,999 $45,000 t o $49,999 c o u n t y do you include state taxes 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. live? 1f you 6 are not a (include $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 Michigan to to to to OR all $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $44,999 OVER resident) 184 We several sometime g i v e us determin A ppendix A will be s t u d y i n g t h e u s e o f t h i s a r e a f o r t h e n e x t years. We w o u l d l i k e t o p o s s i b l y s e n d y o u a m a l l survey In t h e f u t u r e as p a r t of t h i s o n - g o i n g s t u d y . Would yo u y o u r na me a n d m a i l i n g a d d r e s s s o we c a n c o n t a c t y o u a n d e y o u r f u t u r e f i s h i n g b e h a v io rs and o p i n i o n s ? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR VAL UABL E I N C O MP L E T I N G T H I S S URVEY T I ME APPENDIX B S h o rt f i e l d in te r v ie w f o r An S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s 185 A ppendix B S URVEY OF A N G L E R S I N THE AU S ABLE R I V E R MA I NS T R E AM Q U A L I T Y F I S H I N G ZONE ( B U R T O N S L ANDI NG ON WAKELY B R I D G E ) TODAY' S LOC. DATE _________________________ (mo. - day - y r .) I N T . ________ T I ME : I ACCESS POI NT _________ _ P l e a s e c o m p l e t e t h i s s u r v e y a c c o r d i n g t o t o d a y 1s f i s h i n g t r i p the Mainstream Quality Section (Burtons Landing to Wakely Br 1 d g e ) . YOUR R E S P O N S E S 1. 2. TO THIS S URVE Y WI L L Ho w many t r o u t did you catch 1n many t r o u t did you keep? ___________ Ho w m a n y " 1 e g a 1 - s i z e d " release? ___________ A b o u t how 1n c h e s ? 4. T RE AT E D AS CONFI DENTI AL Ho w many h o u r s h a v e y o u f l s n e d s o f a r t o d a y I n t h i s s e c t i o n . (the Mainstream "Qua11ty Fishing" s e c t ! o n ) ? _________ HOURS HAVE NOT YET S T ART E D - - - > GO TO Q U E S T I O N Ho w 3. BE 1n large was fish the this (8-12 largest section or > trout 16 you today? Inches) caught? 4 __________ did you ________ Considering all f a c t o r s , how s a t i s f i e d a r e y o u w i t h y o u r fishing trip today? (check one) 1. E XT RE ME L Y S A T I S F I E D 2. SATISFIED 3. SLI GHTLY S A T I S F I E D 4. SLI GHTLY D I S S A T I S F I E D 5. DISSATISFIED 6. E XT RE ME L Y D I S S A T I S F I E D Flshlnq method 1n (check F LY fishing 2)7 FISHlfiS party: SHORE ~ WAOI NG SP I N C A S T I NG ________ 5. Number 6. Not c o u n t i n g t h i s you spent f i s h i n g year? DAYS s e a s o n , a b o u t how many t h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e Au 7. Would a " n o - k 1 l l " 1n t h e f u t u r e ? YES regulation N O BOAT BAI T _________ > prevent WHY: OVER 1 you days, Sable from 1f any, have River last fishing here ___________________________________________ 186 8. Appendix B There are se ve ra l o t h e r t y p e s o f r e g u l a t i o n s 1 n t h e Au S a b l e River System. Ho w I m p o r t a n t w e r e e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g reasons fo r your s e le c tio n of t h is p a r t i c u l a r s e c tio n of the river for your trip today7 P l e a s e r e s p o n d by c h e c k i n g whether each Item Is a primary r e a s o n , somewhat Im portant reason, or not a reason for your s e l e c t i o n of t h is p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n of the r i v e r f o r t o d a y ' s t r i p . P RI MARY RE AS ON 1 . SOMEWHAT I MP OR T ANT NOT A RE AS ON EASY TO ACCESS THE RI VER 2. C L OS E TO H O M E / C A B I N OR CAMPGROUND 3. A FRI ENO 4. THOUGHT T HE R E WOULD FEWER AN GL E R S 5. E X P E C T E D TO CATCH LARGER F I S H 6. EXPECTEO FISH 7. TRADI TI ONAL F I S HI NG I ' M F A M I L I A R WI TH Were there S UGGESTED TO CAT CH any other IT BE MORE AREA primary ---- reasons for coming here? T h i s s u r v e y I s p a r t o f a l a r g e r s u r v e y w h i c h d e a l s w i t h some a s p e c t s of y o u r t r o u t f i s h i n g b e h a v i o r and a t t i t u d e s about "nok ill" trout fishing areas. We w o u l d l i k e t o i n c l u d e y o u I n t h i s survey. Would y o u p l e a s e g i v e us y o u r name a n d m a i l i n g a d d r e s s ? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR VAL UABL E I N C O MP L E T I N G T H I S S URVE Y T I ME APPENDIX C C aver l e t t e r l e f t on c a r s w ith t h e s h o r t f i e l d in te rv ie w f o r t h e An S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s Appendix C 187 M I C H I G A N S TATE U N I V E R S I T Y DEPARTM ENT OF FISHERIES A N D WILD LIFT EAST LAN SIN G • M IC H IG A N • 4M 24-I222 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING H I 7 | J« -* A 7 7 Summer, 1986 Anglers AuSable River Survey Field Interview Dear Anglers: Mic hig an S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Is c o n d u c t i n g an e x t e n s i v e s u r v e y o f a n g l e r s on t h e A u S a b l e R i v e r s y s t e m . This survey Is l a r g e l y a f i e l d I n t e r v i e w , however , tim e and manpower does not p e r m i t us to personally contact all anglers. I f y o u w e r e f i s h i n g t o d a y we w o u l d l i k e t o I n c l u d e y o u 1n t h i s s u r v e y . We w o u l d l i k e t h e d r i v e r p l u s up t o t wo f i s h i n g c o m p a n i o n s ( I f a n y ) t o e a c h f i l l o u t a s u r v e y f o r m a n d r e t u r n t h e m t o g e t h e r 1n t h e a d d r e s s e d , stamped envelope. of I f you were not f i s h i n g , the su rv e y s and r e t u r n 1t. please write " NOT FISHING" on one F o r a n y a n g l e r who h a s a l r e a d y b e e n c o n t a c t e d b y a M 1 c h 1 g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s 1 t y a g e n t a n d f i l l e d o u t a siI ml 1 a r s u r v e y , p l e a s e T f T d T c a t e so by w r i t i n g a " 2 " a t t h e t o p o f t h e s u r v e y b e f o r e completing th is survey. THANK- YOU. SIncerely, R. Be n P e y t o n Associate Professor RBP : c b W SL 'iJ j h * A c ti o n / f y u j J O p p o r tu n ity Im titu tto n APPENDIX D Rem ainder o f t h e f i e l d s u rv e y s e n t t o a l l Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s in te rv ie w e d w ith t h e s h o r t f i e l d s u rv e y 188 SURVEY Dear OF ANGL E R S A ppendix D IN THE AU S AB L E RI VER S YS T E M Angler, Yo u w e r e r e c e n t l y c o n t a c t e d b y a M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s u r v e y a g e n t 1n t h e A u S a b l e R i v e r s y s t e m a n d a s k e d t o a n s w e r a f e w q u e s t i o n s 1n t h e f i e l d (Questions 1-8). This q u e s t i o n n a i r e Is the follow-up to t h a t sh o rt survey (Questions 1-8). This s u r v e y d e a l s w i t h some a s p e c t s o f - y o u r t r o u t f i s h i n g b e h a v i o r a nd a ttitu d e s about "no-k1l1" tro u t fishing areas. This inform ation 1s c r u c i a l t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e I s s u e a nd 1 t 1s i m p o r t a n t t h a t we r e c e i v e y o u r r e s p o n s e s . THANK- YOU. Sincerely, L a rr rr V y M. Research 9. How I m p o r t a n t o n l y " a r e a 1n G1 G ig lio tt1 Assistant Is 1t to Michigan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. you to have a s p e c ia l t o t r o u t f i s h 1n ? CRUCI AL VERY I MP OR T ANT I MP ORT ANT SOMEWHAT I MP ORT ANT S L I G H T L Y I MP ORT ANT NOT I MP ORT ANT "fly-fishing 10. How I m p o r t a n t I s 1 t t o In M i c h i g a n t o t r o u t f 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. you t o have a s p e c i a l ish In? CRUCI AL VERY I MP OR T ANT I MP ORT ANT SOMEWHAT I MP OR T ANT S L I G H T L Y I MP ORT ANT NOT I MP OR T ANT "no-kill" 11. In y o u r o p i n i o n , what a r e t h e p u r p o s e s or b e n e f i t s t h a t a " n o - k i l l " r e g u l a t i o n 1 s s u p p o s e d t o p r o v i d e ? ___________________ 12. Do y o u f e e l trout areas t h a t t h e number of “n o - k i l l " 1n t h e s t a t e s h o u l d b e : 1 . I NCREAS ED 2 . OE C R E AS E D 3 . STAY THE SAME 4 . NO O P I N I O N 1 area ( c a t c h - a n d - r e 1e a s e ) 189 A ppendix D Q u e stio n s 13-17 p e r t a i n to the t i o n on t h e A u S a b l e M a i n s t r e a m Br1dge). 13. "no-kill" regula­ La n di ng t o Wakely Ho w d o y o u f e e l a b o u t t h e p r o p o s e d " n o - k 1 l l " r e g u l a t i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e AuSable R i v e r ( B u r t o n s L an d i n g t o Wakely Bridge)? 1 . S T RONGLY AP P ROVE 2 . AP P ROVE 3 . S L I G H T L Y AP P ROVE 4 . UN DE C I DE D 5 . SLI GHTLY DI SAPPROVE 6 . DI SAPPROVE 7 . STRONGLY D I S A P P R O V E Wh y 14. proposed (Burtons do you feel that way? _____________________________________________________ In y o u r o p i n i o n , 1f t h i s a r e a (Burtons Landing to Wakely Bridge) were d e sig n a te d " n o - k i l l " what p e r c e n t of th e a n g l e r s would Ig n o re the r e g u l a t i o n and keep t r o u t ? Include th o s e f i s h i n g from c a n o e s , at n i g h t , landowners along the r i v e r and o t h e r a n g l e r s . X OF THE ANGL E RS NO O P I N I O N KEEPI NG TROUT 15. Wha t I n f l u e n c e do y o u t h i n k t h e s e v i o l a t i o n s w o u l d h a v e on your ch an ces of c a tc h in g la r g e t r o u t in t h a t s t r e t c h of r lv e r ? 1 . GREATLY REDUCE MY CHANCE S 2 . SOMEWHAT RE DUCE MY CHANCE S 3 . S L I G H T L Y REDUCE MY CHANCE S 4 . WI L L HAVE NO E F F E C T ON MY CHANCE S 5 . NO O P I N I O N 16. I n y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t p e r c e n t o f t h e a n g l e r s who I l l e g a l l y k e e p t r o u t on t h i s s t r e t c h w o u l d be c a u g h t by l aw e n f o r c e m e n t officers? _______ % NOO P I N I O N 17. How o f t e n d o y o u t h i n k y o u w o u l d k e e p If t h i s were a "no-k1ll" s e c tio n ? 1 . NEVER 2 . A FEW 3 . S OME T I ME S 4 . OF TE N 5 . VERY OF TEN 2 trout you catch here 190 18. 19. A b o u t how many t h e 1985 s e a s o n types of f i s h i n A b o u t how ma n y fishing for t r o A b o u t how ma n y f i s h i n g In any What fishing A ppendix D d a y s d i d you f i s h d u r i n g (last year), for a l 1 g ? ......................................................................................... of those days were spent u t ? ...................................................................................... of th o s e days were spent designated "no-kill" a r e a s ? .... methods do you use for DAYS DAYS DAYS trout? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O T T O - - - - - - - - SOMETIMES--------- n ETTETT 1. F LY 2. LURES/SPINCASTING 3. BAI T 20. Of FISHING FISHING a 11 for? 21. fish species, what species do you most prefer to fish ________________________________________________ Anglers general zero (0) you f i s h why y o u Importan tend to reasons to nine for tro fish for t reason f i s h f o r a number of r e a s o n s . Below a r e six a n g l e r s give fo r f i s h i n g . P l e a s e r a t e from ( 9 ) t h e I m p o r t a n c e o f e a c h r e a s o n f o r why u t . A z e r o means t h a t I t I s n o t a r e a s o n f o r t r o u t and a 9 I n d i c a t e s t h a t 1t 1s a v e r y . P l e a s e c i r c l e one number f o r eac h r e a s o n . Not a Reason ------------------------------------------ V e r y Important 1. TO CATCH TO E A T _____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. TO CATCH F I S H FOR FUN ' AND E X C I T E M E N T ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 FOR C O M P A N I O N S H I P ( F RI ENDS &/ 0R F A M I L Y ) . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. TO GET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. TO N A T U R E .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. TO E N J O Y MY F I S H I N G E Q U I P M E N T ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. FISH AWAY AND R E L A X . . . E NJ O Y 191 22. Wh a t this a r e a s on t h e A u S a b l e R i v e r s y s t e m h a v e season or plan to fish th is season? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 23. A ppendix D Wh e n y o u f 1 s h , do Do y o u If fish you: belong yes, for Do y o u 26. Ho w m a n y 27. How d o tie trout you own have rate 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. areas where It 1s legal to keep R E L E AS E ALL TROUT CAUGHT R E L E A S E MOST LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT KE E P MOST LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT KE E P ALL LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT ( U P LEGAL L I M I T ) fishing organizations? flies? you yourself YES been as trout a EXPERI ENCED Ho w I m p o r t a n t I s your other types f 1shlng? 2. any 1n YES TO _____ THE NO 1 1 s t : ___ ___________________________________________________________ your years SOMEWHAT 29. to please 25. 28. fished AU S AB L E R I V E R MAI NS T RE AM ABOVE BURTONS L ANDI NG AU S ABL E R I V E R MAI NS T RE AM B E L d k WAKELY B R I D G E E AS T BRANCH AU S ABL E R I V E R NORTH BRANCH AU S ABLE R I V E R " N O - K I L L " S E C T I O N ON THE SOUTH BRANCH AU S ABLE RI VER SOUTH BRANCH AU S ABLE E XCL UDI NG THE " N O - K I L L " S E C T I O N OTHER T R I B U T A R I E S OF THE AU S ABLE R I V E R AU S ABLE R I V E R MAI NS T RE AM " Q U A L I T Y F I S H I N G " S E C T I O N ( B U R T O N S L ANDI NG TO WAKELY B R I D G E ) . 1. 2. 3. 4. 24. you trout NO fishing? angler? EXPERI ENCED ________________YEARS BE GI NNE R E XP E RT t r o u t f i s h i n g t o you In r e l a t i o n t o a l l of r e c r e a t i o n , I n c l u d i n g o t h e r t y p e s of MOST I MP ORT ANT R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T Y MORE I MP ORT ANT THAN MOST OTHER R E C R E A T I O N A L ACTIVITIES I MP O R T A N T , BUT S E VE RAL OTHER R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T I E S ARE MORE I MP ORT ANT SOMEWHAT I MP O R T A N T , BUT RANKED R E L A T I V E L Y LOW COMPARED TO C E R T A I N OTHER R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T I E S S L I G H T L Y I MP ORT ANT NOT VERY I MP ORT ANT A b o u t how m u c h m o n e y d o y o u h a v e I n v e s t e d 1n s p e c i a l i z e d tr o u t fish in g equipment Including only sp e c ia liz e d c lo th in g , waders, vests, rods, reels, line, l u r e s and f l i e s , f l y t y i n g or rod making e q u ip m e n t, j _______________________ 4 A ppendix D 192 30. Do y o u f i s h f o r t r o u t a f t e r d a r k I n t h e A u S a b l e YES R i v e r s y s t e m ? _______________________________________________________________NO 31. Answer t h i s q u e s t i o n 1f you a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e "No-K111" s e c t i o n on t h e S o u t h B r a n c h A u S a b l e R i v e r . In y o u r o p i n i o n , how e f f e c t i v e h a s t h e " N o - K i l l " r e g u l a t i o n b e e n a t p r o v i d i n g l a r g e r f i s h 1n t h i s a r e a ? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I N F OR MA T I O N ABOUT YOURS E L F 1. What 1s your sex? 2. Wh a t 1s your age? 3. What Is the 4. Wh a t 1s your 5. Wh a t wage Is your earners 1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 6. In what (and VERY E F F E C T I V E EFFECTI VE SOMEWHAT E F F E C T I V E SLI GHTLY E F F E CT I VE NOT E F F E C T I V E NO O P I N I O N highest MALE _______ YEARS FEMALE OF AGE l e v e l you c o m p l e t e d In s c h o o l ? 1 . GRADE SCHOOL 2 . SOME HI GH SCHOOL 3 . H I G H SCHOOL D I P L O MA 4 . SOME C OL L E GE 5 . A S S O C I A T E DEGRE E ( 2 - Y R ) 6 . C OL L E G E DEGREE ( B . S . OR B . A . ) 7 . SOME GR ADUAT E , ME DI C AL OR LAW S CHOOL 8 . ADVANCED DEGRE E ( M . S . , P h . D . , M . D . , D . O . , D . D . S . , D.V.M. , J . D . ) present primary occupation? total f aml 1y 1ncome in your household)? taxes 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. UNDER $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $15,000 to $19,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $45,000 to $49,999 c o u n t y do y o u Include state before (Include $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 to to to to OR all $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $44,999 OVER l i v e ? __________________ — ___ ____________ I f y o u a r e n o t a Ml c h i g a n r e s 1 d e n t 5 ) 193 A ppendix D COMME NT S : THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR VALUABLE I N C O MP L E T I N G T H I S SURVEY Ben P e y t o n Associate Professor L a r r y M. Research G1g11o t 1 1 Assistant Michigan State U niversity D e p a r t m e n t of F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e Natural Resources Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1222 Phone: (517) 6 355-4477 T I ME APPENDIX E Cover l e t t e r in c lu d e d w ith t h e second m a ilin g o f t h e re m a in d e r o f t h e f i e l d su rv e y s e n t t o n o n -re sp o n d e n ts t o t h e f i r s t m a ilin g 194 A ppendix E M I C H I G A N S TA TE U N I V E R S I T Y DEPARTM ENT O F FISHERIES A N D WIEDUEE EAST LANSING • M ICHIG AN • 4 II2 4 -I2 2 2 NATURAL RESOURCES B U ILD IN G HID JH-44T7 Dear Angler: About two m o n t h s I n t e r v i e w on t h e University Interv completed q uestio a g o we s e n t y o u a s u r v e y t o f o l l o w - u p a s h o r t AuSable R i v e r w i t h one of our Mic higan S t a t e iew ers. As o f t o d a y w e h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d y o u r n n a i r e In th e m a l l . We a r e e n c o u r a g e d b y returned, b u t we n e e d describe the opinions our past experiences s e n t 1n y o u r q u e s t i o n from t h o s e t h a t have th e number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a l r e a d y y o u r r e s p o n s e t o be a b l e t o a c c u r a t e l y of AuSable River a n g le r s . T h i s 1s b e c a u s e s u g g e s t t h a t t h o s e o f y o u who h a v e n o t y e t n a i r e s may h o l d q u i t e d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s already responded. We a r e I n t e r e s t e d I n h e a r i n g f r o m y o u e v e n 1 f y o u d o n o t h a v e s t r o n g o p in io n s c o n ce rn in g t h i s I s s u e . However, y o u r response s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y a n d y o u may r e f u s e t o a n s w e r a n y o r a l l o f questions. Your a n s w e r s w i l l a l l be t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . None o f t h e f o r m s w i l l be r e l e a s e d t o t h e M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t Natural R e s o u r c e s or any o t h e r p e r s o n or a g e n c y . Only t h e overall a n a l y s i s of our r e s u l t s will be made p u b l i c . The I n f o r m a t i o n I s s t r i c t l y f o r u n d e r s t a n d l n g t o t h e DNR o f t h e DNR r e g u l a t i o n s m a y h a v e . Your t o make f a i r e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e programs to all citizens. is the of the purpose of providing a b e t t e r sociological Impacts which f u t u r e I n p u t 1s e s s e n t i a l 1 f t h e DNR i s c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of management Your r e t u r n o f t h i s f i l l e d o u t q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s t i t u t e s y o u r consent to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s study. In t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s b e e n m i s p l a c e d , a r e p l a c e m e n t 1s e n c l o s e d . This will be y o u r l a s t c h a n c e t o p a r t i c i p a t e s i n c e t h e r e s u l t s will s o o n be t a b u l a t e d a nd a n a l y z e d . Thank you. ^ in rp ro lv L a r r y M. Research G ig lio tt1 A ssistant Project Associate Director cb W IL 'm j * O p p a r tu n H v Im u iiu lto n Profes sor APPENDIX F Sam pling sc h e d u le f o r t h e Au S a b le R iv e r s tu d y , 1986 A ppendix F 195 Sampling Schedule for the AuSable River Attitude Study, 1986 Location 4 = Locations 4 & 5 E a r l y = 8 a m - 6 pm ( E ) L a t e = 2 pm - M i d n i g h t ( L ) MONTH APR MAY J UNE J ULY ) ATE 26 27 3 4 10 11 17 18 24 25 26 31 1 7 8 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 LOCATI ON 1 1 1 1 1/2 1/3 1 1 3 1/2 1/2 1/4 4 3 4 1 1 1 3 3 1-4 3 4 2-4 4-3 3 4-1 1-2 1-2 1 1 3-4 1-4 2-1 4 1 4 1-3 4-1 2-1 4-3 T I ME _ MONTH J ULY . . . . _ . _ _ E E L L L E L L L E-L L L E-E L-E L L-E E-L L-E L L E-L E-L L-L L E L L-E L-L L-E E-E AUGUS T DATE L OC AT I ON 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 2-3 4-1 4 4-2 2-3 3-1 2-1 4-3 4-2 1-3 4 2 4-3 1 2-3 4-4 2 4-3 3-1 4-1 1 2 1-2 4-4 3-1 1-3 3-1 2 4 3 4 2 1 1 4-1 4-1 4 1/4-1 4/3-2 1/1-3 T I ME L E-E L- E E E-L E-E L-L L-L E-E E-E L-L E L L-L E L-E E-E L E-E L-L L-E E E L-E E-L E-L L-L L-L L L L L E E E E-E L-L L L/E-E L/E-E E/L-E A ppendix F 196 page MONTH SEPT OCT 2 DATE L OCAT I ON 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 28 4 5 3-1 1/2/3 1/2 3/2 1/4 1/3/4 1/4 1/4 1/2/4 1/3/4 1 1/2 1/2/3 3/4 T I ME E-E APPENDIX G F o llcw -u p s u rv e y s e n t t o p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e Au S a b le R iv e r s tu d y 197 A ppendix G SU R V EY O F A N G LER S IN THE A U SA B L E R IV E R SY ST E M F o llo w -U p S u r v e y SU R V EY # P l e a s e i n d i c a t e t h e a r e a o n t h e A u S a b le R iv e r s y s t e m w h e r e y o u r M O ST P R E F E R R E D A u S a b l e R i v e r f i s h i n g s i t e i s l o c a t e d . P le a s e c h e c k o n ly o n e . 1 . A U S A B L E R I V E R M A IN S T R E A M A B O V E B U R T O N S L A N D IN G 2 . A U S A B L E R I V E R M A IN S T R E A M BELO W W A K E LY B R ID G E 3 . A U S A B L E R I V E R M A IN S T R E A M " Q U A L IT Y F I S H I N G " S E C T I O N (B U R T O N S L A N D IN G T O W A K ELY B R I D G E ) 4 . E A S T BRANCH A U SA B L E R IV E R 5 . NORTH BRANCH A U SA B L E R IV E R 6 . " N O -K IL L " S E C T IO N ON TH E SO U T H BR A N C H A U S A B L E R IV E R 7 . S O U T H B R A N C H A U S A B L E R I V E R " Q U A L IT Y F I S H I N G " E X C L U D IN G T H E " N O - K I L L " S E C T I O N 8 . OTHER T R IB U T A R IE S O F THE AU SA B L E R IV E R 9 . I DO N O T H A V E A P R E F E R R E D A U S A B L E R I V E R F I S H I N G S IT E I f a m a n d a to r y c a t c h - a n d - r e le a s e r e g u la t io n w e r e t o b e p la c e d o n t h e p a r t o f t h e A u S a b le w h e r e I u s u a l l y f i s h , I w o u ld .. . . 1. F IS H THERE M ORE O F T E N 2. F IS H THERE A B O U T T H E SA M E 3. F IS H THERE L E SS OFTEN 4. S T O P F I S H I N G T H E R E A N D M OVE T O A D I F F E R E N T A R E A Do you o r you r R iv e r S y ste m ? fa m ily ow n p r o p e r ty o n /o r near Y E S, p le a s e c o n tin u e NO, p le a s e g o t o q u e s tio n O n w h a t b r a n c h o f t h e A u S a b le R iv e r i s to ? th e A u S a b le # 7. th e p r o p e r ty c lo s e s t H ow c l o s e i s t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e r i v e r ? 1 . BO R D ER S TH E R IV E R 2 . S E P A R A T E D FRO M T H E R I V E R B U T W I T H I N M IL E O F T H E R IV E R 3 . M ORE T H A N 1 / 4 M IL E FR O M T H E R I V E R 1 /4 198 6. W h ic h b e a t d e s c r i b e s v o u r u s e o f t h i s p r o p e r t y ? 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. A ppendix G Y E A R LO N G R E S I D E N T SEASO NALLY ( e g . su m m e r ) V A C A T I O N S ,H O L ID A Y S A N D /O R W E E K E N D S OTHER H e r e a r e so m e s t a t e m e n t s w h ic h d e a l w it h y o u r f e e l i n g s a b o u t c a tc h in g t r o u t . P le a s e i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o w h ic h y o u a g r e e o r d is a g r e e w ith e a c h o f t h e f o llo w in g s t a t e m e n t s . P le a s e c i r c l e o n e num ber fo r e a c h ite m . STRO NG LY D IS A G R E E S L IG H T L Y D IS A G R E E a) A fis h in g tr ip can be su c c e ssfu l to me e v e n i f I d o n 't c a tc h tr o u t. b ) T he b ig g e r th e tr o u t I c a tc h , th e b e tte r th e fis h in g tr ip . c ) W hen I g o f i s h i n g , I am o n l y s a t i s f i e d w h e n I c a tc h so m e t r o u t . d ) C a tc h in g a " tr o p h y " tr o u t i s th e b ig g e s t rew a rd f o r m e. e) I t d o e s n o t m a tte r to me w hat ty p e o f tr o u t I c a tc h . f) H ow I c a t c h a t r o u t i s a s im p o r ta n t t o m e a s a c t u a lly c a tc h in g o n e . g) I f I t h o u g h t I w o u ld n o t c a tc h tr o u t, I w o u ld n o t g o f i s h i n g . h) T he m ore tr o u t I c a tc h t h e h a p p ie r I am . 2 S L IG H T L Y AGREE STRO NG LY AGREE 199 8. A ppendix G H ow d o y o u f e e l a b o u t t h e p r o p o s e d " n o - k i l l " r e g u l a t i o n f o r t h e M a i n s t r e a a A u S a b le R i v e r fr o m B u r t o n s L a n d in g t o W a k e ly B r id g e ? 1 . ST R O N G L Y A P P R O V E ) 2 . APPROVE > ----------------- -* -G o t o 3 . S L IG H T L Y A P P R O V E ) 4 . U N D E C ID E D — q u e s tio n 9 * -G o t o q u e s t i o n 2 5 5 . S L IG H T L Y D IS A P P R O V E ) 6 . D IS A P P R O V E > - - - - - - - - - - - - - * -G o t o q u e s t i o n 1 5 7 . S T R O N G L Y D IS A P P R O V E ) 9 -1 4 . B e lo w a r e so m e p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r w h y y o u m a y a p p r o v e o f th e p ro p o sed " n o -k ill” r e g u la tio n . P le a s e in d ic a te h ow im p o r ta n t e a c h o f t h e s e i s a s a r e a s o n f o r w hy y o u a p p r o v e o f th e p r o p o se d r e g u la t io n b y c h e c k in g o n e resp o n se fo r each rea so n . W h ile y o u m ay a g r e e t h a t m o st o f th e s e a r e tr u e s ta te m e n ts , p le a s e an sw er a c c o r d in g t o w h e th e r i t i s a r e a s o n w h y v o u h o ld th e p o s itio n th a t you d o . P R IM A R Y R EASO N SO M EW H A T IM P O R T A N T NOT A REASO N 9 . I t w i l l in c r e a s e t h e s i z e ______ ____ o f th e f is h to b e c a u g h t. ____ ____ 1 0 . I t w i l l in c r e a s e t h e __________ ____ num bers o f f is h to b e c a u g h t. ____ ____ 1 1 . I t w i l l r e d u c e c r o w d in g in th e p rop osed a rea . ____ ____ ____ 1 2 . T r o u t a r e to o v a lu a b le to k ill. ____ ____ ____ 1 3 . T h is a r e a i s a h ig h q u a lit y fis h in g a rea and d eserv es th e m ost p r o te c tiv e ty p e o f f is h in g r e g u la tio n s . ____ ____ ____ 1 4 . A r e t h e r e a n y o t h e r p r im a r y r e a s o n s f o r y o u r p o s i t i o n o n t h e n o - k ill r e g u la tio n ? ______________________________________________ G O O N T O Q U E S T IO N # 2 5 O N P A G E 5 3 A ppendix G 200 1 5 -2 4 . B e lo v a r e so m a p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r w h y y o u m ay d is a p p r o v e o f th e p r o p o se d " n o - k ill" r e g u la tio n . P le a s e in d ic a t e how in p o r ta n t e a c h o f t h e s e i s a s a r e a s o n f o r w hy v o u d is a p p r o v e o f t h e p r o p o se d r e g u la t io n b y c h e c k in g o n e r e s p o n s e fo r each rea so n . W h ile y o u m ay a g r e e t h a t m o s t o f t h e s e a r e t r u e s t a t e m e n t s , p le a s e a n sw e r a c c o r d in g t o w h e th e r i t i s a r e a s o n w h y v o u h o ld t h e p o s it io n t h a t y o u d o . P R IM A R Y REASO N SO M EW H A T IM P O R T A N T HOT A R EASO N 1 5 . I w a n t t o k e e p som e f i s h to e a t. ____ ____ ____ 1 6 . I w a n t t o b e a b le t o k o ep a n o u ts ta n d in g tr o p h y f is h . ____ ____ ____ 1 7 . I w a n t t o b e a b le t o k eep f i s h t o o in ju r e d t o s u r v iv e i f r e le a s e d . ____ ____ ____ 1 8 . A n g le r s w i l l s h i f t " n o -k ill" a r e a an d f is h in g p r e ssu r e in a r e a s im p o r ta n t t o ____ ____ ____ 1 9 . R e le a s in g o r k e e p in g f i s h i s ____ a p e r s o n a l c h o ic e th a t ea ch a n g le r s h o u ld b e a b le t o m ak e. ____ ____ 2 0 . N o - k i l l w i l l p o t im p r o v e fis h in g . ____ ____ ____ 2 1 . T he n o - k ill r e g u la tio n w ill harm t h e lo c a l eco n o m y . ____ ____ ____ 2 2 . N o - k ill r e g u la tio n s j u s t ____ se r v e s p e c ia l in te r e s t g ro u p s. ____ ____ fr o m t h e in c r e a s e o th e r m e. 2 3 . A r e t h e r e a n y o t h e r p r im a r y r e a s o n s f o r y o u r p o s i t i o n o n t h e n o - k ill r e g u la tio n ? ____________________________________________ 24. I f th e r e s u lt s o f th e stu d y on th e c a tc h -a n d -r e le a s e s e c tio n o f t h e S o u th B r a n c h a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y , I w o u ld s u p p o r t c a t c h - a n d - r e l e a s e o n t h e M a in s tr e a m . P le a s e c i r c l e y o u r resp on se. STR O N G LY AGREE AGREE U N D E C ID E D G O O N T O Q U E S T IO N # 2 5 O N P A G E 5 D IS A G R E E STR O N G LY D IS A G R E E A ppendix G 201 P le a s e c ir c le th e r e sp o n se a t th e r ig h t o f ea ch w h i c h i n d i c a t e s h o w s t r o n g l y y o u a g r e e QH d i s a g r e e . S A - STR O N G LY AG REE A - AGREE D - U N D E C ID E D sta te m e n t D - D IS A G R E E S D - S T R O N G L Y D IS A G R E E 25. T h ere i s a sh o r ta g e o f n o -k ill a r e a s in th e S ta te . SA A U D SD 26. T he n o - k ill r e g u la tio n fo r th e M a in s tr e a m i s u n f a i r t o la n d ­ ow ners . SA A U D SD 27. T he p r o p o se d n o - k ill r e g u la tio n o n t h e M a in s tr e a m w i l l n o t b e e n fo r c e d a d e q u a te ly . SA A U D SD 28. T h e M a in s tr e a m Q u a lit y S e c t i o n i s o v e r fis h e d . SA A U D SD 29. R e le a s in g tr o u t i s n o t e f f e c t iv e b e c a u se m ost o f th e h ook ed tr o u t d ie an yw ay. SA A U D SD 30. T he u se o f s p e c ia l fis h in g r e g u la t io n s s h o u ld o n ly b e b a se d o n b io lo g ic a l e v id e n c e . SA A U D SD 31. A n g le r s u s i n g t h e M a in s tr e a m Q u a lity S e c t io n a lr e a d y r e le a s e enou gh o f th e tr o u t th a t a re c a u g h t t o m a in ta in q u a lit y f is h in g . SA A U D SD 32. T h e M a in s tr e a m s h o u ld b e s t o c k e d t o im p r o v e f i s h i n g . SA A U D SD 33. T he p r o p o se d n o - k ill r e g u la tio n w ill b e n e fit th e lo c a l econom y. SA A U D SD SA A U 3 4 . I t r u s t t h e D e p a r tm e n t o f N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s t o m a n a g e t h e A u S a b le R iv e r f is h e r y in a f a i r an d r e a s o n a b le m a n n er. 5 D SD A ppendix G 202 3 5 . H a w i l l b e c o n d u c t in g a n a d d i t i o n a l s u r v e y o f M ic h ig a n t r o u t a n g le r s n e x t y e a r t o i n v e s t i g a t e a n g le r s ' c o m p lia n c e w it h v a r io u s ty p e s o f f is h in g r e g u la tio n s . T h is t o p ic i s e x tr e m e ly im p o r ta n t in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g em en t b u t v e r y d i f f i ­ c u lt to s tu d y b e c a u s e som e s e n s i t i v e q u e s t io n s m u st b e a sk ed . B eca u se o f th e s e n s it iv e n a tu r e o f t h is stu d y and t h e f a c t t h a t y o u h a v e a lr e a d y c o m p le te d a n e x t e n s iv e s u r v e y f o r u s w e a r e p r o v id in g a n o p p o r tu n ity f o r y o u t o e x c lu d e y o u r s e l f f r o m o u r s t u d y b y c h e c k i n g NO b e l o w . C h e c k in g YES d o e s n o t o b lig a t e y o u t o a n sw e r o u r s u r v e y , i t o n ly m e a n s t h a t y o u w i l l r e c e i v e o u r s u r v e y i n t h e m a il a t w h ic h tim e y o u c a n d e c id e w h e th e r y o u w is h t o c o m p le te i t . YES — Y O U M AY S E N D ME A Q U E S T I O N N A IR E A B O U T C O M P L IA N C E W IT H F I S H I N G R E G U L A T IO N S N O — P L E A S E DO N O T IN C L U D E M E I N Y O U R S U R V E Y T H A N K Y O U V E R Y M U C H F O R Y O U R V A L U A B L E T I M E I N C O M P L E T IN G T H I S SU R V EY . Y ou h a v e b e e n g e n e r o u s w ith y o u r tim e a n d f o r t h a t w e a r e g r a t e f u l . M any a n g le r s h a v e r e q u e s t e d a c o p y o f o u r r e s u l t s . I f o u r b u d g e t p e r m it s w o w i l l p r e p a r e a su m m ary o f so m e o f t h e m o re im p o r ta n t f in d in g s in o u r s t u d y a n d s e n d th e m o u t t o a l l in te r e s te d p a r tic ip a n ts in o u r stu d y . P le a s e c h e c k t h is b o x [ ] i f y o u w o u ld l i k e t o r e c e i v e a su m m a ry c o p y o f o u r r e s u l t s . T h is su m m ary w i l l p r o b a b ly n o t b e r e a d y u n t i l s p r in g , 1 9 8 7 . WE W ELCOM E A N Y F U R T H E R C O M M EN TS Y O U M AY W IS H T O W R IT E B E L O W . B en P e y to n A s s o c ia te P r o fe sso r L arry M. G ig lio tti R esea rch A s s is ta n t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n iv e r s it y D e p a r tm e n t o f F is h e r ie s a n d W ild lif e N a tu r a l R e so u r c e s B u ild in g E a s t L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n 4 8 8 2 4 -1 2 2 2 P hone: (5 1 7 ) 6 3 5 5 -4 4 7 7 APPENDIX H Cover l e t t e r s s e n t w ith t h e fo llo w -u p s u rv e y s e n t t o Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s 203 A ppendix H M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES A N D WILDLIFE EAST LANSING • M IC H IG A N • 4 S I 2 4 - I I U NATURAL RESOURCES BUILD ING H IT ) J i l - M T D ecem ber 1 , 1986 D ea r A n g le r : Y ou r e c e n t l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s t u d y o f a n g l e r s i n t h e A u S a b le R iv e r s y s t e m . T o r e fr e s h y o u r m em ory, y o u w e r e c o n t a c t e d b y a M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s u r v e y a g e n t i n t h e A u S a b le R iv e r t h i s p a s t f i s h i n g s e a s o n a n d a s k e d t o a n sw e r e i t h e r a lo n g su r v e y o r a s h o r t s u r v e y p lu s a m a il fo llo w -u p s u r v e y . We w a n t t o th a n k -y o u f o r y o u r p a r t ic ip a t io n in t h i s s t u d y . T h is in f o r m a t io n i s p r o v id in g a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d in g t o t h e DNR o f t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l i m p a c t s w h i c h f u t u r e DNR r e g u l a t i o n s m a y h a v e . T h e s tu d y h a s id e n t if ie d a n eed fo r a d d it io n a l in fo r m a tio n . We w o u ld l i k e y o u t o r e s p o n d t o so m e a d d i t i o n a l s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n ­ in g th e p r o p o se d " n o -k ill" r e g u l a t i o n o n t h e A u S a b le R iv e r M a in s tr e a m fr o m B u r t o n s L a n d in g t o W a k e le y B r id g e . T h is in f o r ­ m a t io n w i l l g r e a t l y im p r o v e t h e v a lu e o f t h e f i r s t s u r v e y w h ic h y o u c o m p le te d a n d w e u r g e y o u t o a n sw e r t h i s s h o r t f o llo w - u p su rvey. Y ou r r e s p o n s e i s s t r i c t l y v o lu n ta r y an d y o u m ay r e f u s e t o a n sw e r a n y o r a l l o f th e q u e s tio n s . Y our a n sw ers w ill b e tr e a te d c o n fid e n tia lly . N on e o f t h e fo r m s w i l l b e r e le a s e d to th e M ic h ig a n D e p a r tm e n t o f N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s o r a n y o t h e r p e r s o n o r agency. O n ly t h e o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s o f o u r r e s u l t s w i l l b e m a d e p u b lic . T h e q u e s tio n n a ir e h a s an in d e n t if ic a t io n num berso th a t i t c a n b e m a tc h e d w it h y o u r p r e v io u s s u r v e y w h ic h i s n e c e s s a r y fo r th e a n a ly s is . Y our r e tu r n o f t h is f i l l e d o u t q u e s tio n n a ir e c o n se n t to p a r t ic ip a t e in t h is stu d y . T hank y o u . R esea rch A s s is ta n t P r o je c t D ir e c to r M S U u j * .■{ffirmatit'4 A c t u m / O p p o r t u n i t y in t tt t u t tn * c o n s titu te s your 204 A ppendix H M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY D EPARTM ENT or FISHERIES A N D W I L D I i n LAST LA N SIN G • M IC H IG A N • 4W24-1LLZ NATURA L RESOURCES B UILD ING (S I7 ) 3M -44T7 January Dear 12, 1987 Angler: A b o u t o n e m o n t h a g o we s e n t y o u a n a d d i t i o n a l survey to s u p p le ­ m e n t t h e I n f o r m a t i o n we c o l l e c t e d f r o m A u S a b l e R i v e r a n g l e r s t h i s past year. As o f t o d a y we h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d y o u r c o m p l e t e d questionnaire In t h e m a l l . We a r e e n c o u r a g e d b y t h e g o o d r e s p o n s e r a t e o f A u S a b l e R i v e r anglers. However, our p a st e x p e r i e n c e s s u g g e s t t h a t th o s e of you wh o h a v e n o t y e t s e n t I n y o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s may h o l d q u i t e d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s from t h o s e t h a t have a l r e a d y re s p o n d e d . We need your r e s p o n s e to give th e most a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of AuSable River a n g le r s . We a r e I n t e r e s t e d i n h e a r i n g f r o m y o u e v e n i f y o u do n o t h a v e strong opinions concerning th is Issue. This Inform ation will g r e a t l y improve th e value of the f i r s t survey which you completed a n d we u r g e y o u t o a n s w e r t h i s s h o r t a d d i t i o n a l survey. However, y o u r r e s p o n s e 1s s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y a n d y o u ma y r e f u s e t o a n s w e r any or a l l of the q u e stio n s . Your a n s w e r s w i l l all be t r e a t e d c o n fid e n tia lly . None o f t h e f o r m s w i l l be r e l e a s e d t o t h e M ichigan D e p artm en t of N a tu ral R esources or any o t h e r person or agency. Only t h e o v e r a l l a n a ly s is of our r e s u l t s will be made p u b l 1c. The I n f o r m a t i o n I s s t r i c t l y for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o t h e DNR o f t h e DNR r e g u l a t i o n s m a y h a v e . Your t o make f a i r e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e programs to all c itize n s. the purpose of providing a b e t t e r sociological Impacts which f u t u r e I n p u t 1s e s s e n t i a l 1 f t h e DNR 1 s c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of management Your r e t u r n of t h i s f i l l e d o u t q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s t i t u t e s y o u r c o n s e n t to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s s t u d y . In t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e has been m i s p l a c e d or you did n o t r e c e i v e t h e f i r s t questionnaire, a replacement is enclosed. This will be y o u r l a s t chance to p a r t i c i p a t e since the re su lts will s o o n be t a b u l a t e d and a n a l y z e d . Thank you. S in c ere ly , L a r r y M. Research Gigli ottl A ssistant Project Associate Director L MG / R B P : c b M SI? u m A ff it m + t n * A e t i o » / E f u s t O p f o r t u m t y Professor APPENDIX I M ichigan T ro u t A n g ler S urvey 205 A ppendix I MICHIGAN TROUT ANGLER SURVEY \ iV ■r ■ iUf w A PROJECT O F : M ich ig an S t a t e U n iv e r s i t y D epartm ent o f F i s h e r i e s and W ild lif e N a tu ra l R esources B u ild in g E a s t L a n s in g , M ichigan 48824 206 A ppendix D IR E C T IO N S F O R F IL L IN G O UT TH E Q U E S T IO N N A IR E P le a s e t r y to an sw er w h at y o u b e lie v e to b e tr u e fo r y o u . T he b e s t a n s w e r i s t h e o n e w h ic h m o s t c l o s e l y r e f l e c t s y o u r ow n f e e lin g s and b e lie f s , o r w h a t you a c tu a lly d id . I t i s im p o r t a n t t h a t t h e p e r s o n t o w hom t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s a d d r e s s e d f i l l s i t o u t. T h is w i l l e n s u r e r e p r e s e n t a t iv e n e s s . W e a r e i n t e r e s t e d in h e a r in g fr o m e v e r y o n e w h o r e c e i v e s t h i s su r v e y , n o t ju s tth o se who f is h a lo t . P le a s e a n sw er th is s u r v e y e v e n i f y o u d o n o t f i s h v e r y m uch o r t r o u t f i s h i n g i s n o t v e r y im p o r ta n t t o y o u . Do n o t w r ite y o u r nam e on th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . Y our a n sw ers w ill be tr e a te h a s an id e n t if ic a t io n num ber o f f o u r l i s t w hen y o u r e tu r n w ho a g r e e d to p a r tic ip a te in d c o n f id e n t ia lly . T he q u e s tio n n a ir e so th a t y o u r nam e ca n b e ch eck ed you r su rv ey and to id e n tify th o se a fu tu r e stu d y . R e tu r n th e q u e s tio n n a ir e u s in g th e a d d r e s s e d , p r e -p a id r e tu r n e n v e lo p e p r o v id e d . T H A N K Y O U F O R Y O U R C O O P E R A T IO N ! 207 A ppendix I TROUT F IS H IN G SU RVEY 1. N um ber o f f is h i n g d a y s in M arch 3 1 . 1 9 8 7 (in c lu d e j u s t in M ic h ig a n ): a) 1 9 8 6 s e a s o n fr o m A p r il 1 . 1 9 8 6 f i s h i n g fr o m e v e r y w h e r e , n o t A b o u t how m any d a y s d id y o u f is h d u r in g th e 1 9 8 6 s e a s o n , f o r a l l s p e c i e s o f f i s h ) ? ........................................................ A b o u t how m any o f th o s e d a y s fis h in g fo r : b) c) d) G reat L akes tr o u tor ( if any) w ere sp en t s a l m o n ? ..................... DAYS f is h in g fo r tr o u t in str e a m s (n o tin c lu d in g s a l m o n a n d s t e e l h e a d f i s h i n g ) ? ................................ DAYS fis h in g fo r tr o u tin an v d e s ig n a te d " n o - k i l l " ( c a t c h - a n d - r e l e a s e ) a r e a s ? ............... DAYS W h ic h b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r a b o v e a n s w e r s : 2. 3. DAYS O f a ll fis h f is h fo r ? s p e c ie s , w hat o n e s p e c ie s d o you m ost p r e fe r to H ave y o u a v e r fis h e d fo r tr o u t s a lm o n a n d s t e e l h e a d f i s h i n g ) ? [ [ [ ] ACCURATE [ _ _ ] C L O S E A P P R O X IM A T IO N [ ] J U S T A G UESS in str e a m s (d o not ] YES, p le a s e c o n tin u e w ith # 4 j NO, p le a s e s k ip t o q u e s tio n # 38 1 in c lu d e 208 A ppendix I ST R E A M T R O U T F I S H I N G 4. W hat f is h i n g m e th o d s d o y o u u s e f o r t r o u t f i s h i n g P le a s e c h e c k y o u r r e s p o n s e s b e lo w : OFTEN 5. A) FLY F IS H IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ _ _ ] B) LURES / C) B A IT F IS H IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [_ _ ] P le a s e c h e c k y o u r p r e fe r r e d (c h e c k o n ly o n e ) . S O M E T IM E S NEVER [__ ] [__ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] [__ ] m e th o d f o r s tr e a m [__ ] tr o u t fis h in g B A IT (L IV E O R D E A D ) S P IN N IN G LURES F L IE S NO P R E F E R E N C E P le a s e c h e c k y o u r p r e fe r r e d str e a m one) . [__ [__ [__ [__ [ __ tr o u t s p e c ie s (c h e c k o n ly NO P R E F E R E N C E , L I K E T R O U T I N G E N E R A L BROWN T R O U T BR O O K T R O U T R A IN B O W T R O U T OTHER TRO UT S P E C I E S , p l e a s e l i s t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7. H ow m a n y y e a r s h a v e y o u b e e n s t r e a m 8. H ow d o y o u r a t e y o u s e l f a s a t r o u t a n g le r ? [ _ _ ] SOM EW HAT E X P E R IE N C E D 9. str e a m s? S P I N C A S T I N G _ _ _ _ _ _ [ _ _ ]_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ _ _ ]_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ _ _ ] [__ [__ [ __ [ __ 6. in t r o u t f i s h i n g ? ______ YEARS [ _ _ ] B E G IN N E R [ __ ] E X P E R I E N C E D W hat m e th o d o f s tr e a m t r o u t fir s t? P le a s e c h e c k o n e . fis h in g d id [ __ ] B A IT F IS H IN G [ __ ] LURES / S P IN C A S T IN G [__ ] FLY F IS H IN G 2 you [ __ ] E X P E R T b e g in to u se 209 10. A n g le r s te n d seven g en era l fr o m z e r o (0 ) w hy you fis h each reason . Appendix I t o f i s h f o r a n u m b er o f r e a s o n s . B e lo w a r e r e a s o n s a n g le r s g iv e fo r f is h in g . P le a s e r a te t o n in e (9 ) t h e im p o r ta n c e o f e a c h r e a s o n f o r fo r str e a m t r o u t . P le a s e c i r c l e o n e num ber fo r NOT A R EA SO N - VERY IM P O R T A 1 a) . TO CATCH F IS H TO E A T . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 b) . TO CATCH F IS H FOR FUN A N D E X C IT E M E N T ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 F O R C O M P A N IO N S H IP ( F R I E N D S f i/O R F A M I L Y ) , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 d) . T O G E T AW AY A N D R E L A X . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 e) . T O E N J O Y N A T U R E .............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 f) • T O E N J O Y MY F I S H I N G E Q U I P M E N T ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TO CATCH TROPHY S IZ E D F I S H .0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 c) . g) • 11. H ow im p o r t a n t i s s t r e a m t r o u t f i s h i n g t o y o u i n r e l a t i o n t o a l l y o u r o th e r ty p e s o f r e c r e a tio n , in c lu d in g o th e r ty p e s o f fis h in g ? P le a s e c h e c k o n e . [ _ ] 1 . M O ST IM P O R T A N T R E C R E A T IO N A L A C T I V I T Y [ _ ] 2 . M ORE IM P O R T A N T T H A N M O ST O T H E R R E C R E A T IO N A L A C T IV IT IE S [ _ _ ] 3 . IM P O R T A N T , B U T S E V E R A L O T H E R R E C R E A T IO N A L A C T I V I T I E S A R E M ORE IM P O R T A N T [ _ _ ] 4 . SOM EW H AT IM P O R T A N T , B U T R A N K E D R E L A T IV E L Y LOW C O M PA R ED T O C E R T A IN O T H E R R E C R E A T IO N A L A C T I V I T I E S [ _ 3 5 . S L IG H T L Y IM P O R T A N T [ _ 3 6 . N O T V E R Y IM P O R T A N T 12. W hen y o u f i s h fis h , do you: [ __ 3 [ __ ] [ __ 3 [ __ ] fo r tr o u t in 1. 2. 3. 4. a rea s w here i t is le g a l to R E L E A SE A L L TRO UT CAUGHT R E L E A S E M O ST L E G A L T R O U T C A U G H T K E E P M O ST L E G A L T R O U T C A U G H T K E E P A L L LE G A L TR O U T CAUGHT (U P TO TH E LEG AL L IM IT ) 3 keep A ppendix 210 13. H ere about you ag P le a s e a r e so m e s t a t e m e n t s w h ic h d e a l w it h y o u r f e e l i n g s c a tc h in g tr o u t. P le a s e i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o w h ic h r e e o r d is a g r e e w ith e a c h o f th e f o llo w in g s t a t e m e n t s . c i r c l e o n e num ber f o r e a c h ite m . STRO NG LY D IS A G R E E a) I A fis h in g tr ip can b e s u c c e s s fu l to me ev en i f I d o n 't c a tc h tr o u t. S L IG H T L Y D IS A G R E E S L IG H T L Y AGREE STRO NG LY AGREE 1 2 3 4 b) T he b ig g e r th e tr o u t I c a tc h , th e b e tte r th e fis h in g tr ip . 1 2 3 4 c) W hen I g o f i s h i n g , I am o n l y s a t i s f i e d w h e n I c a tc h so m e t r o u t . 1 2 3 4 d) C a tc h in g a " tr o p h y " tr o u t i s th e b ig g e s t rew a rd f o r m e. 1 2 3 4 e) I t d o e s n o t m a tte r to me w hat ty p e o f tr o u t I c a tc h . 1 2 3 4 f) H ow I c a t c h a t r o u t i s a s im p o r ta n t t o mo a s a c t u a lly c a tc h in g o n e . 1 2 3 4 g) I f I t h o u g h t I w o u ld n o t c a tc h tr o u t, I w o u ld n o t g o f i s h i n g . 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 h) T he m ore tr o u t I c a tc h th e h a p p ie r I am . 14. W h at i s y o u r f a v o r i t e M ic h ig a n t r o u t s tr e a m ? h a v e o n e w r i t e 'N O N E '. I f you do not N am e o f s tr e a m : ________________________________ C o u n ty i n w h ic h s tr e a m is lo c a te d : ___________________ A p p r o x im a te n u m b er o f str e a m i s lo c a te d : m ile s (o n e -w a y ) M IL E S fr o m hom e t h a t th is A ppendix I 211 15. N ow t h in k a b o u t lik e t o know w p la c e t o f is h . it a ffe c ts vour fis h in g s it e s . y o u r f a v o r ia t e tr o u t str e a m a h at fa c to r s e n te r in to y o u r F o r e a c h ite m p le a s e in d ic a t e d e c is io n w hen s e le c t in g y o u r r e a s . W e w o u ld s e le c tio n o f a w h e th e r o r n o t m ost p r e fe r r e d ( C i r c l e o n e number f o r e a c h i t e m ) GREATLY SOM EW HAT S L IG H T L Y DO ES NOT AFFECTS AFFECTS AFFECTS AFFECT D E C IS IO N D E C IS IO N D E C IS IO N DEC S IO N f e w a n g l e r s .............................. b e a u t y o f t h e a r e a .............. e a s y p u b lic f is h in g a c c e s s c h a n ce to c a tc h tr o p h y t r o u t .............................................. tr a d itio n , fis h e d th e r e o f t e n i n t h e p a s t . .................. 2 3 p a s t s u c c e s s .............................. 2 3 u s u a lly g e t so m e a c t i o n .. . 2 3 b e c a u se o f th e r e g u la tio n s t h e r e .............................................. 2 3 p resen ce o f 'w ild ' t r o u t .. 2 3 p r e s e n c e o f som e la r g e t r o u t .............................................. 2 3 t y p e o f w a t e r ............................ 2 3 a v a i l a b l e a c c o m o d a t io n s ... 2 3 c l o s e t o h o m e ............................ 2 3 ty p e o f fis h 2 3 2 3 i n w a t e r ......... b e c a u se fr ie n d s f is h th e r e 16. I s y o u r m ost p r e fe r r e d tr o u t fis h in g a rea a ls o w here you do m o st o f y o u r tr o u t fis h in g ? [ __ ] Y E S [ _ _ ] NO 17. D i d y o u f i s h f o r t r o u t i n s t r e a m s in t h ( d o e s n o t in c l u d e s a lm o n a n d s t e e l h e a d [ ] Y E S, p le a s e c o n tin u [ ] NO, p le a s e s k ip t o 5 e 1986 f i s h i n g s e a s o n fis h in g )? e w ith # 18 q u e s t i o n # 25 A ppendix I 212 18. A b o u t how m any l e g a l - s i z e d s t r e a a t r o u t (d o e s n o t in c lu d e s a lm o n o r s t e e lh e a d ) d id y o u c a t c h in 1 9 8 6 fr o m e v e r y w h e r e , n o t j u s t i n M ic h ig a n ( in c lu d e b o th t h o s e y o u k e p t a n d t h e le g a l- s iz e d f is h you r e le a s e d )? P le a s e g iv e y o u r b e s t g u ess. NUM BER O F LEG A L S IZ E D TR O U T YOU CAUGHT 19. A b o u t w h a t p e r c e n t o f y o u r 1 9 8 6 c a t c h w h ic h y o u c o u ld h a v e l e g a l l y k e p t d id y o u v o lu n t a r ily r e le a s e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ % LEG A L CATCH R ELEA SED 20. W ere y o u c h e c k e d b y a w a rd en (c o n s e r v a tio n t r o u t f i s h i n g i n 1 9 8 6 ? [ __ ] Y E S [ __ ] NO 21. D id y o u f i s h t h e A u S a b le R iv e r s y s t e m i n 1 9 8 6 ? [ ] Y E S, p le a s e c o n tin u e w ith # 22 [ ] NO, p le a s e s k ip t o q u e s tio n # 24 22. D id y o u f i s h a n y o f t h e s p e c i a l " Q u a lit y F i s h i n g A r e a s " t h e A u S a b le R iv e r ? [__ ] Y E S , p l e a s e c o n t i n u e w i t h # 2 3 [ __ ] N O , p l e a s e s k i p t o q u e s t i o n # 2 4 23. W h ic h " Q u a l i t y F i s h i n g A r e a s " o n t h e A u S a b le R i v e r d i d y o u f i s h in 1 9 8 6 ? C h eck a l l t h a t a p p ly . [ _ _ ] 1 . M A IN S T R E A M Q U A L IT Y F I S H I N G S E C T I O N [ _ _ ] 2 . N O R T H B R A N C H Q U A L IT Y F I S H I N G S E C T I O N [ _ _ ] 3 . S O U T H B R A N C H Q U A L IT Y F I S H I N G S E C T I O N E X C L U D IN G T H E " N O - K I L L " S E C T I O N [ _ _ ] 4 . S O U T H B R A N C H " N O -K I L L " S E C T I O N [ _ _ ] 5 . D O N 'T KNOW E X A C T L Y W H IC H S E C T I O N 24. D id y o u f i s h M ic h ig a n ? fo r tr o u t d u r in g 1986 in o ffic e r ) str e a m s w h ile o u ts id e on of [ ] Y E S - - - - - - > A B O U T HOW M ANY D A Y S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( _ _ ] NO 25. A re y o u f a m ilia r w ith th e p r o p o se d " n o -k ill" r e g u la t io n fo r t h e A u S a b le M a in s tr e a m Q u a lit y F is h in g S e c t i o n fr o m B u r to n s L a n d in g t o W a k e ly B r id g e ? [ ] Y E S, p le a s e c o n tin u e w ith # 26 [ ] NO, p le a s e s k ip t o q u e s tio n # 27 213 Appendix I 26. H ow d o y o u f e e l a b o u t t h e p r o p o s e d " n o - k i l l " r e g u l a t i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e A u S a b le R i v e r ( B u r t o n s L a n d in g t o W a k e ly B r id g e )? _ ] 1 . STRO NG LY A PPR O V E _ ] 2 . APPROVE _ ] 3 . S L IG H T L Y A P P R O V E _ ] 4 . U N D E C ID E D _ ] 5 . S L IG H T L Y D IS A P P R O V E _ ] 6 . D IS A P P R O V E _ ] 7 . STRO NG LY D IS A P P R O V E 27. Do you f ly 28. Do you t i e 29. H ow m a n y y e a r s h a v e y o u b e e n f l y 30. A b o u t how m any d a y s ( i f a n y ) d id y o u f l v tr o u t in th e 1986 sea so n ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DAYS 31. H ow im p o r t a n t i s i t t o y o u t o h a v e a s p e c i a l o n ly " a r e a i n M ic h ig a n t o t r o u t f i s h in ? [ _] Y E S , p l e a s e c o n t i n u e w i t h # 2 8 [_ ] NO , p l e a s e s k ip t o q u e s t io n # 3 1 fis h ? y o u r ow n f l i e s ? • [ __ [ __ [__ [__ [ __ [ __ ] ] ] ] ] ] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. [ __ ] Y E S [ __ ) NO fis h in g ? _______ YEARS fis h fo r str e a m " fly -fis h in g C R U C IA L V E R Y IM P O R T A N T IM P O R T A N T SO M EW H AT IM P O R T A N T S L IG H T L Y IM P O R T A N T N O T IM P O R T A N T 32. H ow im p o r t a n t i s i t in M ic h ig a n t o t r o u t [___ ] [_ _ _ ] [___ ] [___ ] [___ ] [___ ] to y o u t o h a v e a s p e c ia l " n o -k ill" f i s h in ? 1 . C R U C IA L 2 . V E R Y IM P O R T A N T 3 . IM P O R T A N T 4 . SOM EW HAT IM P O R T A N T 5 . S L IG H T L Y IM P O R T A N T 6 . N O T IM P O R T A N T 33. Do y o u f e e l t h a t th e num ber o f " n o - k ill" t r o u t a r e a s in th e s t a t e s h o u ld b e : [ _ _ _ ] 1 . IN C R E A S E D [ _ _ _ ] 2 . DEC R EA SED [ _ _ _ ] 3 . S T A Y T H E SA M E [ _ _ _ ] 4 . NO O P IN IO N 7 area (c a tc h -a n d -r e le a s e ) A ppendix 34. B e lo w a r e so m e p o s s i b l e v i o l a t i o n s . fr e q u e n tly v o u th in k th e y o c c u r in p r e fe r to fis h fo r tr o u t. I P le a s e t e l l u s how th e a r e a s y o u m ost ( C ir c le o n e n u m b er f o r e a c h ite m ! DOES NOT OCCURS OCCURS NO OCCUR S O M E T IM E S O F T E N O P IN IO N k e e p in g i l l e g a l s iz e d t r o u t . . 1 2 3 k e e p in g m ore th a n l i m i t 1 2 3 u se o f ille g a l fis h in g g ea r o r m e th o d s 1 2 3 f i s h i n g o u t o f s e a s o n ................ 1 f is h in g w ith o u t 35. alicense.... 1 3 2 3 Do y o u f e e l th a t e n fo r c e m e n t o f r e g u la tio n s in t h a t y o u m o st p r e f e r t o f i s h f o r t r o u t s h o u ld b e : [ __ [__ [ __ [__ [__ 36. 2 ] ] ] ] ] th e areas G REA TLY IN C R E A S E D IN C R E A S E D S T A Y T H E SA M E DECREASED GREATLY D EC R EA SED W h at w o u ld y o u d o i f v o u r f a v o r i t e s t r e a m t r o u t f i s h i n g a r e a w ere ch an ged to a c a tc h -a n d -r e le a s e ( n o - k ill) zon e? P le a s e c h e c k th e m o st a p p r o p r ia te r e s p o n s e . / [ _ _ ] 1 . MY P R E F E R R E D T R O U T F I S H I N G A R E A I S A L R E A D Y A I C A T C H -A N D -R E L E A S E A R E A ' [ _ _ ] 2 . F I S H T H E R E M ORE O F T E N [ _ _ ] 3 . F I S H T H E R E A B O U T T H E SA M E n [__ ] 4 . [__ ] 5 . F IS H THERE L E SS O FTEN ST O P F IS H IN G TH ERE COM PLETELY ► W hat w o u ld be your resp o n se to th e C_ _ 3 1 - W OULD R E L E A S E A L L T R O U T C A U G H T (__ ] 2 . C_ _ 3 3 . [_ _ ]4 . [_ )4 . [_ ]5 . W OULD W OULD W OULD W OULD W OULD KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP A FEW T R O P H Y T R O U T A FEW I N J U R E D T R O U T SO M E T R O U T C A U G H T M O ST T R O U T C A U G H T A L L TROUT CAUGHT 8 r e g u la tio n ? 215 A ppendix B e g in n in g t r o u t a n g le r s c a n s k ip t h i s n e x t s e c t i o n on to q u e s tio n # 3 8 . (# 3 ) I and go 3 7 . TROUT F IS H IN G P H A SE S: R a t a h o w y o u r a t t i t u d e s a n d p r a c t i c e s h a v e ch an g ed s in c e you s ta r te d tr o u t f is h in g . I f a n i em i s n o t a p p lic a b le t o y o u , le a v e i t b la n k . STAYED D E C R E A S E D T H E SA M E IN C R E A S E D N um ber o f d a y s y o u f i s h each season 5 C o n f i d e n c e i n c a t c h i n g t r o u t .............. 5 I n t e r e s t in c a tc h in g la r g e r ( t r o p h y ) t r o u t ............................................. O ff se a so n a c t i v i t i e s (ty in g f l i e s , c o n s t r u c t i n g r o d s , e t c . ) ....................... 2 3 5 I n t e r e s t in c a tc h in g tr o u t t o e a t . . 2 3 5 I n t e r e s t i n c a t c h a n d r e l e a s e ............ 2 3 5 I m p o r t a n c e o f f i s h i n g m e t h o d .............. 2 3 5 I n t e r e s t i n l i m i t i n g o u t ....................... 2 3 5 D e s ir e t o fin d s o lit u d e in f is h in g . 2 3 5 T r o u t f i s h i n g w i t h a p a r t n e r .............. 2 3 5 T r o u t f i s h i n g w i t h f a m i l y ..................... 2 3 5 E n jo y m e n t o f n a tu r e w h ile f i s h i n g . . 2 3 5 I n t e r e s t in le a r n in g a b o u t t r o u t h a b i t a t , f o o d , e t c ....................................... 2 3 5 D e s ir e to f is h 2 3 5 D e s ir e t o t r y n ew e q u ip m e n t, t e c h n i ­ q u e s , a n d m e t h o d s ....................................... 2 3 5 N um ber o f f is h in g a r e a s u s e d . 2 3 5 U se o f v a c a t io n tim e f o r t r o u t f i s h i n g .................................................... 2 3 5 H a n d ic a p p in g 2 3 5 2 3 5 new h a b it a t & w a te r s ( lig h t lin e , ro d , e t c .) M o n e y s p e n t o n t r o u t f i s h i n g .............. 216 (C o n tin u e d fr o m p a g e 9) D is ta n c e t r a v e le d t o f is h A ppendix STA Y ED D E C R E A S E D T H E SA M E t r o u t ... . 1 2 3 4 I IN C R E A S E D 5 T en d en cy to s p e c ia liz e fo r c e r ta in s p e c i e s . ........................................................... . 1 2 3 4 5 b a i t f i s h i n o .......... . 1 2 3 4 5 s p in n o r (lu r e ) f i s h i n g ..................... . 1 2 3 4 5 fly 1 2 3 4 5 F is h in o m e th o d : 38. f i s h i n g ............ . D o y o u f i s h f o r G r o a t L a k e s t r o u t o r s a lm o n ? T h is i n c l u d e s b o th o p en w a te r f is h in g in th e G r e a t L a k es an d f is h in g in s t r e a m s a n d r i v e r m o u th s d u r in g s p a w n in g r u n s ? [ ] Y E S, p le a s e c o n tin u e w ith # 39 [ ] NO, p le a s e s k ip t o q u e s tio n # 41 G R E A T L A K E S T R O U T & S A IM O N F I S H I N G 39. A n g le r s te n d t o f i s h f o r a n u m b er o f r e a s o n s . B e lo w a r e s e v e n g e n e r a l r e a s o n s a n g le r s g iv e f o r f is h in g . P le a s e r a te fr o m z e r o (0 ) t o n in e (9 ) t h e im p o r ta n c e o f e a c h r e a s o n f o r w h y y o u f i s h f o r G r e a t L a k e s t r o u t a n d s a lm o n . P le a s e c i r c l e o n e num ber fo r e a ch r e a so n . NOT A VERY REASO N ■ IM P O R T A N T 1. T O C A T C H F I S H T O E A T .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. TO C A TC H F I S H FO R FU N A N D E X C IT E M E N T ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 F O R C O M P A N IO N S H IP ( F R I E N D S S /O R F A M IL Y ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. T O G E T AW AY A N D R E L A X . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. T O E N J O Y N A T U R E .............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. T O E N J O Y MY F I S H I N G E Q U IP M E N T ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TO CATCH TRO PH Y S IZ E D F I S H .0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. 7. 10 217 A ppendix I 40. GREAT LAKES F IS H IN G P H A S E S : R a ta how y o u r a t t it u d e s and p r a c t ic e s h a v e ch a n g ed s in c e you s ta r te d G reat L ak es f is h in g . If a n ite m i s n o t a p p lic a b le t o y o u , le a v e i t b la n k . STAYED D E C R E A S E D T H E SA M E IN C R E A S E D N um ber o f d a y s y o u f i s h each season I n t e r e s t in c a tc h in g la r g e r ( t r o p h y ) s a l m o n ......................................... I n t e r e s t in c a tc h in g f is h 1 1 to e at . . . I n t e r e s t i n l i m i t i n g o u t ....................... 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 D e s ir e t o t r y n ew e q u ip m e n t, t e c h n i ­ 1 q u e s , a n d m e t h o d s . ...................................... 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 H a n d ic a p p in g ( lig h t lin e , ro d , e t c .) 1 2 41. Do y o u b e lo n g t o a n y f is h in g o r g a n iz a tio n s ? [ _ _ ] Y E S [ __ ] NO I f y e a , p le a s e l i s t : ________________________ 42. Do y o u h u n t? [ ] YES [ ] NO I f s o , c h e c k t h e ONE t y p e o f h u n t in g t h a t y o u m o s t p r e f e r : [ _ _ _ ] ARCHERY DEER [ _ _ _ ] GUN DEER [_ _ _ ] ARCHERY BEAR [ _ _ _ ] GUN BEAR [ _ _ _ ] PREDATOR [ _ _ _ 1 TURKEY IN F O R M A T IO N d e s c r ip tiv e a n g le r s . [ _ _ ] S M A L L GAM E ( R A B B I T , S Q U I R R E L , E T C .) [ _ _ ] U P L A N D B I R D (G R O U S E , P H E A S A N T , E T C .) [ _ _ ] W A TER FO W L [ _ _ ] O T H E R ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ABOUT YO U R SELF— T h is in f o r m a t i o n i s s t r i c t l y fo r p u r p o s e s o f c o m p a r in g v a r i o u s g r o u p s o r t y p e s o f 43. W hat i s y o u r se x ? 44. W hat i s y o u r a g e? [ _ _ ] M A LE [ __ ] F E M A L E YEARS O F AGE 11 218 A ppendix I 45. W h at i s t h e h ig h e s t l e v e l y o u c o m p le te d in s c h o o l? P le a s e c h eck th e on e th a t b e s t a p p lie s . _ ] 1 . G RADE SCH O O L 2 . SO M E H IG H S C H O O L 3 . H IG H S C H O O L D IP L O M A 4 . SO M E C O L L E G E _ ] 5 . A S S O C IA T E DEG REE (2 - Y R ) _ ] 6 . COLLEGE DEGREE ( B . S . OR B . A . ) _ ] 7 . SO M E G R A D U A T E , M E D IC A L O R LAW SC H O O L _ ] 8 . ADVANCED DEGREE ( M .S ., P h . D ., M .D ., D . O . , D . D . S . , D .V . M , J . D . ) 46. W h a t i s y o u r t o t a l f a m i l y in c o m e b e f o r e t a x e s w a g e e a r n e r s in y o u r h o u s e h o ld )? [_ [_ [ [_ [_ 47. 1. 2 ] 3. ] 4. ] 5. J ] UNDER $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 t o $ 1 4 ,9 9 9 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 t o $ 1 9 ,9 9 9 $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 t o $ 2 4 ,9 9 9 $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 t o $ 2 9 ,9 9 9 M ic h ig a n r e s i d e n t s : N o n -r e s id e n ts : 48. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. (in c lu d e a l l $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 5 ,0 0 0 $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 to to to to OR $ 3 4 ,9 9 9 $ 3 9 ,9 9 9 $ 4 4 ,9 9 9 $ 4 9 ,9 9 9 OVER In w h at c o u n ty d o y o u liv e ? . In w h a t s t a t e d o yo u liv e ? ________ We w i l l b e c o n d u c t in g a n a d d i t i o n a l s u r v e y o f M ic h ig a n t r o u t a n g le r s n e x t y e a r t o i n v e s t i g a t e a n g le r s ' c o m p lia n c e w ith v a r io u s ty p e s o f f is h in g r e g u la tio n s . T h is t o p ic i s e x tr e m e ly im p o r ta n t in f i s h e r i e s m an a g em en t b u t v e r y d i f f i ­ c u lt to s tu d y b e c a u s e som e s e n s i t i v e q u e s t io n s m u st b e ask ed . B eca u se o f th e s e n s it iv e n a tu r e o f t h is stu d y and t h e f a c t t h a t y o u h a v e a lr e a d y c o m p le te d a n e x t e n s iv e s u r v e y f o r u s w e a r e p r o v id in g a n o p p o r tu n ity f o r y o u t o e x c lu d e y o u r s e l f fr o m o u r s t u d y b y c h e c k i n g "NO " b e l o w . C h e c k in g "Y ES" d o e s n o t o b l i g a t e y o u t o a n sw e r o u r s u r v e y , i t o n ly m e a n s t h a t y o u w i l l r e c e i v e o u r s u r v e y i n t h e m a il a t w h ic h tim e y o u c a n d e c id e w h e th e r y o u w is h t o c o m p le te i t . [ ] YES — ( __ ] Y O U M AY S E N D ME A Q U E S T I O N N A IR E A B O U T C O M P L IA N C E W IT H F I S H I N G R E G U L A T IO N S N O — P L E A S E DO N O T IN C L U D E ME I N Y O U R S U R V E Y 12 219 A ppendix I T H A N K Y O U V E R Y M U CH F O R Y O U R V A L U A B L E T I K E I N C O M P L E T IN G T H I S SURVEY. Y ou h a v e b e e n g e n e r o u s w ith y o u r tim e a n d f o r t h a t w e a re g r a te fu l. We p la n t o p u b lis h som e o f o u r f in d in g s in a p o p u la r f i s h i n g o r o u td o o r m a g a z in e . We w i l l se n d a l l p a r t ic i­ p a n ts a p o s t c a r d in fo r m in g y o u o f t h e p a r t ic u la r i s s u e . WE W ELCO M E A N Y F U R T H E R CO M M ENTS Y O U M AY W IS H T O W R IT E B E L O W . B en P e y to n A s s o c ia te P r o fe sso r L a rry M. G ig lio t t i R esea rch A s s is ta n t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y D e p a r tm e n t o f F is h e r ie s a n d W ild lif e N a tu r a l R e so u r c e s B u ild in g E a s t L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n 4 8 8 2 4 -1 2 2 2 P hone: (5 1 7 ) 3 5 5 -4 4 7 7 APPENDIX J Cover l e t t e r s s e n t w ith t h e M ichigan T ro u t A n g ler S urvey m a ilin g s Appendix J 220 M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LAN SIN G • M IC H IG A N • 4 M 2 4 -I2 2 2 DEPARTM ENT 01- FISHERIES A N D WILDLIFE NATURAL RESOURCES M I I D I N G i4 l* l l M - w “ M arch 9 , 1987 D e a r A n g le r : Y ou h a v e b e e n s e l e c t e d a s p a r t o f a s m a ll s a m p le o f a n g le r s p u r c h a s in g 1 9 8 6 M ic h ig a n t r o u t s ta m p s w h o a r e b e i n g . a s k e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s t u d y . T h is q u e s t io n ­ n a ir e d e a ls w ith som e a s p e c t s o f y o u r f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s a n d a num ber o f y o u r a t t it u d e s r e la t e d to t r o u t f is h in g . T h is in f o r ­ m a t io n i s n e e d e d t o im p r o v e t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e F i s h e r i e s D i v i s i o n to m an age str e a m s fo r tr o u t a n g le r s a ro u n d th e s t a t e . B e c a u s e t h i s i s a s c i e n t i f i c s a m p le d e s ig n e d t r o u t sta m p p u r c h a s e r s i t i s im p o r ta n t t h a t s a m p le r e s p o n d , e v e n i f y o u d o n o t t r o u t f i s h n o t h a v e s tr o n g o p in io n s c o n c e r n in g t h i s i s s u e e s s e n t i a l i f t h e DNR i s t o m a k e f a i r e v a l u a t i o n s b e n e f it s o f m anagem ent p rogram s to a l l c it iz e n s . to rep resen t EVERYONE i n v e r y m uch o r . Y o u r in p u t o f th e c o s ts a ll our do is and A s a n in c e n t iv e an d a s a to k e n o f o u r a p p r e c ia t io n f o r t h e tim e an d e f f o r t in v o lv e d , w e h a v e a rra n g ed f o r a f is h in g t a c k le m a n u fa c tu r e r t o d o n a te a p r iz e ( r e t a i l v a lu e o f a p p r o x im a te ly $50) . E v e r y o n e w ho r e t u r n s a c o m p le te d s u r v e y w i l l h a v e t h e i r s u r v e y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n n u m b er e n t e r e d i n t o a ra n d o m d r a w in g f o r t h i s e q u ip m e n t. T h e w in n e r w i l l b e c o n t a c t e d b y m a il b y J u n e , 1987. Y ou r r e s p o n s e i s s t r i c t l y v o lu n ta r y an d y o u m ay an y o r a l l o f th e q u e s tio n s . Y our a n sw ers c o n fid e n tia lly . N on e o f t h e fo r m s w i l l b e M ic h ig a n D e p a r tm e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s o r a n y agency. O n ly t h e o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s o f o u r r e s u p u b lic . r e fu s e to a n sw er w ill be tr e a te d r e le a s e d to th e o th e r p erso n or lt s w ill b e m ade Y our r e tu r n o f t h is f i l l e d o u t q u e s tio n n a ir e c o n s e n t t o p a r t ic ip a t e in t h i s s tu d y . c o n s titu te s T hank y o u . Sincerelv. Research Assistant Project Director your 221 Appendix J M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTM ENT O f FISHERIES A N D WILDLIFE n a tu ral resou rces EAST LANSING • M IC H IG A N • 4*1124-1222 b u il d in g ' 5 | * | iS* *4 ? " A p r il 2 7 , 1987 D ea r A n g le r : A b o u t o n e m o n th a g o w e s e n t y o u a s u r v e y fr o m M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n iv e r s it y a s k in g a b o u t y o u r t r o u t f is h in g a c t i v i t i e s . As of to d a y w e h a v e n o t r e c e iv e d y o u r c o m p le te d q u e s t io n n a ir e in th e m a il. We a r e e n c o u r a g e d b y t h e g o o d r e s p o n s e r a t e s o f a r . o u r p a s t e x p e r ie n c e s s u g g e s t th a t th o s e o f y o u w ho h a v e s e n t in y o u r q u e s t io n n a ir e s m ay h o ld q u it e d i f f e r e n t fro m t h o s e t h a t h a v e a lr e a d y r e s p o n d e d . B ecau se t h s c i e n t i f i c s a m p le d e s ig n e d t o r e p r e s e n t a l l t r o u t s ta m p e r s i t i 3 im p o r ta n t t h a t e v e r y o n e in o u r s a m p le r e s p o n d , y o u do n o t tr o u t f is h v e r y m uch. H ow ever, not yet o p in io n s is i3 a p u rch as­ even if T he F is h e r ie s D iv is io n r e l i e s on su r v e y s su c h a s t h is a s a m eans o f c o n s id e r in g p u b lic o p in io n w hen th e y m ake m a n a g em en t p la n s . E v en th o u g h i t t a k e s c o n s id e r a b le tim e a n d e f f o r t o n y o u r p a r t , w e h op o y o u w ill a g r e e to p a r tic ip a te in t h is an d o th e r su ch su rveys. O n l y t h e n c a n t h e m e t h o d b e u s e d a s a n i n e x p e n s i v e a r .d e f f e c t i v e m ean s to o b ta in in fo r m a tio n n e e d e d t o m an a ge o u r f is h e r ie s fo r p u b lic u s e . R em em ber, a s an in c e n t iv e an d a s a to k e n o f o u r a p p r e c ia tio n fo r t h e tim e a n d e f f o r t in v o lv e d , e v e r y o n e w h o r e t u r n s a c o m p le te d su r v e y w i l l h a v e t h e ir su r v e y id e n t if ic a t io n num ber e n te r e d in to a ra n d o m d r a w in g f o r a d o n a te d p r iz e ( r e t a i l v a lu e a p p r o x im a t e ly $ 5 0 ) . T h e w in n e r w i l l b e c o n t a c t e d b y m a il in J u n e , 1 9 8 7 . Y ou r r e s p o n s e i s s t r i c t l y v o lu n ta r y an d y o u m ay an y o r a l l o f th e q u e s tio n s . Y our a n sw ers c o n fid e n tia lly . N o n e o f t h e fo r m s w i l l b e M ic h ig a n D e p a r tm e n t o f N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s o r a n y agency. O n ly t h e o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s o f o u r r e s u p u b lic . r e fu s e t o an sw er w ill b e tr e a te d r e le a s e d to th e o th e r p erson or l t s w i l l b e m ade Y our r e tu r n o f t h is f i l l e d o u t q u e s tio n n a ir e c o n s e n t to p a r t ic ip a t e in t h is s tu d y . c o n s titu te s Thank y ou . R e s earch Assistant P r o je c t D ir e c to r your 222 A ppendix J M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTM ENT O F FISHERIES A N D WILDLIFE EAST LAN SIN G • M IC H IG A N • < M 2 t-t2 2 2 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING H I 7 | J U -M 7 7 June 1, 1987 D e a r A n g le r : A b o u t o n e m o n th a g o w e s e n t y o u a s u r v e y fr o m M ic h ig a n s t a t e U n iv e r s it y a s k in g a b o u t y o u r t r o u t f is h in g a c t i v i t i e s . As of to d a y w e h a v e n o t r e c e iv e d y o u r c o m p le te d q u e s t io n n a ir e in t h e m a il. We a r e in c lu d in g a n o th e r s u r v e y w ith t h is m a ilin g in c a s e y o u d is c a r d e d o r d id n o t r e c e iv e t h e f i r s t o n e . B e c a u s e t h i s i s a s c i e n t i f i c s a m p le d e s ig n e d t o r e p r e s e n t a l l t r o u t sta m p p u r c h a s e r s i t i s im p o r ta n t t h a t e v e r y o n e in o u r s a m p le r e s p o n d . T h is s u r v e y d e a ls m o s tly w ith s tr e a m t r o u t f i s h i n g a n d y o u r r e s p o n s e i s im p o r ta n t t o o u r s tu d y a n d t h e m an a g em en t o f M ic h ig a n 's t r o u t r e s o u r c e . I f y o u a r e n o t a str e a m t r o u t a n g le r th e n o n ly a fe w q u e s t io n s a c t u a lly a p p ly t o y o u a n d i t s h o u ld o n ly t a k e a fe w m in u te s t o c o m p le te t h i s s u r v e y , b u t p l e a s e d o s o b e c a u s e Y O U R R E S P O N S E I S S T I L L IM P O R T A N T T O O U R STU D Y . I f w e r e c e iv e y o u r s u r v e y in t h e m a il b y J u ly 1 , 1 9 8 7 y o u r s u r v e y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n n u m b er w i l l b e e n t e r e d i n t o a ra n d o m d r a w in g f o r a d o n a te d p r iz e ( r e t a i l v a lu e a p p r o x im a te ly $ 5 0 ) . Y our an sw ers w ill b e tr e a te d c o n fid e n tia lly . Y our r e tu r n o f t h is f i l l e d o u t q u e s tio n n a ir e c o n s t it u t e s y o u r c o n s e n t t o p a r t ic ip a t e in t h is s tu d y . T hank y o u . S in c e r e ly , n L a r r y ^ . G ig i/lo tti R esea rch A s s is ta n t R . B en P e y to r ff A s s o c ia te P r o fe s s o r P r o je c t D ir e c to r If you do not intend to participate in our study, please write your survey number (lower right hand comer on front cover) here: 2 _________ and we will remove your name from our mailing list. Also, please check all of the following that apply to you and return letter this in the prepaid envalopa provided. 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. rishing is not important to me. Trout fishing is not important to me. Ido not have the time to fill out a survey. Ido not like filling out surveys. Ireally don't trust this survey or its use. other .W5L/U a * .A jfir m M u * .Hflwm. f y u j i Of>f>ortu*Uv I m tt l u t to n A ppendix J 223 M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTM ENT O F FISHERIES A N D WILDLIFE EAST LA N SIN G • M ICHIG AN • U U t - l U l NATURAL RESOURCES BUILD ING (117) JIJ-L 4 7 7 July Dear 6, 1987 Angler: We h a v e b e e n asking about not received s e n d i n g you s u r v e y s from Mic hig an S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y your trout fishing a c t i v i t i e s . As o f t o d a y we h a v e your reply. We d o r e a l i z e t h a t c o m p l e t i n g t h i s s u r v e y r e q u i r e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of y o u r v a l u a b l e t im e . Ho w ev er , 1 t 1s I m p o r t a n t t o o u r s t u d y t h a t EVERYONE 1 n o u r s a m p l e r e s p o n d . We a r e I n c l u d i n g a n o t h e r s u r v e y w i t h t h i s m a i l i n g In c a s e you d i s c a r d e d or d i d n ot receive the f i r s t . I f y o u do n o t w i s h t o p a r t i c i p a t e In o u r s t u d y p l e a s e w r i t e t h e s u r v e y n u m b e r ( l o w e r r i g h t h a n d c o r n e r o f t h e f r o n t c o v e r ) 1n t h e s p a c e b e l o w a n d we w i l l r e m o v e y o u r name f r o m o u r m a i l i n g 1 1 s t : 0 Also, plea se check all and r e t u r n t h i s l e t t e r Is the the not f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s t h a t ma y prepaid envelope provided. 1. Fishing 2. Trout 3. I do not have the 4. I do not like fillin g 5. I really 6. Thank of In fishing Other: don't Important Is not me. Important time trust to apply to f i l l to me. out a survey. out surveys. th is survey or its use. ______________ you Sincerely M. G lgH ottl Research Larry A sslstant R. B e n P e y t o n , A s s o c i a t e Project Director M S U it a» A / / ir m s t i t * A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o r tu n ity In tU tm tto n Professor APPENDIX K P o s tc a r d s vised w ith t h e M ichigan T r o u t A n g le r Survey 224 A ppendix K March 2 , 1987 You have b een s e l e c t e d a s p a r t o f a s m a ll sam ple o f a n g le r s p u rc h a s in g 1986 M ich ig an t r o u t stam ps who a r e b e in g a s k e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a M ich ig an S t a t e U n iv e r s ity s tu d y . T h is in fo rm a tio n i s n eed ed t o im prove t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e F i s h e r i e s D iv is io n t o manage s tre a m s f o r t r o u t a n g le r s aro u n d t h e s ta te . You w i l l b e r e c e i v i n g a s u rv e y i n t h e m a il i n a few d a y s . Because t h i s i s a s c i e n t i f i c sam ple d e s ig n e d t o r e p r e s e n t a l l t r o u t stam p p u r c h a s e r s i t i s im p o rta n t t h a t EVERYONE i n o u r sam ple re sp o n d , ev en i f you do n o t t r o u t f i s h v e r y much. As an e x t r a i n c e n t i v e , e v e ry p a r t i c i p a n t who r e t u r n s t h e i r co m p leted s u rv e y w i l l b e e n te r e d i n t o a random d raw in g f o r a p r i z e w o rth a b o u t $50 w hich h a s b een d o n a te d b y a m a jo r t a c k l e m a n u fa c tu re r. P r o je c t D ir e c to r R e search A s s i s t a n t M arch 16, 1987 L a s t week a q u e s ti o n n a i r e s e e k in g y o u r f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s and a t t i t u d e s a b o u t t r o u t f i s h i n g was m a ile d t o you. I f you h av e a lr e a d y co m p leted and r e tu r n e d i t t o u s , p l e a s e a c c e p t o u r s i n c e r e th a n k s . I f n o t , p le a s e do s o to d a y . The s u rv e y h a s b een s e n t t o o n ly a s m a ll, b u t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , sam ple o f a n g l e r s . T hus, i t i s e x tre m e ly im p o rta n t t h a t YOUR VIEWS a r e a l s o in c lu d e d i n t h i s s tu d y i f t h e r e s u l t s a r e t o a c c u r a te ly r e p r e s e n t t h e o p in io n s o f a n g le r s f i s h i n g i n M ichigan. Remember t h a t a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s who r e t u r n t h e i r co m p leted s u rv e y w i l l b e e n t e r e d i n t o a random draw ing f o r a p r i z e w o rth a b o u t $50 w hich h a s b een d o n a te d by a m a jo r t a c k l e m a n u fa c tu re r. I f you h av e any q u e s tio n s you may c a l l (517-355-4477) o r w r i t e u s . Thank-you. P r o je c t D ir e c to r R e search A s s i s ta n t APPENDIX L M ichigan T ro u t F is h in g R e g u la tio n s S urvey A ppendix L 225 YOUR OPINION S ABOUT MICHIGAN TROUT FISHING REGULATIONS il/'-O A PRO JECT O F ; M ic h ig a n S ta ta U n iv e r s it y D ep a rtm en t o f F is h e r ie s and W ild lif e N a tu r a l R eso u rces B u ild in g E a s t L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n 48824 S URVEY ID 226 A ppendix L D IR E C T IO N S FOR F IL L IN G OUT THE Q U E S T IO N N A IR E P le a se tr y to an sw er w hat you b e lie v e to b e tr u e fo r you. The b e s t a n sw e r i s t h e o n e w h ic h m o st c l o s e l y r e f l e c t s y o u r own fe e lin g s and b e lie f s , o r w hat you a c tu a lly d id . I t i s im p o r t a n t t h a t t h e p e r s o n t o whom t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s ad d ressed f i l l s i t o u t. T h i3 s u r v e y c o m p le m e n ts a n o th e r s u r v e y w h ic h y o u a lr e a d y c o m p le te d an d w e p la n t o c o m b in e t h e tw o s u r v e y s . We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n h e a r i n g fr o m e v e r y o n e w h o r e c e i v e s t h i s su rv ey ev en i f you do n o t have stro n g o p in io n s ab ou t th is to p ic . Do n o t w r it e y o u r nam e on th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . Y our an sw ers w ill be tr e a te d c o n fid e n tia lly . Y our nam e w i l l n e v e r b e m atch ed w ith y o u r su r v e y . The q u e s tio n n a ir e h a s an id e n t if ic a t io n num ber so th a t i t ca n b e m atch ed w ith th e e a r l i e r s u r v e y w h ic h y o u c o m p le te d f o r u s . R etu rn th e q u e s tio n n a ir e u sin g th e a d d r e sse d , p r e -p a id r e tu r n e n v e lo p e p r o v id e d . TH ANK YOU FO R YOUR C O O P E R A T IO N ! 227 A ppendix L YOUR O P IN IO N S ABOUT M IC H IG A N TRO UT F IS H IN G R E G U L A T IO N S H ow w e l l d o y o u u s u a l l y k n o w t h e t r o u t r e g u l a t i o n s w h e r e y o u f is h ( e g ., do y ou know th e le g a l s iz e lim it s , d a ily p o sse ssio n lim its and le g a l fish in g g e a r )? | [ __ l [ __ ( [ ]1 ]2 ]3 ]4 . . . . I I I I DO N O T KNOW T H E R E G U L A T I O N S KNOW A FEW O F T H E R E G U L A T I O N S KNOW M O S T O F T H E R E G U L A T I O N S H A V E A V E R Y G OOD K NO W LED G E O F T H E R E G U L A T I O N S I f you checked 1 or 2 above is i t because you c h e c k a l l t h a t m ay a p p ly t o y o u ) : (p le a se [ _ _ ] 1 . D E P E N D O N Y O U R F I S H I N G C O M P A N I O N S T O KNOW TH E R E G U L A T IO N S [ _ _ ] 2 . D E P E N D ON THE A R E A S TO B E P O S T E D W IT H THE R E G U L A T I O N S YO U N E E D T O KNOW [ ] 3 . D O N 'T PL A N ON K E E P IN G ANY TRO UT [ ] 4 . D O N ' T WORRY A B O U T WHAT T H E R E G U L A T I O N S A R E [ __ ] 5 . O T H E R :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H ow e a s y i s i t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t r o u t /s a lm o n a s s t a t e d i n t h e M ic h ig a n F is h in g G u id e (b ro ch u re o b ta in e d w ith y o u r fis h in g lic e n s e ) ? [ [ [ [__ [ ]1 . ]2 . ]3 . ]4 . ]5 . E A S IL Y UNDERSTOOD S L IG H T L Y C O N FU SIN G SOM EW HAT D I F F I C U L T VERY D IF F IC U L T D O N ' T R E A D THEM W hat s t a t e w id e d a i l y p o s s e s s io n l i m i t on t r o u t w o u ld y o u p r e fe r (e x c lu d in g s p e c ia l r e g u la tio n a r e a s)? [ __ [ __ [ __ [ __ [ __ ]1 . ]2 . ]3 . ]4 . ]5 . D E C R E A SE D TO _ _ _ _ _ _ R E M A IN A T 5 TROUT IN C R E A S E D TO _ _ _ _ _ _ N O L I M I T ( K E E P A S M ANY A S Y O U W A N T) NO O P I N I O N 228 4. A ppendix L C u r r e n t l y , t h e s t a t e - w i d e m in im u m s i z e f o r t r o u t i s 7 i n c h e s f o r U p p e r P e n i n s u l a (U P ) s t r e a m s a n d 8 i n c h e s f o r L o w e r P e n i n s u l a (L P ) s t r e a m s ( e x c e p t f o r s p e c i a l r e g u l a t i o n a r e a s ) . W h a t m in im u m s i z e l i m i t w o u l d y o u p r e f e r ? UP s tr e a m s ; in c h e s [ _ ] S T A Y T H E SA M E [ __ ] N O M IN IM U M S I Z E ( A L L S I Z E S L E G A L ) [ __ ] N O O P I N I O N LP s t r e a m s : 5. in c h e s [ ] S T A Y T H E SA M E [ __ ] N O M IN IM U M S I Z E ( A L L S I Z E S L E G A L ) [ __ ] N O O P I N I O N In g e n e r a l how s a t i s f i e d a r e you w ith th e o v e r a ll f is h in g r e g u la t io n s f o r tr o u t/s a lm o n a s th e y a r e now? [_ ]1 . EXTREMELY D I S S A T I S F I E D [— r_ [_ [_ [_ [_ SL IG H T L Y D I S S A T I S F I E D NEUTRAL SL IG H T L Y S A T IS F IE D SA T ISF IE D EXTREMELY S A T I S F I E D NO O P IN IO N C_3 2 . D I S S A T I S F I E D ]3 . ]4 . ]5 . ]6 . ]7 . ]8 . COMM ENTS: W h a t i s YOUR p o s i t i o n o n t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t r o u t fis h in g r e g u la tio n s? P le a se c ir c le th e one resp o n se a t th e r ig h t o f e a c h s t a t e m e n t w h ic h i n d i c a t e s how s t r o n g ly y o u a g r e e o r d isa g r e e . S A - STRONGLY AGREE D - D ISA G R E E A - AGREE S D - STRONGLY D ISA G R E E U - U N D E C ID E D 6 . E ach strea m o r lo c a l a rea sh o u ld h ave i t s ow n s e t o f t r o u t f is h i n g r e g u la t io n s w h ic h i s b e s t s u it e d f o r t h a t p a r t ic u la r stream o r a rea . SA A U D SD 7 . F is h in g r e g u la t io n s d e t r a c t from my tr o u t f is h in g e x p e r ie n c e . SA A U D SD 8. T rout fis h in g r e g u la tio n s a re n o t e n fo r c e d a d e q u a te ly . SA A U D SD 9 . I t w o u ld u p s e t me t o b e c h e c k e d b y a SA C o n s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e r w h i l e I am t r o u t f i s h i n g . A U D SD 2 229 A ppendix L 10. C o m p e tin g w it h my t r o u t f i s h i n g c o m p a n io n s i s an im p o r ta n t p a r t o f my tr o u t f is h in g e x p e r ie n c e . SA SD 11. T rout fis h in g r e g u la tio n s are o v e r ly p r o t e c t iv e an d sh o u ld b e r e la x e d som e. SA SD 12. T he D ep artm en t o f N a tu r a l R e so u r c e s SA (D N R ) F i s h e r i e s D i v i s i o n h a s t h e c o m p e t e n c e an d t e c h n ic a l t r a in in g t o know how t o p r o p e r ly m anage th e S t a t e 's f is h e r ie s r e s o u r c e . SD 13. DNR L aw E n f o r c e m e n t i s t o o s t r i c t i n i t s en fo rcem en t o f tr o u t fis h in g r e g u la tio n s . SA SD 14. I t r u s t t h e DNR F i s h e r i e s D i v i s i o n t o m anage th e S ta te 's tr o u t f is h e r ie s r e so u r c e in a f a ir and r e a so n a b le m anner. SA SD 15. C o n se r v a tio n O ffic e r s a r e u s u a lly f a i r in th e ir trea tm en t o f a n g le r s. SA SD 16. H ost fis h in g r e g u la tio n s have a sound b io lo g ic a l b a sis. SA SD 1 7 . M ost tr o u t fis h in g v io la t io n s o c c u r SA b e c a u se a n g le r s d o n o t know th e r e g u la t io n s , n o t b e c a u se a n g le r s d e lib e r a t e ly b rea k th e la w s. 1 8 . Do you th in k th a t th e p e n v i o l a t i o n s sh o u ld b e: [_ _ ] 1 . [__] 2 . [__] 3 . [__] 4 . A t SD a litie s fo r tro u t fish in g IN C R E A SE D ST A Y T H E SAME DECREASED NO O P IN IO N I f you a r e a b e g in in g tr o u t a n g le r and h a v e fis h e d l e s s th a n y e a r s y o u m ay s k ip t h i s s e c t io n and g o on t o q u e s t io n # 2 6 . R a te how y o u r a t t it u d e s sta r te d tr o u t fish in g . and p r a c tic e s have STAYED TH E SAM E DECREASED 19. U n d e r sta n d in g o f r e a s o n s fo r tr o u t fish in g r e g u la tio n s ... 1 2 20. K n o w le d g e o f t r o u t r e g u l a t i o n s .1 2 21. S a t is f a c t io n w ith th e tr o u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s .................. 1 C o m p lia n c e w ith t r o u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s .................................... 1 22. 3 changed sin c e 3 you IN C R E A SE D A ppendix L 230 1 2 STAYED T H E SAM E 3 D e s i r e t o k e e p t r o u t ................. 1 2 3 4 5 I n te r e s t in c a tc h in g trop h y (la r g e ) t r o u t 1 2 3 4 5 23. D e s i r e t o c a t c h t r o u t ............... 24. 25. 26. -BSSKEASBP IN C R E A SE D 4 5 W ere y o u c h e c k e d b y a c o n s e r v a tio n o f f i c e r w h ile f i s h i n g d u r in g th e 1987 f is h in g se a so n ? [__ ] 1 . YES [ _ _ ] 2 . NO IF YES, w h a t k in d o f f is h in g w ere you d o in g fo r e a c h con ta ct? F ir s t T in e :________________ S e c o n d T im e :_________________ T h ir d T im e :________________ 27. F o u r th T im a :_________________ W ere y o u e v e r c h e c k e d b y a c o n s e r v a t io n o f f i c e r w h ile f i s h i n g d u r i n g t h e p a s t 1 0 y e a r s ? [ __ ] l . Y E S [ __ ] 2 . NO IF Y ES, f o r y o u r m o st r e c e n t c o n t a c t , how w o u ld y o u d e s c r ib e you r tr e a tm e n t by th e c o n se r v a tio n o f f ic e r ? C ir c le one num ber f o r e a c h p a ir o f a d j e c t iv e s . 28. 1 . FA IR 1 2 3 5 U N F A IR 2 . ROUGH 1 2 3 5 K IN D 3 . PR O F E SSIO N A L 1 2 3 5 U N PR O FE SSIO N A L 4 . GO O D 1 2 3 5 BAD 5 . U N F R IE N D L Y 1 2 3 5 FR IE N D L Y W ere y o u e v e r t ic k e t e d fo r a f is h in g v i o l a t i o n d u r in g t h e o a s t 10 y e a r s ? [ __ ] 1 . Y E S [ ] 2 . NO IF Y ES, how m any t im e s : ______ and f o r w h at r e a s o n s : _______________________________________ F o r y o u r m o st r e c e n t t i c k e t , w o u ld y o u d e s c r i b e (p le a s e c i r c l e o n e num ber a s y o u r r e s p o n s e ) : JUSTIFIED 1 2 3 4 4 5 it as UNJUSTIFIED A ppendix L 231 H y p o th e tic a lly , p le a s e r a te w hat you th in k y o u r lik e lih o o d o f v i o l a t i n g a r e g u la t io n w o u ld b e g iv e n t h e 3 s c e n a r io s l i s t e d b e lo w . P le a s e c i r c l e o n ly on e num ber fo r ea c h s c e n a r io . 29. A r e g u la t io n i s p a s s e d w h ic h a f f e c t s y o u r f a v o f i s h i n g a r e a an d i s m uch m ore r e s t r i c t i v e th a n y o u fa c t, you a re str o n g ly op p osed to th e r e g u la tio n and n o t b e lie v e i t w as n e c e ssa r y . H ow l i k e l y i s i t t h a t v io la t e t h is r e g u la tio n ? 1 NEVER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 r ite lik e rea vou tro u t . In lly do m ig h t 9 V ERY L IK E L Y 30. H ow l i k e l y i s i t t h a t v o u m ig h t v i o l a t e a r e g u l a t i o n i f w o u ld g r e a t l y im p r o v e y o u r c h a n c e s o f c a t c h in g a t r o p h y t r o u t ? 1 NEVER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 it 9 VERY L IK E L Y 31. Y ou c a t c h a t r o u t w h ic h i s in a s i z e le n g t h c a t e g o r y w h ic h m u st b e r e le a s e d ( f o r e x a m p le , a r e g u la t io n w h ic h s a y s t h a t 1 2 -1 6 in c h tr o u t m ust b e r e le a s e d ) , h ow ever, i t i s m o r ta lly w ounded and o b v i o u s l y w i l l n o t s u r v i v e . H ow l i k e l y m i g h t v o u b e t o k e e p t h i s tro u t? 1 NEVER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 VERY L IK E L Y P le a se in d ic a te vour lik e lih o o d o f v io la tin g each tro u t r e g u la tio n u n d er th e fo llo w in g c o n d itio n s by c ir c lin g th e m ost a p p r o p r ia te num ber. 3 2 . You a r e f is h in g a str e a m w h ere la r g e t r o u t a r e v e r y a b u n d a n t. W o u ld y o u : OFTEN SO M E T IM E S RARELY NEVER u se ille g a l gear? 1 2 3 4 keep ille g a l siz e d fish ? 1 2 3 4 keep m o r e than the limit? 1 2 3 4 5 A ppendix L 232 33. 34. You a r e f i s h in g w ith o n e o r m ore g o o d f r ie n d s in an e x c e l l e n t t r o u t s t r e a m . W o u ld y o u : OFTEN SO M E T IM E S RARELY u se ille g a l gear? 1 2 3 keep ille g a l siz e d fish ? 1 2 3 4 k eep m ore th a n th e lim it? 1 2 3 4 You a r e f is h in g w ith fa m ily m em bers in an e x c e lle n t t r o u t strea m . W o u ld y o u : OFTEN SO M E T IM E S RARELY NEVER u se ille g a l gear? 1 2 3 4 keep ille g a l siz e d fish ? k eep m ore th a n th e lim it? 35. fish ? k eep m ore th a n th e lim it? 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 You a r e f is h in g an e x c e lle n t t r o u t str e a m w ith a b s o lu te assu ran ce th a t you w ill n ot g e t caught i f you v io la te a r e g u la tio n . W o u ld y o u : OFTEN SO M E T IM E S RARELY NEVER use ille g a l gear? 1 2 3 4 keep ille g a l siz e d fish ? k eep m ore th an th e lim it? 37. 1 Y ou a r e f is h in g in an e x c e l l e n t t r o u t str e a m i n fr o n t o f y o u r o w n p r o p e r t y s h o r e l i n e . W o u ld y o u : OFTEN SO M E T IM E S RARELY NEVER use ille g a l gear? 1 2 3 4 keep ille g a l siz e d 36. NEVER 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Y ou a r e f is h i n g an e x c e l l e n t t r o u t 3 tr e a m and o b s e r v e m any o th e r a n g le r s n o t o b e y in g r e g u la tio n s fo r th e strea m . W o u ld you: OFTEN SO M E T IM E S RARELY NEVER use ille g a l gear? 1 2 3 4 keep ille g a l siz e d fish ? keep m o r e than the limit? 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 233 Now w e n e e d b e h a v io r s. nam e w i l l id e n tific a tio 38. A ppendix L t o a s k som e s e n s i t i v e q u e s tio n s a b o u t y o u r f is h in g R em em ber, a l l a n sw ers a r e c o n f id e n t ia l, i . e . , you r not be a sso c ia te d w ith your su rvey and th e n co d es w ill n ever be r e le a se d to anyone. A bout how m any d a y s d id you f is h fo r tr o u t (n o t in c lu d in g sa lm o n an d s t e e l h e a d f is h in g ) d u r in g t h e 1 9 8 7 s e a s o n ? [ ] 1 . L E S S THAN 1 0 DAYS [ _ _ _ ] 2 . 1 0 TO 1 9 DAYS C_ _ _ ] 3 . 2 0 T O 2 9 D A Y S [ _ _ _ ] 4 . 3 0 TO 3 9 DAYS [ _ _ _ ] 5 . 4 0 D A Y S O R MORE 39. A b ou t how m any l e g a l s iz e d t r o u t d id y o u c a tc h d u r in g th e 19 8 7 f i s h i n g s e a s o n (in c lu d e th e num ber k e p t p lu s t h e num ber o f le g a l- s iz e d tr o u t you r e le a se d )? TO TAL L E G A L -S IZ E D TROUT CAUGHT I N 1 9 8 7 [__ ] 1 . [__ ] 2 . [__ ] 3 . 40. 0 TO 5 6 TO 1 0 1 1 TO 2 0 [_ ] 4 . [_ ] 5 . [_ ] 6 . 2 1 TO 5 0 5 1 TO 1 0 0 1 0 1 O R MORE A b ou t how m any l e g a l s iz e d t r o u t d id y o u KEEP. TOTAL L E G A L -S IZ E D TROUT KEPT IN 1 9 8 7 [___ ] 1 . 0 TO 5 [___ ] 2 . 6 TO 1 0 [ _ _ _ ] 3 . 1 1 TO 2 0 41. [ __ ] 4 . 2 1 T O 5 0 [ __ ] 5 . 5 1 T O 1 0 0 [ __ ] 6 . 1 0 1 O R MORE D u r in g t h e 1 9 8 7 s e a s o n d id y o u e v e r k e e p i l l e g a l - s i z e d tro u t? [ ] 1 . Y E S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ __ ] 2 . NO IF YES, a b o u t how m any i l l e g a l - s i z e d t r o u t d id you k eep ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IL L E G A L -S IZ E D TROUT KEPT 42. D u r in g th e 1 9 8 7 s e a s o n d id y o u e v e r f i s h f o r t r o u t in a r e a s w here th e sea so n w as c lo se d to tr o u t fish in g ? [ ] 1 . YES [ __ ] 2 . NO I F Y E S , o n a b o u t h o w m a n y o c c a s i o n s ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DAYS 7 A ppendix L 234 43. D u r in g t h e 1 987 s e a s o n , d id y o u a v e r u s e i l l e g a l f i s h i n g g e a r (su c h a s b a i t in a " f l i e s o n ly " a r e a )? [ _ J 1 . YES [ ] 2 . NO I F Y E S , o n a b o u t h o w m a n y o c c a s i o n s ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DAYS 44. D u r in g t h e 1 9 8 7 s e a s o n , d id y o u e v e r k e e p m ore th a n t h e le g a l lim it o f tro u t? [ ] 1 . YES [ ] 2 . NO I F Y E S , o n a b o u t h o w m a n y o c c a s i o n s ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DAYS 45. In a b o u t how m any s e p a r a ta f is h in g s e a s o n s d u r in g th e p a s t 10 y e a r s d id you tr o u t f is h a t le a s t o n ce w ith o u t f i r s t p u r c h a sin g a f is h in g lic e n s e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SEASONS 46. In g e n e r a l, how s a t i s f i e d a r e you w ith th e f is h in g r e g u la tio n s fo r s p e c ie s o th e r th an tr o u t/sa lm o n a s th e y are now? ]1 . ]2 . ]3 . ]4. ]5 . ]6 . ]7 . ]8 . 47. EXTREMELY D I S S A T I S F I E D D ISSA T ISF IE D SL IG H T L Y D I S S A T I S F I E D NEUTRAL SL IG H T L Y S A T I S F I E D SA T ISF IE D EXTREMELY S A T I S F I E D NO O P I N I O N T o y o u r k n o w le d g e d u r in g y o u r 1 9 8 7 f i s h i n g s e a s o n d id y o u e v e r v io la t e th e f is h in g r e g u la tio n s fo r s p e c ie s o th e r th a n tr o u t/sa lm o n ? [_ .]!• C_]2 • [__ ] 3 . L _ ]4 . [_ ]5 . NEVER 1 - 2 O C C A SIO N S 3 - 5 O C C A SIO N S 6 - 1 0 O C C A SIO N S MORE T H A N 1 0 O C C A S I O N S 8 A ppendix L 235 T H A N K Y O U V E R Y M U CH F O R Y O U R V A L U A B L E T I M E I N C O M P L E T I N G T H I S SURVEY. You h a v e b e e n g e n e r o u s w it h y o u r t im e a n d f o r t h a t w e are g r a te fu l. The in fo r m a tio n y ou p r o v id e d u s w i l l b e u se d to h e lp g u id e fu tu r e f is h e r ie s m anagem ent d e c is io n s . WE W ELCOME A N Y F U R T H E R C O M M ENTS Y O U MAY W I S H T O W R I T E B E L O W . Ben P a y to n A sso c ia te P r o fesso r L a rry M. G i g l i o t t i R esearch A ssista n t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n iv e r s it y D ep artm en t o f F is h e r ie s an d W ild lif e N a tu ra l R eso u rces B u ild in g E a st L a n sin g , M ic h ig a n 4 8824-1222 Phone: (517) 3 5 5 -4 4 7 7 APPENDIX M M a ilin g s u se d w ith t h e M ichigan T ro u t F is h in g R e g u la tio n s S urvey A ppendix M 236 M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSLNG • M IC H IG A N • DEPARTM ENT O f FISHERIES A N D W1LDUEE NATURAL RESOURCES BUILD ING (S171 3S5-M77 J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1 9 88 Dear A n g le r, Some time d u r i n g e i t h e r 1986 o r 1987 y o u c o m p l e t e d a s u r v e y on y o u r t r o u t f i s h i n g b e h a v i o r s and a t t i t u d e s f o r Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . You a l s o I n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o r e c e i v e t h i s s u r v e y on y o u r b e h a v i o r s a n d a t t i t u d e s tow ards Michigan F ish in g R e g u la t io n s . We h o p e y o u a r e s t i l l I n t e r e s t e d 1n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s s t u d y s i n c e we h a v e r e d u c e d o u r s a m p l e o f a n g l e r s t o c u t costs. To b e s t a t i s t i c a l l y v a l i d we n e e d t o h e a r f r o m e v e r y o n e . O u r a n a l y s i s o f a n g l e r s who d o n o t r e s p o n d t o o u r s u r v e y s s h o w t h a t 1 t 1 s b e c a u s e t h e y f e e l t h a t t h e i r a n s w e r s w o n ' t b e o f mu c h h e l p t o u s . This j u s t Is n o t so! EVERY r e s p o n s e Is Im portant to a s c i e n t i f i c survey such a s t h i s o n e , e v e n 1 f y o u d o n ' t f 1 s h v e r y much o r y o u d o n ' t h a v e s t r o n g o p i n i o n s o n t h e topic. Most o f t h e q u e s t i o n s a sk ab o u t y o u r a t t i t u d e s and even 1 f y o u d o n ' t h a v e a n o p i n i o n I t I s I m p o r t a n t f o r u s t o d o c u m e n t t h e n u m b e r o f a n g l e r s who do n o t h a v e an o p i n i o n . Your a n s w e r s w i l l be t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . Your q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s a n I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number so t h a t 1 t can b e m atched w i t h t h e e a r l i e r s u r v e y which you c o m p le te d f o r u s . T h i s e n a b l e s u s t o r e d u c e t h e n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s we n eed t o a sk t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g o u r c o s t s and y o u r tim e s p e n t f i l l i n g o u t t h e survey. Yo u r r e s p o n s e I s s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y a n d y o u may r e f u s e t o a n s w e r a n y o r a l l o f the questions. None o f t h e f o r m s w i l l b e r e l e a s e d t o t h e M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s o r any o t h e r p e rso n o r a g e n c y . Only t h e o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s o f o u r r e s u l t s w i l l b e ma d e p u b l i c . Yo u r r e t u r n o f t h i s p a r t i c i p a t e 1n t h i s filled study. out q u e s tio n n a ir e c o n s t i t u t e s your c o n se n t Thank y o u . Sincerely L a r r y M. G1 g l l o t t l Research A s s is ta n t A ssociate Project Director M SU is an A J /ir m itn * A(tu> n/E ju*U O f> ^ortu*»t\ In stilu tm m Professor to 237 A ppendix M January 25, 1988 Last week a q u e s t i o n n a i r e seeking your opi nions about t r o u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s was mailed t o you. I f you have a l r e a d y completed and r et ur ne d i t t o us , pl e a s e a ccept our s i n c e r e t h a nks . I f n o t , pl e a s e do so t oday. The survey has been se nt to only a smal l , but r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of t r o u t a n g l e r s . Thus, i t i s extremely import ant t h a t YOUR VIEWS are a l s o included in t h i s study i f t he r e s u l t s are t o a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t the opinions of Michigan t r o u t a n g l e r s . This i s t r u e even i f you do not have st r ong o p i n i o n s . I f by some chance you did not r ec ei ve t he q u e s t i o n n a i r e or i f i t got mi s p l a c e d , pl ea se mail back t h i s post car d and we will send a n o t h e r one t o you in t he m a i l . & *6*, Research A s s i s t a n t / R. Ben P e y t o n Project Director 238 A ppendix M MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES A N D W TIDUFE EAST LAN SIN G • M ICHIG AN • 4M 24-I222 NATURAL RESOURCES B UILD ING <5171 JS1-44T7 Ma r c h 1 , 1988 Dear A ngler: A b o u t o n e m o n t h a g o we s e n t y o u a s u r v e y f r o m M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a s k i n g about y o u r b e h a v i o r s and a t t i t u d e s tow ards M ichigan t r o u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . As o f t o d a y we h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d y o u r c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1n t h e m a i l . Ou r p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h o s e o f y o u who h a v e n o t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s may h o l d q u i t e d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s f r o m t h o s e responded. B e c a u s e t h i s 1s a s c i e n t i f i c s a m p l e d e s i g n e d t o t r o u t s t a m p p u r c h a s e r s 1 t I s I m p o r t a n t t h a t EVERYONE 1n o u r respond. y e t s e n t in y o u r t h a t have a lr e a d y represent all sm all sample The m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e S t a t e ' s t r o u t r e s o u r c e r e l i e s h e a v i l y o n t h e u s e o f regulations. F i s h e r i e s D i v i s i o n n e e d s t o know w h a t M i c h i g a n t r o u t a n g l e r s t h i n k a b o u t t h e r e g u l a t i o n s a n d how t h e y r e s p o n d t o t h e m s o t h a t r e g u l a t i o n s a r e a p p li e d most e f f e c t i v e l y . T h i s s u r v e y r e p r e s e n t s a n i n e x p e n s i v e and e f f e c t i v e means t o o b t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y I n f o r m a t i o n t o manage o u r f i s h e r i e s for public use. E v e n t h o u g h I t t a k e s c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e a n d e f f o r t on y o u r p a r t , we h o p e y o u w i l l a g r e e t o p a r t i c i p a t e I n t h i s s t u d y . Yo u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s a n I d e n t i f i c a t i o n n u m b e r s o t h a t i t c a n b e m a t c h e d w i t h th e e a r l i e r su rv e y which you com pleted f o r u s . T h is e n a b l e s us to reduce th e n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s we n e e d t o a s k t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g o u r c o s t s a n d y o u r t i m e spent f i l l i n g out th e survey. Yo u r a n s w e r s w i l l b e t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . None o f t h e f o r m s w i l l be r e l e a s e d t o t h e M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s o r any o t h e r p e r s o n or agency. O n l y t h e o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s o f o u r r e s u l t s w i l l b e ma d e p u b l i c . Your r e t u r n o f t h i s in t h i s s t u d y . filled out survey c o n s t it u t e s your consent to p a r ti c i p a te Th a n k y o u Sincerely ate L a r r y M. G 1 g l 1 o t t 1 Research A s s is t a n t Project D irector S tS U t t i m A / f t r m n n * A (tto n > E ju M O p p o r tu n ity Im ititu H o n Professor A ppendix M 239 NON-RESPONSE CARD SURVEY NUMBER: I f you do not wish to p a r tic ip a te on our study p lea se return t h is card in the prepaid envelope provided. A lso , p lea se check a ll o f th e fo llo w in g reasons th a t may apply to you . : : c : z ~ ] i. ] 2. ] 3. 4. ] 5. ] 6. ] 7. Fi s hi ng i s not important t o me. Trout f i s h i n g i s not important to me. I am not i n t e r e s t e d in t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c . I do not have t he time t o f i l l out t h i s survey. I do not l i k e f i l l i n g out surveys. I r e a l l y d o n ' t t r u s t t h i s survey or i t s use. Other: i 240 A ppendix M M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES A N D WILDLIFE EAST LANSING • M IC H IG A N • 4M 24-I222 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING i* l? ) J « . 4 4 r April 15, 1988 Dear Angler: A b o u t o n e m o n t h a g o we s e n t y o u a s u r v e y f r o m M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a s k i n g a b o u t y o u r b e h a v i o r s and a t t i t u d e s to w a r d s M ic h ig a n t r o u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . As o f t o d a y we h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d y o u r c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t h e m a l l . We d o r e a l i z e t h a t c o m p l e t i n g t h i s s u r v e y r e q u i r e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t o f your valuable tim e. H o w e v e r , I t I s I m p o r t a n t t o o u r s t u d y t h a t EVERYONE 1n o u r sample re sp o n d . We a r e I n c l u d i n g a n o t h e r s u r v e y w i t h t h i s m a i l i n g 1n c a s e you d i s c a r d e d o r d id n o t r e c e i v e t h e f i r s t o n e . I F YOU DO NOT WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR STUDY PLEASE F I LL OUT THE ENCLOSED NON-RESPONSE CARD AND RETURN I T IN THE PREPAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED. We w i l l r e m o v e y o u r name f r o m o u r m a i l i n g 1 1 s t . I f you p a r t i c i p a t e , y o u r an sw e rs w i l l be t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . None o f t h e f orm s w i l l be r e l e a s e d t o t h e M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s o r any o th e r person or agency. O n l y t h e o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s o f o u r r e s u l t s w i l l b e ma d e . public. Your r e t u r n o f t h i s f i l l e d o u t s u r v e y c o n s t i t u t e s y o u r c o n s e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n t h i s s t u d y . Yo u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s a n I d e n t i f i c a t i o n n u m b e r s o t h a t 1 t c a n b e m a t c h e d w i t h t h e e a r l i e r surve y which you com pleted f o r u s . This e n a b le s us to reduce th e n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s we n e e d t o a s k t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g o u r c o s t s a n d y o u r t i m e spent f i l l i n g out the survey. Thank you L a r r y M. G l g l i o t t l Research A ssista n t Professor Project D irector W i t / u u a .A / f ir m u n * A c ttn n /E ju * J O p p o r tu n ity I n ttitu tio n APPENDIX N (TABIES) D e s c rip tio n o f An S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s : Com parison o f An S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s w ith a sam ple o f M ichigan stre a m t r o u t a n g le r s 241 T d b le 1. E d u c a tio n l e v e l s o f Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s com pared t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s .* AU EDUCATION LEVEL HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS SCME COLLEGE OR ASSOCIATE DEGREE COLLEGE DEGREE ADVANCED DEGREE TOTAL *CHE-SQUARE=182.8 1 0 , T a b le 2 . APPENDIX N SABIE ANGIERS % # 128 17.4 190 2 5.9 235 3 2 .0 182 2 4.8 735 100.1 DF=3, P<.0001 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGLERS # % 3 9 .4 288 273 109 61 731 3 7 .4 1 4 .9 8 .3 100 .0 F am ily income l e v e l s o f Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s com pared t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s .* AU SABLE ANGLERS INOOME LEVEL # % UNDER $10,000 35 5 .2 $10,000 - $19,999 51 7 .5 $20,000 - $29,999 100 14.7 $30,000 - $39,999 118 17.4 $40,000 - $49,999 110 16.2 $50,000 OR OVER 266 3 9 .1 680 TOTAL 100.1 __: r ____________ *O£E-SgUARE=52.907, DF=5, P ,.0 0 0 1 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGLERS % # 36 5 .2 93 1 3 .5 133 1 9.3 156 2 2 .6 118 1 7.3 153 2 2 .2 689 100.1 242 T a b le 3 . APPENDIX N F is h in g m ethods u s e d b y Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s f o r s tre a m t r o u t c c n p a re d t o a sam ple o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s . FISHING AU SABLE ANGLERS METHOD FREQUENCY # % FEY FISHING: OFTEN 643 8 6 .9 9 .1 SOMETIMES 67 4 .1 NEVER 30 740 100 .1 TOTAL (X2= 850.191, DF=2, PC.0001) MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS % # 83 269 378 730 11.4 3 6 .9 5 1.8 100.1 215 361 156 732 29.4 4 9.3 21.3 100.0 388 242 100 730 5 3.2 33.2 13.7 100.1 LURES: OFTEN 63 8 .5 3 0 .1 SOMETIMES 223 NEVER 6 1.4 454 TOTAL 740 100.0 (X2= 261.262, DF=2, PC.0001) BAIT: OFTEN 73 9 .9 SOMETIMES 180 2 4 .4 NEVER 484 6 5 .7 1 00.0 TOTAL 737 (X2= 476.818, DF=2, PC.0001) T a b le 4 . P r e f e r r e d s p e c i f i c t r o u t s p e c ie s o f Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s ccn p a re d t o a s ta te w id e sam ple o f t r o u t a n g le r s .* FREFERRED SPECIFIC AU SABLE ANGIERS TROUT SPECIES % # BROWN TROUT 50.3 99 BROOK TROUT 3 2 .0 63 RAINBOW TROUT 17.8 35 TOTAL 100.1 197 *___— ' - ■ . . : *CHI-SQUARE=21 .1 1 4 , DF-2, P , .0001 STATEWIDE SAMPLE % # 27 2 4 .8 61 5 6 .0 19.3 _21 109 100.1 243 T a b le 5 . APPENDIX N P r e f e r r e d s p e c i e s o f a n g le r s who do n o t p r e f e r t r o u t f o r Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s can p a re d t o a sam ple o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s .* MICHIGAN TROUT ANGLERS PREFERRED AU SABLE ANGLERS OTHER SPECIES** % # % # BASS 22.4 24 2 5 .5 116 WALLEYE 19.3 18 19.2 100 SAIMDN 113 2 1 .8 11 1 1 .7 PIKE-MUSKY 9 .6 37 7 .1 9 PAN FISH 36 6 .9 6 6 .4 PERCH 4 .8 5 5 .3 25 LAKE TROUT 2 .3 1 1 .1 12 STEELHEAD 0 0 .0 62 1 2 .0 OTHER 6 .4 9 1 .7 6 NO PREFERENCE 1 4.9 9 1 .7 14 TOTAL 94 9 9 .9 9 9 .9 519 *QH-SQUARE=60.6 2 9 , DE=9, PC.0001 **Only 12.7% o f t h e Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s p r e f e r r e d a s p e c ie s o t h e r th a n t r o u t w h ile 71.5% o f t h e s ta te w id e t r o u t a n g le r s a n p le p r e f e r r e d a s p e c ie s o t h e r th a n t r o u t . T a b le 6 . P r e f e r r e d s tre a m t r o u t s p e c ie s o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s : com parisons o f c lo s e d - v s . o p en - ended q u e s tio n s .* PREFERRED CLOSED QUESTION TROUT SPECIES # % TROUT ~ NO PREFERENCE 291 3 9 .7 BRCMN TROUT 106 14.4 BROOK TROUT 220 3 0 .0 RAINBOW TROUT 112 15.3 OTHER TROUT SPECIES 5 0 .7 TOTAL 734 100.1 _____ ___________ _____ __ *CHI-SQUARE=6.949, DF=4, P=.1386 OPEN QUESTION # % 4 7 .3 98 27 1 3 .0 61 2 9 .5 21 1 0 .1 0 0 .0 207 9 9 .9 244 T a b le 7 . Im p o rtan ce o f s tre a m t r o u t f i s h i n g a s a r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y f o r Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s com pared t o a s ta te w id e s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s .* IMPORTANCE OF AU SABLE STREAM TOXJT FISHING ANGIERS STREAM TROUT FISHING # % MOST IMPORTANT 230 31.7 MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST 304 4 1 .9 IMPORTANT 145 2 0 .0 SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 31 4 .3 SLTGHTLtf IMPORTANT 11 1 .5 NOT VERY IMPORTANT 0 .6 4 TOTAL 725 100.0 *CHI-SQUARE=359.831, DF=5, P<.0001) T a b le 8 . MICHIGAN ANGLERS % # 6 .4 47 21 .4 157 36.4 267 131 1 7 .9 54 7 .4 77 1 0 .5 733 100.0 S e l f - r a t e d t r o u t f i s h i n g e x p e rie n c e o f Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s com pared t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s .* SELF-RATED TROUT AU SABLE ANGIERS FISHING EXPERIENCE # % BEGINNER 78 1 0.7 SCMEWHAT EXPERIENCED 204 2 8 .1 EXPERIENCED 352 4 8 .5 EXPERT 92 12.7 TOTAL 726 100.0 *CHI-SQUARE=127.6 0 0 , DF=3, P<.0001 T a b le 9 . APPENDIX N MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS # % 156 2 1 .3 329 4 4 .8 31 .2 229 20 2 .7 734 100.0 T ro u t r e l e a s i n g b e h a v io r o f Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s com pared t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s .* TROUT RELEASING AU BEHAVIOR RELEASE ALL RELEASE MOST KEEP MOST KEEP ATT. TOTAL *CHE-SQUARE=420.443; SABIE ANGIERS # % 214 2 9.4 302 4 1 .4 129 1 7.7 84 1 1 .5 729 100.0 DF=3, P<.0001 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS % # 29 4 .0 109 1 4.9 275 3 7 .6 4 3 .5 318 731 100.0 245 T a b le 10. APPENDIX N M o tiv a tio n s f o r t r o u t f i s h i n g f o r Au S a b le r i v e r a n g le r s compared t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s . MOTIVATION TO EAT FISH IMPORTANCE SCAIE 4 5 6 7 8 9 VERY IMPORTANT REASON MEAN SD NUMBER SAMPLE (F=278.6178; DF=1/1456; P<.0001) AU SABLE RIVER ANGLERS 2 .8 3 .0 726 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS 5 .3 2 .9 732 0 1 2 NOT A REASON 3 TO ENJOY MY FISHING EQUIPMENT (F^=40.5792; DF=1/1450; PC.0001) AU SABLE RIVER ANGLERS 5 .1 2 .9 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGLERS 4 .1 2 .8 723 729 TO ENJOY NATURE (F=39.9424? DF=1/1458; PC.0001) AU SABLE RIVER ANGLERS 8 .5 1 .1 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS 8 .0 1 .6 728 737 TO GET AWAY & RELAX (F=34.7225? DP=1/1456; Pc.0001) AU SABLE RIVER ANGLERS 8 .4 1 .2 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS 7 .9 1 .7 726 732 FOR FUN & EXCITEMENT (F=28.8278; DF=1/1455, P<.0001) AU SABLE RIVER ANGIERS 8 .3 1 .4 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS 7 .9 1 .7 727 730 FOR COMPANIONSHIP (F=11.4162; DF=1/1447? P=.0007) AU SABLE RIVER ANGIERS 6 .3 2 .6 MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS 5 .9 2 .8 722 727 246 T a b le 11. APPENDIX N Im p o rtan ce o f " su c c e ss" t o Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s compared t o a sam ple o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s . AU SABLE MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS ANGIERS %_______________ # % ITEM RESPONSE______________# "A f i s h i n g t r i p can b e s u c c e s s f u l t o me ev en i f I d o n 't c a tc h t r o u t . " (X2= 5 .5 7 4, df= 3 , p=.1343) STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 .3 32 42 5 .8 8 .3 1 1 .4 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 50 83 SLIGHTLY AGREE 36.3 231 3 1 .6 220 50.2 374 5 1 .2 304 STRONGLY AGREE 100 .0 TOTAL 606 100.1 730 ,rWhen I go f is h i n g , I am o n ly s a t i s f i e d when I c a t c h s a n e tr o u t." (X2= 0 .9 3 7 , d f= 3 , p=.8164) 4 1 .8 4 0.5 305 STRONGLY DISAGREE 246 3 2 .1 32.3 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 196 234 SLIGHTLY AGREE 19.4 143 1 9 .6 118 7 .7 47 6 .5 47 STRONGLY AGREE 100 .0 TOTAL 607 99.9 729 "The more t r o u t I c a tc h t h e h a p p ie r I am ." d f= 3 , p=.2004) STRONGLY DISAGREE 116 19.1 18.5 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 112 SLIGHTLY AGREE 255 4 2 .1 123 20.3 STRONGLY AGREE 100.0 TOTAL 606 (X2=4. 637, " I f I th o u g h t I would n o t c a tc h t r o u t , I w ould f i s h i n g ." (X2= 73.797, df=3, p<.0001) 34.8 STRONGLY DISAGREE 211 17.5 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 106 140 SLIGHTLY AGREE 2 3.1 24.7 150 STRONGLY AGREE TOTAL 607 100.1 138 150 269 172 729 1 8 .9 2 0 .6 3 6 .9 2 3 .6 1 0 0 .0 n o t go 400 139 105 87 731 5 4 .7 1 9 .0 1 4 .4 1 1 .9 100 .0 247 T a b le 12. APPENDIX N Im p o rtan ce o f " b ig g e r o r tro p h y t r o u t " t o Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s c c r p a re d t o a sam ple o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s . AU SABLE MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS ANGIERS ITEM RESPONSE______________ # %_______________ # % "The b ig g e r t h e t r o u t I c a tc h , t h e b e t t e r t h e f i s h i n g t r i p . " (X2= 1 0 .8 0 4 , d f= 3 , p=.0128) STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 3 .8 100 1 3 .7 84 2 0 .3 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 94 1 5 .5 148 SLIGHTLY AGREE 4 7 .0 274 4 5 .1 343 STRONGLY AGREE 155 1 9 .0 25f5 139 TOTAL 606 100 .0 100.1 730 " C a tc h in g a " tro p h y " t r o u t i s t h e b ig g e s t rew ard f o r m e." (X2= 1 5 .2 4 8 , d f= 3 , p=.0016) STRONGLY DISAGREE 188 3 1 .0 279 3 8 .2 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 143 2 3 .6 186 2 5 .5 SLIGHTLY AGREE 174 2 8 .7 148 2 0 .3 1 6 .7 117 1 6 .0 STRONGLY AGREE 101 ___________TOTAL__________ 606 9 9 .9 ____________ 730 100.0 T a b le 13. Im p o rtan ce o f " t r o u t s p e c ie s " t o Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s com pared t o a sam ple o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s . AU SABLE MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS ANGIERS ITEM RESPONSE # % # % " I t d o es n o t m a tte r t o me w hat ty p e o f t r o u t I c a t c h ." (X2=23.325, d f= 3 , p<.0001) STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 .6 22 33 4 .5 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 109 1 8 .0 70 9 .6 SLIGHTLY AGREE 225 3 7 .1 262 3 5 .9 251 4 1 .4 STRONGLY AGREE 364 4 9 .9 TOTAL 607 100.1 9 9 .9 729 248 T a b le 14. APPENDIX N Im p o rtan ce o f " t r o u t f is h i n g m ethod" t o Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s c cn p ared t o a sam ple o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s . MICHIGAN TROUT AU SABLE ANGIERS ANGIERS % ITEM RESPONSE # % # "How I c a tc h a t r o u t i s a s im p o rta n t t o me a s a c t u a l l y c a tc h in g o n e ." (X2=249 .2 4 3 , df= 3 , pc.0001) STRONGLY DISAGREE 16 2 .6 104 14.2 165 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 2 2 .6 30 4 .9 SLIGHTLY AGREE 258 3 5.3 148 2 4.4 STRONGLY AGREE 204 2 7 .9 413 6 8 .0 TOTAL 731 100.0 607 9 9 .9 T a b le 15. Im p o rtan ce o f " f l y - f i s h i n g o n ly " a r e a s t o Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s ccn p a re d t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s .* AU SABLE ANGIERS IMPORTANCE RATING % # 1. CRUCIAL 335 4 5.8 2 . VERY IMPORTANT 211 2 8.8 3 . IMPORTANT 80 10.9 4 . SCMEWHAT IMPORTANT 40 5 .5 5 . SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 10 1 .4 6. NOT IMPORTANT 56 7 .7 TOTAL 732 100.1 *CHI-SQUARE=702.1 8 4 , DF=5, P<.0001 T a b le 16. MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS % # 27 3 .7 45 6 .2 86 1 1.8 96 1 3.2 44 6 .0 430 5 9 .1 728 100 .0 Im p o rtan ce o f " n o - k i l l " a r e a s t o Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s ccn p ared t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s .* AU SABLE ANGIERS MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS IMPORTANCE RATING # % # % 1. CRUCIAL 207 37 28.2 5 .1 2 . VERY IMPORTANT 146 54 19.9 7 .4 3. IMPORTANT 103 1 4.1 114 15 .7 4 . SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 60 117 8 .2 1 6 .1 5 . SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 36 4 .9 72 9 .9 6 . NOT IMPORTANT 24.7 333 181 4 5 .8 TOTAL 100.1 727 733 100.0 *CHI-SQUARE=236.605, DF=5, P<.0001 249 T a b le 17. APPENDIX N A t t i t u d e to w a rd s t h e number o f " n o - k i l l " a r e a s i n M ichigan b y Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s c c n p a re d t o a sam ple o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g l e r s .* NUMBER OF ATT SARTE ANGLERS MICHIGAN TROUT ANGIERS %__________ ' # %______ "NO-KILL" AREAS_______ # 1 7 .7 5 6 .0 129 INCREASED 414 9 .7 DECREASED 71 82 1 1 .1 2 4 .1 176 1 8 .5 STAY THE SAME 137 4 8 .4 NO OPINION 353 106 14.3 9 9 .9 TOTAL 729 739 9 9 .9 *CHI-SQUARE=288.098 , DF-3, P<.0001 T a b le 18. A t t i t u d e to w ard s t h e pro p o sed Au S a b le R iv e r n o - k i l l r e g u l a t io n o f Au S a b le R iv e r t r o u t a n g le r s c cn p a re d t o a s a n p le o f M ichigan t r o u t a n g le r s * . ATTITUDE TOWARDS AU SABLE EROFQSED NO-KELL ANGLERS REGULATION # % (CHE-SQUARE=16.132/ DF=6 , P=. 0131) STRONGLY APPROVE 274 3 7 .1 APFROVE 110 14.9 SLIGHTLY APFROVE 29 3 .9 UNDECIDED 120 16.3 SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE 39 5 .3 DISAPFROVE 62 8 .4 STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 104 14.1 TOTAL 738 100.0 MICHIGAN TROUT* ANGIERS # % 48 34 15 36 14 20 20 187 2 5 .7 18.2 8 .0 19.3 7 .5 1 0.7 1 0.7 100.1 (CHE-SQUARE=1.309, DF=2, P=.5198) APPROVE 413 5 6 .0 97 51.9 120 36 UNDECIDED 16.3 19.3 205 54 DISAPPROVE 27.8 2 8 .9 TOTAL 738 100.1 187 100.1 'J L ‘ ........— ■ —................................................ I n c lu d e s o n ly 26.1% o f t h e M ichigan s a n p le who w ere aw are o f t h e p ro p o se d " n o - k i l l " r e g u l a tio n f o r t h e Au S a b le R iv e r M ainstream . APPENDIX O (TARTFS) S p e c ia l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s APPENDIX 0 250 Table 1. Total number of Au Sable River anglers contacted at each stud/ location. LOCATION 1 . MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 2 . BELOW MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 3 . NORTH BRANCH QUALITY SECTION 4 . SCUIH BRANCH NO-KILL SECTION 5 . SCUffl BRANCH QUALITY SECTION EXCLUDING NO-KILL TOTAL # 295 129 157 133 % 34.9 15.3 18.6 15.7 _13_1 1 5.5 845 100.0 251 T a b le 2 . APPENDIX 0 P rim ary re a s o n s l i s t e d b y Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s f o r f i s h i n g a t e a c h o f t h e f i v e s tu d y l o c a t i o n s i n 1986. Loc. 1 = M ainstream Q u a lity S e c tio n Loc. 2 = M ainstream below Wakely B rid g e t o McMasters B rid g e Loc. 3 = N o rth B ranch Q u a lity S e c tio n Loc. 4 = S o u th B ranch N o - k ill S e c tio n Loc. 5 = S o u th B ranch Q u a lity S e c tio n e x c lu d in g t h e n o - k i l l s e c tio n IOC 1 #* %* 170 63.4 LOC 2 # % 63 5 3 .8 LOC 3 # % 80 5 4 .1 LOC 4 # % 52 43.3 LOC 5 # % 62 4 9 .6 TOTAL # % 427 5 4.9 MORE FISH 89 33.2 44 3 7 .6 52 3 5 .1 62 51 .7 43 3 4.4 290 37.3 EASY ACCESS 117 4 3 .7 56 4 7 .9 58 39.2 18 1 5 .0 31 2 4 .8 280 3 6 .0 LARGER FISH 53 1 9.8 55 4 7 .0 34 2 3 .0 75 6 2 .5 56 4 4 .8 273 3 5 .1 SUGGESTED BY FRIEND 56 2 0 .9 29 2 4 .8 50 3 3 .8 31 2 5 .8 43 3 4 .4 209 26.9 CLOSE TO HCME/CAMP 69 2 5 .7 38 3 2 .5 40 2 7 .0 15 1 2 .5 25 2 0 .0 187 2 4 .0 20 1 7 .1 46 3 1 .1 28 2 3.3 25 2 0 .0 148 1 8.0 117 148 120 125 778 ERIMARY REASONS TRADITION FEWER ANGLERS TOTAL # 21 7 .8 268 * _______ ________ (TOTAL NUMBER OF VALID CASES = 778) 252 Table 3. APPENDIX O Au Sable River anglers who trout fish after dark by study location.* FISH AFTER DARK LOCATION_____________________________________ # % 6 3 .1 161 1. MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 70 6 1.4 2. HEIOW MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 81 5 7.4 3. NORTH BRANCH QUALITY SECTION 86 7 8 .2 4. SCUIH BRANCH NO-KILL SECTION 5. SOUm BRANCH QUALITY SECTION EXCLUDING 82 8 1 .2 THE NO-KILL TOTAL (MEAN %)________________________________ 480 ( 6 6 .6 ) *CHI-SQUARE=24.3554, DF^=4, P=.0001 T a b le 4 . Number o f Au S a b le R iv e r a r e a s f is h e d i n 1986 by t h e sam ple o f Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s . NUMBER OF AREAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL T a b le 5 . NUMBER OF ANGIERS 129 134 157 151 95 39 24 9 738 PERCENT 17 .5 18.2 21 .3 2 0 .5 1 2 .9 5 .3 3 .3 1 .2 100.2 Au S a b le R iv e r a r e a s t h a t Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s f is h e d o r p la n n e d t o f i s h i n t h e 1986 f i s h i n g se a so n . AREA NUMBER MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 548 NORTH BRANCH 473 S. BRANCH NO-KILL SECTION 383 S . BRANCH EXCLUDING NO-KELL 376 MAINSTREAM RETfW WAKELY BRIDGE 312 MAINSTREAM ABOVE BRUTONS LANDING 159 OTHER TRIBUTARIES OF AU SABLE 84 EAST BRANCH 79 TOTAL RESPONSES 2414 *VAUD CASES=738 PERCENT OF RESPONSES 2 2 .7 1 9 .6 15.9 1 5 .6 PERCENT OF CASES* 7 4 .3 6 4 .1 5 1 .9 5 0 .9 12.9 4 2 .3 6 .6 2 1 .5 3 .5 3 .3 100.0 11.4 10.7 253 Table 6. APPENDIX O Mast preferred Au Sable River fishing site of Au Sable River anglers. MOST PREFERRED Au Sable RIVER SITE* # % 179 3 0 .4 MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 17.3 NORTH BRANCH QUALITY SECTION 102 93 1 5 .8 SOUTH BRANCH NO-KILL SECTION SOTIH BRANCH QUALITY SECTION EXCLUDING 73 1 2.4 NO-KILL SECTION 40 6 .8 MAINSTREAM HEIOW WAKELY BRIDGE 8 MAINSTREAM ABOVE BURTONS LANDING 1 .4 5 0 .8 EAST BRANCH OTHER 2 0 .3 NO PREFERENCE 87 1 4.8 TOTAL 58? 100.0 *Note that only the first five locations above were study location sites. Table 7. Money invested in specialized trout fishing equipment by Au Sable River anglers. RANGE $0 $1 - $50 $51 - $100 $101 - $300 $301 - $600 $601 - $900 $901 - $1,100 $1,101 - $2,000 $2,001 - $5,000 $5,001 - $10,000 GREATER THAN $10,000 TOTAL NUMBER OF ANGLERS 6 23 26 132 128 52 78 115 111 35 __ 5 711 PERCENT 0 .8 3 .2 3 .7 1 8 .6 1 8 .0 7 .3 1 1 .0 16.2 1 5 .6 4 .9 0 .7 100.0 APPENDIX O 254 Table 8. Frequency of the number of trout caught in 1986 reported by An Sable River anglers.* NUMBER OF TROUT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 > 20 TOTAL *MEAN=3.0, SD=4.97 Table 9. FREQUENCY 189 91 58 44 42 30 22 12 13 5 6 16 7 __6 PERCENT 3 4 .9 1 6 .8 1 0 .7 8 .1 7 .8 5 .5 4 .1 2 .2 2 .4 0 .9 1 .1 3 .0 1 .3 1 .1 541 9 9 .9 Frequency of the size of the largest trout caught reported by Au Sable River anglers in 1986.* SIZE OF LARGEST TROUT (INCHES) < 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 > 20 TOTAL *____ _ " _______ *MEAN=9.7, SD=3.35 FREQUENCY 14 43 37 50 45 40 28 34 14 13 12 7 1 3 2 1 4 348 PERCENT 4 .0 12 .4 1 0 .6 1 4 .4 1 2 .9 1 1 .5 8 .0 9 .8 4 .0 3 .7 3 .4 2 .0 0 .3 0 .9 0 .6 0 .3 1 .1 9 9 .9 255 Table 10. Reported satisfaction with the days fishing trip of Au Sable River anglers in 1986. SATISFACTION IEVEL EXTREMELY SATISFIED SATISFIED SLIGHTIY SATISFIED SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED EXTREMELY DISSAi'lSFiED TOTAL Table 11. APPENDIX O NUMBER 104 252 95 48 23 _8 530 PERCENT 1 9 .6 4 7 .5 1 7 .9 9 .1 4 .3 1 .5 9 9 .9 Mean satisfaction score analyzed by study locations of Au Sable River anglers in 1986.* SATISFACTION SCORE EXTREMELY SATISFIED............................ 1 SATISFIED.................................................... 2 SLIGHTLY SATISFIED............. 3 SLIGHTLY DISSATISFIED......................... 4 DISSATISFIED............................................. 5 EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED....................... 6 SATISFACTION SCORE STUDY LOCATIONS MEAN STD DEV NUMBER MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 2 .3 1 .0 9 198 BELOW MAINSTREAM QUALITY SECTION 2 .5 1 .29 61 NORTH BRANCH QUALITY SECTION 2 .2 1 .0 0 77 SOUTH BRANCH NO-KELL SECTION 2 .2 1 .1 1 108 SCUIH BRANCH QUALITY SECTION EXCLUDING NO-KILL SECTION 2 .7 1 .1 1 85 ____________MEAN (TOTAL) *F=3.9303; DP=4/524; P=.0130 Table 12. 2 .4 1.12________ (529) Satisfaction with the day's fishing trip on the Au Sable River analyzed by trout catching "success" variables. SUCCESS VARTARTES PEARSON CORR. SIZE OF LARGEST TROUT CAUGHT .2206 CATCH RATE PER HOUR .1831 TOTAL TROUT CAUGHT .1472 NUMBER TROUT KEPT .1396 NUMBER 287 431 431 289 SIGN. < .001 < .001 .001 .009 APPENDIX P Map o f r e s id e n c e o f Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s 256 A ppendix P KEWEENAW NOUGHT 1 ONTONAGON 1 GOGEBIC MARQUETTE CHIPPEW A ALGER Q DICKIN SON SC H O O L CRAFT 1 0 DELTA 2 MACKINAC 1 0 EMME1 M EN O M - CHE­ BOYGAN 0 P R E S Q U E ISL ALPENA LEELANA OTSEGO 5 benzieT O U T -O F -S TA T E SOURCES 2 STATES WEXFORC 2 MANISTEE Ohio 0 MASON ARENAC GLADWIN Q I ndiana ( 1 4 ) OCEANA 0 ( 8) MECOSTA NEWAYGC BELLA HURON MIDLANC 20 3 TUSCOLA MONTCALM REGIONS U SKEGOM Northeast (13) OTTAWA Southeast (12) Southwest IO SC O 5 U CLARE Illinois ( 1 7 ) Northwest ALCONA 4 44 M ISS­ RO S­ OGEMAW AUKEE COMMON (66) Wi sconsin M ORENCT CRAW­ O SCO D A FORD KAL­ KASKA ^ !? m On t - VAN BUREN ( 1) S o u t h Midwest (1) s 1 KALAMAf CALHOUN ZOO 3 LAPEER 6 0 102 37 TENAW WAYNE 35 70 LENAWEE M ONROE JA C K SO N 9 3 OAKLAND INGHAM LIVING­ STON JO S E PH BRANCH HILLS— B ERRIEN 144) EATON BARRY 1 North Midwest (Total = 28 1 4 SANILAC 9 SHIA­ CLINTON W ASSEE ALLEGAN ( 4) (3 ) GRATIOT 7 (5) Canada 2 SAGINAW 3 (Total Michigan Residents = 6 7 6 ) Residence of Au Sable River Angler Sam ple (N = 8 2 0 ) ST CLAIR MA­ COMB APPENDIX Q (TABLES) V a r ia b le s r e l a t e d t o a t t i t u d e to w a rd s t h e An S a b le R iv e r c a tc h - a n d - r e le a s e r e g u la t io n 257 Table 1. APPENDIX Q Income level of Au Sable River anglers analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation. INCOME LEVEL SCAIE 1. UNDER $10,000 6. $30,000 2 . $10,000 t o $14,999 7. $35,000 3 . $15,000 t o $19,999 8. $40,000 4 . $20,000 t o $24,999 9 . $45,000 5 . $25.000 t o S29.999 10. $50.000 INCOME IEVEL ATmUDE TOWARDS SCALE (MEAN! PROPOSED NO-KILL REG. 6 .8 DISAPPROVE 6 .6 UNDECIDED / NO OPINION 8 .0 APFROVE TOTAL 7 .5 to to to to OR $34,999 $39,999 $44,999 $49,999 OVER 2 .8 3 3 .0 0 2 .4 9 NUMBER 181 103 378 2 .6 7 662 STD DEV [E=17.9340; DE=2,6 5 9 ; P<.0001; EEA SQUARED=.0516] T a b le 2 . E d u c a tio n l e v e l o f Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s a n a ly z e d by a t t i t u d e tc w a rd s t h e p ro p o sed Au S a b le R iv e r M ainstream c a tc h - a n d - r e le a s e r e g u l a t io n . EDUCATION LEVEL SCALE GRADE SCHOOL SCME HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL DIPICMA SCME OOLLEGE ASSOCIATE DEGREE (2-YR) COLLEGE DEGREE (B .S. o r B.A .) SCME GRADUATE, MEDICAL o r LAW SCHOOL ADVANCED DEGREE ATTITUDE TOWARDS EDUCATION LEVEL PROPOSED NO-KILL REG. SCAIE (MEAN} STD DEV NUMBER DISAPPROVE 5 .1 1 .93 196 UNDECIDED / NO OPINION 5 .4 1 .8 2 114 APPROVE 6 .0 1 .7 9 404 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TOTAL 5 .6 1 .8 3 [F=18.5449? DF=2,711; PC.0001; EEA SQUARED=.0496] 714 258 Table 3. APPENDIX Q Mean age (years) of Au Sable River anglers analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation. ATTITUDE TOWARDS FROPOSED NO-KILL REG. DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / NO OPINION APPROVE MEAN AGE (YEARS} 4 3 .6 37 .5 4 0 .8 STD DEV 1 5 .3 6 13 .1 5 1 3.03 NUMBER 196 114 404 4 1 .1 1 3.73 714 TOTAL [F=7.3655; DF=2,711; P=.0007; ETA SQUARED=.0203] T a b le 4 . T ro u t r e l e a s i n g b e h a v io r a n a ly z e d b y a t t i t u d e to w ard s t h e p ro p o sed Au S a b le R iv e r M ainstream c a tc h - a n d - r e le a s e r e g u la t io n . TROtTT RETEASING BEHAVIOR SCAIE 1. RELEASE ALL TROUT CAUGHT 2 . RELEASE MOST IEGAL TROUT CAUGHT 3 . KEEP MDST LEGAL TROUT CAUOTT 4 . KEEP ALL LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT (UP TO THE LIMIT) ATTITUDE TOWARDS TROUT RELEASING SCALE (MEAN} NUMBER PROPOSED NO-KELL REG. STD DEV 100 STRONGLY DISAPEROVE 0 .8 0 2 .8 DISAPPROVE 0 .9 3 61 2 .7 SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE 37 2 .6 0 .8 6 UNDECIDED / NO OPINION 0 .8 7 113 2 .5 SLIGHTLY APPROVE 2 .3 0 .9 4 28 APPROVE 2 .0 0 .9 2 104 268 STRONGLY APEROVE 0 .6 2 1 .5 TOTAL 2 .1 0 .7 8 [F=54.2561; DE=6,704; P<.0001; ETA SQUARED=.3162] 711 259 T a b le 5 . APPENDIX Q Y ears o f t r o u t f i s h i n g e x p e rie n c e a n a ly z e d by a t t i t u d e to w ard s t h e p ro p o sed Au S a b le R iv e r M ainstream c a tc h - a n d - r e le a s e r e g u l a t io n . ATLTLUDE TOWARDS YEARS OF TROUT FISHING PROPOSED NO-KILL REG. STD DEV EXPERIENCE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 26 .8 14.89 DISAPPROVE 2 0 .9 16.04 SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE 15 .6 11.85 UNDECIDED / NO OPINION 1 4.9 13.28 SLIGHTLY APPROVE 12.67 14.8 APFROVE 15 .6 13.87 STRONGLY APPROVE 1 8 .0 12.96 TOTAL 18.3 13.65 [F=8.5979; DF=6,699? PC.0001? ETA SQUARED=.0687] NUMBER 100 60 37 114 27 104 264 706 260 T a b le 6 . APPENDIX Q A t t i t u d e to w a rd s t h e p ro p o sed Au S a b le R iv e r M ainstream c a tc h - a n d - r e le a s e r e g u la tio n a n a ly z e d b y m em bership i n f i s h i n g o r g a n iz a tio n s , p r e f e r r e d f i s h s p e c ie s , ty i n g f l i e s and t r o u t f is h in g a f t e r d ark . ATTITUDE SCAIE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE -3 -2 DISAPPROVE -1 SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE 0 UNDECIDED / NO OPINION 1 SLIGHTLY APPROVE 2 APPROVE 3 STRONGLY APPROVE ATTITUDE VARIABLES_____________ SCALE (MEAN)_________STD DEV MEMBERSHIP IN FISH IN G ORGANIZATIONS: MEMHERS 1 .5 2 .0 7 NON-MEMBERS 0 .1 2 .2 0 TOTAL 0 .8 NUMBER 2 .1 3 370 346 716 [ F = 7 4 .8 6 1 7 ; D F = 1 ,7 1 4 ; P C .0 0 0 1 ; EEA SQUARED=.0949] PREFERRED F IS H SPE C IE S: TROUT 0 .9 OTHER SPECIES 0 .3 TOTAL 0 .8 2 .2 8 1 .8 7 629 90 2 .2 3 71 9 [ F = 4 .7 1 4 6 ; D P = 1 ,7 1 7 ? P = .0 3 0 2 ; EEA SQUARED=.0065] FLY TYING: YES NO TOTAL 1 .1 0 .3 2 .2 3 2 .1 7 44 9 256 0 .8 2 .2 1 705 [ F = 2 1 .1 5 1 8 ; D F = 1 ,7 0 3 ? P < .0 0 0 1 ; EEA SQUARED=.0292] TROUT F IS H AFTER DARK: YES 0 .7 NO 0 .9 TOTAL 0 .8 [ F = 1 .0 9 8 4 ; D F = 1 ,7 0 0 ; P = .2 9 5 0 ] 2 .3 6 1 .9 8 470 232 2 .2 4 702 APPENDIX Q 261 T a b le 7 . Money in v e s te d i n t r c u t f i s h i n g equipm ent a n a ly z e d by a t t i t u d e to w a rd s t h e p ro p o sed Au S a b le R iv e r M ainstream c a tc h - a n d - r e le a s e r e g u la tio n . ATTITUDE TCWARDS M3NEY IN TROUT FISHING PROPOSED NO-K ILL REG. STRONGLY DISAPPROVE DISAPPROVE SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / NO OPINION SLIGHTLY APPROVE APPROVE STRONGLY APPROVE TOTAL EQUIPMENT $1956 $ 931 $1814 $ 924 $ 755 $1370 $2431 STD DEV 3 1 4 2 .1 1 3 0 0 .1 2 8 6 3 .2 1 4 9 7 .3 8 2 4 .0 1 8 0 9 .8 3 0 7 2 .8 NUMBER 97 60 37 109 27 10 1 36? $1745 2 5 3 1 .0 6 93 [F = 7 .3 2 6 2 ; D F^=6,686; P < .0 0 0 1 ? ETA SQUARED=.0602] 262 Table 8. 0 NOT A REASON APPENDIX Q Motivations for trout fishing analyzed by attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River Mainstream catch-and-release regulation. 1 2 3 IMPORTANCE . SCALE 4 5 6 ATTITUDE TOWARDS IMPORTANCE PROPOSED NO -K ILL REG. SCAIE (MEAN) MOTIVATION: FOR FUN AND EXCITEMENT: DISAPPROVE 8 .2 UNDECIDED / NO OPINION 8 .4 APPROVE 8 .4 7 STD DEV 8 9 VERY IMPORTANT NUMBER 1 .5 0 1 .3 6 1 .3 1 196 IK 396 1 .3 7 706 2 .7 3 2 .8 2 2 .4 0 194 114 393 2 .5 7 701 1 .4 3 1 .2 9 1 .0 7 196 114 396 1 .2 2 706 8 .4 8 .4 8 .5 1 .2 7 1 .1 9 0 .9 7 197 114 396 TOTAL 8 .4 [1 ^ = 1 .8 2 9 0 ; D F = 2 ,7 0 4 ; I*= .1 6 1 3 ] 1 .1 0 707 3 .2 3 2 .8 5 2 .7 2 195 114 3 94 TOTAL 5 .1 2 .8 9 [ F = 3 .7 8 5 9 ; D F = 2 ,7 0 0 ; P = .0 2 3 2 ; EEA SQUARED=.0107] 7 03 TOTAL 8 .3 [ F = 0 .9 8 5 0 ; D F = 2 ,7 0 3 ; P = .3 7 4 0 ] MOTIVATION: DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / APPROVE FOR COMPANIONSHIP: 6 .4 NO OPINION 5 .9 6 .5 6 .3 TOTAL [F ^ = 2 .3 9 3 6 ; D F = 2 ,6 9 8 ; F*=.0921] MOTIVATION: DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / APPROVE TO GET AWAY AND RELAX: 8 .3 NO OPINION 8 .3 8 .4 TOTAL 8 .4 [ F = 0 .7 2 6 5 ; D F = 2 ,7 0 3 ? F*=.4840] MOTIVATION: DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / APPROVE MOTIVATION: DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / APFROVE TO ENJOY NATURE: NO OPINION TO ENJOY FISHING EQUIPMENT: 4 .6 NO OPINION 5 .1 5 .3 APPENDIX Q 263 Table 9. Attitude towards the proposed Au Sable River no-kill regulation analyzed by the irrportance of catching trout. ATTnUDE SCAIE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE DISAPPROVE SLIGHTLY DISAPPROVE UNDECIDED / NO OPINION SLIGHTLY APPROVE APFROVE STRONGLY APFROVE ATTITUDE IMPORTANCE OF SCAIE fMEAm STD DEV CATCHING TROUT NUMBER 1 . A f i s h i n g t r i p c a n b e s u c c e s s f u l t o me e v en i f I d o n 't c a tc h t r o u t . -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 STRONGLY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE AGREE AGREE TOTAL - 0 .7 2 0 .5 5 0 .7 6 1 .1 7 0 .8 7 2 .4 4 2 .2 8 2 .2 0 2 .1 4 2 .1 9 32 49 217 303 601 [ F = 8 .0 0 6 4 , D F = 3 /5 9 7 ; P C .0 0 0 1 , ETA SQUARED=.039] 2 . The b ig g e r t h e t r o u t I c a tc h , t h e b e t t e r t h e f i s h i n g trip . STRONGLY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE AGREE AGREE TOTAL 0 .4 3 0 .5 2 0 .9 4 1 .1 9 0 .8 7 2 .4 6 2 .1 9 2 .1 6 2 .1 9 2 .2 2 84 93 220 155 60 2 [ F = 3 .1 0 5 0 , D F = 3 /5 9 8 , P = .0 2 6 1 , ETA SQUARED=.015] 3 . When I go f i s h i n g , I am o n ly s a t i s f i e d when I c a tc h scare tro u t. STRONGLY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY STRONGLY TOTAL DISAGREE DISAGREE AGREE AGREE 1 .2 0 0 .7 8 0 .7 2 - 0 .0 9 0 .8 7 2 .1 2 2 .2 0 2 .1 5 2 .7 2 2 .2 1 243 19 6 117 49 602 [ F = 4 .9 6 4 7 , D F = 3 /5 9 8 , F*=.0021, EEA SQUARED3 . 0 2 4 ] APPENDIX Q 264 Table 9. Continued. IMPORTANCE OF ATmUEE CATCHING TRCXJT SCAIE (MEAN)________STD DEV NUMBER 4 . C a tc h in g a "tro p h y " t r o u t i s t h e b i g g e s t rew ard f o r me. 187 STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 .5 5 2 .3 3 142 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 0 .8 0 2 .1 3 174 SLIGHTLY AGREE 1 .0 9 2 .1 8 98 2 .1 8 STRONGLY AGREE 1.18 DOTAL 0.87 2 .2 2 601 [F=2.5456, DP=3/597# P = .0552, ETA SQUARED=.013] I t d o es n o t m a tte r t o me w hat ty p e o f STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 .6 2 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 0 .9 6 SLIGHTLY AGREE 0 .9 5 STRONGLY AGREE 0 .7 7 TOTAL 0 .8 7 t r o u t I c a tc h . 21 2 .1 3 108 2 .1 8 224 2 .1 9 249 2 .2 9 2 .2 3 602 [F=0.4241/ DF^=3/598, P = .7358, ETA SQUARED=.002] 6. How I c a tc h a t r o u t i s a s im p o rta n t t o me a s a c t u a l l y c a tc h in g o n e. 16 -1 .3 8 1 .8 6 STRONGLY DISAGREE SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 29 - 0 .4 8 2 .0 5 145 SLIGHTLY AGREE 0.44 2 .0 6 412 STRONGLY AGREE 2 .2 0 1 .2 1 TOTAL 0 .8 7 2 .1 5 602 [F=14.7976, DF=3/598, P < .0001, ETA SQUARED=.069] 7 . I f I th o u g h t I w ould f is h i n g . STRONGLY DISAGREE SLIGHTLY DISAGREE SLIGHTLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE n o t c a tc h t r o u t , I w ould n o t go 1 .0 0 0 .8 6 0 .9 8 0 .5 8 2 .2 4 2 .1 0 2 .1 2 2 .3 8 TOTAL 0 .8 7 2 .2 3 602 [F=1.1794, DF=3/598, P =.3168, EEA SQUARED=.006] 210 106 138 140 265 T a b le 9 . APPENDIX Q C o n tin u ed . IMPORTANCE OF ATTITUDE CATCHING TROUT SCAIE (MEAN!________STD DEV 8 . The more t r o u t I c a tc h t h e h a p p ie r I am. STRONGLY DISAGREE 0 .9 7 2 .2 3 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE 0 .7 6 2 .1 8 SLIGHTLY AGREE 0 .7 8 2 .23 STRONGIY AGREE 1.04 2 .2 8 NUMBER TOTAL 0 .8 7 2 .2 3 601 [F=0.5408, DF=3/597, P = .6545, ETA SQUARED=.003] 116 111 255 119 APPENDIX R (TABLES) V a r ia b le s r e l a t e d t o seg m e n ta tio n b a s e s f o r s tre a m t r o u t a n g le r s — Au S a b le R iv e r D ata 266 T a b le 1 . APPENDIX R Im p o rtan ce o f " n o - k i l l " t r o u t f i s h i n g a r e a s i n M ichigan t o Au S a b le R iv e r a n g le r s a n a ly z e d by f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n -co n su irp tiv e o r i e n t a t i o n and t r o u t f is h i n g i n t e n s i t y . IMPORTANCE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. OF "NO-KILL" AREAS SCAIE CRUCIAL VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT SEGMENTATION MEAN IMPORTANCE BASE SCAIE VALUE_______ STD DEV NUMBER FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION [1^=16.3661, DF=4/708, PC .0001, ETA SQUARED=. 085] LEVEL 1 5 .0 1 .3 6 27 IEVEL 2 3 .7 1 .7 0 62 IEVEL 3 4 .4 1 .9 0 36 IEVEL 4 3 .2 1 .84 202 LEVEL 5 2 .8 1 .94 386 TOTAL 3 .1 1 .8 7 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION ETA SQUARED=.252] IEVEL 1 5 .1 IEVEL 2 4 .4 LEVEL 3 4 .0 IEVEL 4 2 .9 IEVEL 5 2 .2 TOTAL TROUT IEVEL IEVEL IEVEL IEVEL IEVEL 3 .1 FISHING INTENSITY 1 3 .4 2 3 .4 3 3 .2 4 2 .9 5 3 .0 TOTAL 3.1 713 [1^=59.0468, DF=4/701, PC .0001, 1.43 1 .69 1 .77 1.83 1 .6 1 64 44 145 185 268 1 .6 9 706 [F=1.6881, DP=4/704, P=.1509] 1 .8 6 83 1 .77 96 1 .9 1 174 1 .98 181 2 .0 7 178 1.95 712 267 T a b le 2 . APPENDIX R D e sire d number o f c a tc h - a n d - r e le a s e t r o u t f is h i n g a r e a s i n M ichigan a n a ly z e d b y f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , non-consum ptive o r i e n t a t i o n and t r o u t fis h in g in te n s ity . IEVEL 2 IEVEL 4 IEVEL 5 IEVEL 1 U3E& 3 # % # % # % # % •# % ATTITUDE FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION [X2= 77.7762, DF=12, PC.0001, EEA=.2938] 17 2 7 .0 15 4 1 .7 119 5 8 .9 252 64.5 4 14.8 INCREASE 6 1 6 .9 4 1 4 .8 5 7 .9 33 16 .3 30 7 .7 DECREASE 1 6.3 61 22 3 4 .9 10 2 7 .8 33 15.6 STAY SAME 10 3 7 .0 19 30.2 8 .4 48 12.3 NO OPINION 5 1 3 .9 17 9 33.3 TOTAL 27 63 100.0 9 9 .9 36 1 0 0 .1 202 9 9 .9 391 100.1 NON-CONSUMPTIVE1 ORIENTATION [X2'=184.,9324, DF=12 , PC.0001, ETA=.4100] 7 15.9 11 17.2 48 3 3 .1 116 6 3 .0 214 INCREASE 7 15.9 4 .9 22 34.4 26 1 7 .9 9 14 DECREASE 16 36.4 STAY SAME 18 2 8 .1 43 2 9 .7 37 2 1 .1 21 14 31.8 28 19.3 20 NO OPINION 13 20.3 22 1 2 .0 TOTAL 64 100.0 44 100.0 TROUT FISHING INTENSITY INCREASE DECREASE STAY SAME NO OPINION TOTAL 36 6 15 27 4 2 .9 7 .1 1 7 .9 3 2 .1 84 1 0 0 .0 51 13 18 15 145 100 .0 184 100 .0 79.,6 5.,2 7.,8 7.,4 269 100.,0 [X2=57. 9639, DF=12 , PC. 0001, ETA=.2098] 52 .6 13.4 1 8.6 15.5 97 1 00 .1 90 11 50 24 5 1 .4 6 .3 2 8 .6 13.7 175 100 .0 119 26 19 19 6 5 .0 1 4 .2 1 0 .4 1 0 .4 183 1 0 0 .0 110 22 34 13 61.5 12.3 19.0 7 .3 179 100.1 268 T a b le 3 . APPENDIX R Im p o rta n c e o f " f l y - o n l y " t r o u t f is h i n g a r e a s in M i c h i g a n t o Au S a b l e R i v e r a n g l e r s a n a l y z e d b y f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n -c o n s u m p tiv e o r ie n ta tio n and tr o u t f is h in g in te n s ity . IMPORTANCE OF "FLY-ONLY" AREAS SCALE 1. CRUCIAL 2. VERY IMPORTANT 3. IMPORTANT 4. SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 5. SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 6. NOT IMPORTANT SEGMENTATION MEAN IMPORTANCE BASE_________________ SCALE VALUE_________ STD DEV_______ NUMBER FLY -FISH IN G SPECIA LIZA TIO N [ F = 6 2 .2 2 0 4 , D F = 4 /7 0 7 , P c . 0 0 0 1 , ETA SQUARED=.2 6 0 ] LEVEL 1 27 4 .8 1 .7 2 LEVEL 2 1 .6 5 63 3 .3 LEVEL 3 36 1 .8 1 3 .0 LEVEL 4 202 1 .9 1 .1 1 LEVEL 5 384 1 .1 2 1 .7 TOTAL NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION ETA SQUARED=.1 1 3 ] LEVEL 1 3 .3 LEVEL 2 2 .5 LEVEL 3 2 .4 LEVEL 4 2 .0 LEVEL 5 1 .7 TOTAL 1 .2 4 2 .1 [F = 2 2 .2 3 6 4 , 2 .1 TROUT FISH IN G INTENSITY [F = 4 .8 9 9 4 , ETA SQUARED=. 0 2 7 ] LEVEL 1 2 .7 LEVEL 2 2 .2 LEVEL 3 2 .1 LEVEL 4 1 .9 LEVEL 5 2 .0 TOTAL 2 .1 712 D F = 4 /7 0 0 , P C .0 0 0 1 , 1 .9 6 1 .8 0 1 .5 2 1 .2 8 1 .0 4 64 44 144 184 269 1 .3 7 705 D F = 4 /7 0 6 , P = . 0 0 0 7 1 .6 7 1 .3 6 1 .4 6 1 .3 0 1 .4 3 83 96 173 181 178 1 .4 3 711 APPENDIX R 269 Table 4. Years of trout fishing experience analyzed by fly-fishing specialization and trout fishing intensity. SEG M EN TA TIO N MEAN YEARS O F BA SE NUMBER E X P E R IE N C E ST D DEV F L Y -F IS H IN G S P E C IA L IZ A T IO N [F = 4 . 2 0 4 4 , D F = 4 /7 0 1 , P = . 0 0 2 3 , ETA SQ U A R ED =. 0 2 3 ] LEVEL 1 27 1 3 .3 1 4 .6 9 LEVEL 2 1 3 .0 62 1 3 .4 9 LEVEL 3 1 8 .3 35 1 2 .9 7 LEVEL 4 201 1 7 .8 1 2 .1 0 LEVEL 5 381 1 9 .8 1 4 .9 5 TO TA L 1 8 .3 TROUT F I S H I N G IN T E N S I T Y [F=19. 7623, ETA S Q U A R E D = . 1 0 2 ] LEVEL 1 1 0 .4 LEVEL 2 1 5 .7 LEVEL 3 1 6 .2 LEVEL 4 1 8 .9 LEVEL 5 2 4 .9 TO TA L 1 8 .3 1 3 .9 6 D F = 4/700, 706 P c .0 0 0 1 , 1 1 .2 4 1 3 .7 2 1 3 .3 4 1 1 .8 3 1 5 .5 1 82 94 171 180 178 1 3 .4 0 705 APPENDIX R 270 T a b le 5 . S e l f r e p o r t e d e x p e r i e n c e o f Au S a b l e R i v e r a n g le r s a n a ly z e d by f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n -c o n s u m p tiv e o r i e n t a t i o n an d t r o u t f i s h i n g in te n s ity . EXPERIENCE SCALE 1. BEGINNER 2. SOMEWHAT EXPERIENCE 3. EXPERIENCED 4. EXPERT SEGMENTATION MEAN EXPERIENCE NUMBER BASE LEVEL STD DEV FLY -FISH IN G SPECIALIZATION [ F = 1 1 .5 9 4 8 , D F = 4 /7 0 2 , P < .0 0 0 1 , ETA SQUARED=.0 6 2 ] LEVEL 1 27 2 .1 0 .8 6 LEVEL 2 62 2 .1 0 .8 7 LEVEL 3 36 2 .8 0 .7 4 LEVEL 4 201 2 .7 0 .7 5 LEVEL 5 381 2 .7 0 .8 1 TOTAL 2 .7 TROUT FISH IN G INTENSITY [F = 49 . 5 1 2 9 , ETA SQUARED=.2 2 0 ] LEVEL 1 1 .8 LEVEL 2 2 .4 LEVEL 3 2 .6 LEVEL 4 2 .8 LEVEL 5 3 .1 TOTAL 2 .7 0 .8 0 707 D F = 4 /7 0 1 , P < .0 0 0 1 , 0 .8 1 0 .7 2 0 .7 4 0 .7 4 0 .6 6 82 94 172 180 178 0 .7 3 706 APPENDIX R 271 T a b le 6 . M oney i n v e s t e d i n t r o u t f i s h i n g e q u i p m e n t ( e x c lu s iv e o f b o a ts ) a n a ly z e d by f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n -c o n s u m p tiv e o r i e n t a t i o n an d tr o u t fis h in g in te n s ity . SEGMENTATION MONEY INVESTED BASE_______________IN EQUIPMENT ($ ) STD DEV________ NUMBER FLY -FISH IN G SPECIALIZATION [ F = 8 .1 5 8 5 , D F = 4 /6 8 8 , P < .0 0 0 1 , ETA SQUARED35. 0 4 5 ] LEVEL 1 381 5 9 4 .5 25 LEVEL 2 479 6 9 6 .5 59 36 LEVEL 3 1115 1 5 5 9 .7 196 LEVEL 4 1676 2 1 8 2 .2 377 LEVEL 5 2129 3 0 1 3 .2 TOTAL 1745 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION ETA SQUARED=.0 4 7 ] LEVEL 1 1153 LEVEL 2 955 LEVEL 3 1028 LEVEL 4 1792 LEVEL 5 2355 TOTAL 1742 2 5 4 7 .3 [ F = 8 .4 8 0 0 , D F = 4 /6 8 6 , P C .0 0 0 1 , 3 4 0 2 .9 1 1 9 4 .8 1 3 9 4 .7 3 0 3 3 .6 2 5 9 3 .9 61 43 142 180 265 2 5 4 7 .7 691 TROUT FISH IN G INTENSITY [ F = 1 6 .8 4 2 3 , D F = 4 /6 8 7 , ETA SQUARED55. 0 8 9 ] LEVEL 1 892 1 9 2 7 .4 LEVEL 2 1035 1 7 0 1 .4 LEVEL 3 1163 1 5 0 7 .5 LEVEL 4 1877 2 5 2 9 .4 LEVEL 5 2946 3 5 5 3 .9 TOTAL 1747 693 2 4 8 9 .0 P C .0 0 0 1 , 81 90 170 176 175 692 APPENDIX R 272 T a b le 7 . Im p o rta n c e o f t r o u t f i s h i n g a s a r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y a n a ly z e d b y f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n -c o n s u m p tiv e o r i e n t a t i o n and tr o u t fis h in g in te n s ity . IMPORTANCE OF TROUT FISH IN G SCALE 1. MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITY 2. MORE IMPORTANT THAN MOST OTHER A C T IV IT IE S 3. IMPORTANT 4. SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 5. SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT 6. NOT VERY IMPORTANT SEGMENTATION MEAN IMPORTANCE STD DEV NUMBER SCALE VALUE BASE [ F = 2 9 . 3 2 6 2 , D F = 4 /7 0 1 , P < .0 0 0 1 , F L Y -FISH IN G SPECIALIZATION ETA SQUARED=.1 4 3 ] 2 .8 1 .3 4 26 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 3 .0 1 .1 4 62 LEVEL 3 2 .0 36 0 .7 9 2 0 1 LEVEL 4 2 .0 0 .8 0 LEVEL 5 1 .8 381 0 .8 8 TOTAL 2 .0 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION ETA SQUARED=.0 6 3 ] LEVEL 1 2 .3 LEVEL 2 2 .2 LEVEL 3 2 .3 LEVEL 4 2 .1 LEVEL 5 1 .7 TOTAL 0 .8 8 [ F = ll.7456, 2 .0 TROUT FISH ING INTENSITY [F = 4 0 . 3 2 5 0 , ETA SQUARED=.1 8 7 ] LEVEL 1 2 .8 LEVEL 2 2 .5 LEVEL 3 2 .2 LEVEL 4 1 .8 LEVEL 5 1 .5 TOTAL 2 .0 706 D F = 4 /6 9 9 , P < .0 0 0 1 , 1 .0 9 0 .9 5 0 .8 8 1 .0 1 0 .8 1 62 44 144 185 269 0 .9 2 704 D F = 4 /7 0 0 / P < . 0 0 0 1 , 1 .2 5 0 .8 5 0 .8 7 0 .7 9 0 .6 4 82 93 172 180 178 0 .8 5 705 APPENDIX R 273 Table 8. Voluntary trout releasing behavior analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, non-consumptive orientation and trout fishing intensity. TROUT RELEASING SCALE 1. RELEASE ALL TROUT CAUGHT 2. RELEASE MOST LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT 3. KEEP MOST LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT 4. KEEP ALL LEGAL TROUT CAUGHT (UP TO THE LEGAL LIM IT) SEGMENTATION MEAN TROUT BASE___________ RELEASING SCALE_________ STD DEV________NUMBER FLY -FISH IN G SPECIA LIZA TION [ F = 3 5 .0 3 4 2 , D F = 4 /7 0 6 , P c . 0 0 0 1 , ETA SQUARED=.1 6 6 ] 25 0 .7 9 3 .3 LEVEL 1 62 2 .8 0 .9 8 LEVEL 2 36 0 .9 2 LEVEL 3 2 .7 0 .8 5 197 LEVEL 4 2 .1 0 .8 7 LEVEL 5 1 .8 391 TOTAL NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION ETA SQUARED=.4 9 1 ] LEVEL 1 3 .4 LEVEL 2 3 .1 LEVEL 3 2 .6 LEVEL 4 2 .1 LEVEL 5 1 .4 TOTAL [F = 1 6 7 .4 9 1 2 , 2 .1 TROUT FISH IN G INTENSITY [ F = 1 0 .4 0 5 0 , ETA SQUARED=.0 5 6 ] LEVEL 1 2 .5 LEVEL 2 2 .3 LEVEL 3 2 .1 LEVEL 4 2 .0 LEVEL 5 1 .8 TOTAL 2 .1 711 0 .8 7 2 .1 D F = 4 /6 9 3 , P C .0 0 0 1 , 0 .7 0 0 .7 7 0 .7 4 0 .7 3 0 .5 9 62 44 142 183 267 0 .6 8 698 D F = 4 /7 0 5 , P < .0 0 0 1 , 1 .1 1 0 .9 6 0 .9 9 0 .8 3 0 .8 4 82 95 172 182 179 0 .9 3 710 APPENDIX R 274 Table 9. Membership in fishing organizations analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, non-oonsumptive orientation and trout fishing intensity. IEVEL 5 IEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 MEMBERSHIP # % # % # % # % # % FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION [X *=73.8751, DF=4, P < .0001 t ETA=.3212] YES 2 8 .0 10 1 6 .1 12 3 3 .3 101 5 0 .2 245 6 2 .5 NO 23 9 2 .0 52 8 3 .9 M 6 6 .7 100 4 9 .8 147 3 7 .5 TOTAL 25 1 0 0 .0 62 1 0 0 .0 36 1 0 0 .0 201 1 0 0 .0 392 1 0 0 .0 NON-OQNSUMPITVE ORIENTATION [X2==70.5609, DF=4, P < .0 0 0 1 , ETA=.3168] YES 10 1 6 .1 11 2 5 .0 64 4 4 .8 98 5 3 .0 179 NO 52 8 3 .9 33 7 5 .0 87 4 7 .0 90 79 5 5 .2 TOTAL 62 1 0 0 .0 44 1 0 0 .0 143 1 0 0 .0 185 1 0 0 .0 6 6 .5 3 3 .5 269 1 0 0 .0 TROUT FISHING INTENSITY [X2= 3 9 .6 6 1 5 , DF=4, P c .0 0 0 1 , ETA=.2355] YES 29 3 5 .4 38 3 9 .6 82 4 6 .9 96 5 2 .5 125 6 9 .8 NO 53 6 4 .6 58 6 0 .4 93 5 3 .1 87 4 7 .5 54 3 0 .2 TOTAL 82 100.0 96 100.0 175 100.0 183 100.0 179 100.0 275 Table 10. APPENDIX R Fly tying by Au Sable River anglers analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, non-consuirptive orientation and trout fishing intensity. IEVEL 5 IEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 IEVEL 3 IEVEL 4 FLY TYING # % # % # % # % # % FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION [X2==100.5952, DF=4, PC.0001, ETA=.3777] YES 1 3 .7 16 2 5 .8 18 5 0 .0 135 6 7.2 279 73.6 NO 26 9 6 .3 46 7 4 .2 18 5 0 .0 66 3 2.8 100 26.4 TOTAL 27 100.0 62 1 0 0 .0 36 100.0 201 100.0 379 100.0 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION [X2= 43.4601, DF=4, PC.0001, ETA=.2486] YES 28 4 5 .2 20 4 5 .5 73 5 0 .7 123 6 6 .5 203 NO 34 5 4 .8 65 24 5 4 .5 62 3 3 .5 71 4 9 .3 TOTAL 62 100.0 44 1 0 0 .0 144 100.0 185 100.0 75.7 24.3 268 100.0 TF£XJT FISHING INTENSITY [X2= 53.0443, DF=4, P <.0001, ETA=.2745] YES 36 4 3 .9 44 4 6 .8 99 5 7 .6 128 7 1 .1 141 80.1 NO 46 5 6 .1 50 5 3 .2 73 4 2 .4 52 2 8 .9 35 19.5 TOTAL 82 100.0 94 100.0 172 100.0 180 100.0 176 100.0 APPENDIX R 276 Table 11. Preferred fish species of Au Sable River anglers analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, nonconsurrptive orientation and trout fishing intensity. IEVEL 5 EREFERRED IEVEL 1 IEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 2 # % # % % SPECIES # % # %____ # FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION [X^=117.6112, DF=4, PC.0001, ETAr=.4042] TROUT 12 4 4 .4 36 5 7 .1 34 9 4 .4 176 8 7 .1 371 9 4 .6 21 5 .4 OTHER 15 5 5 .6 27 4 2 .9 26 12,9 _2 5 ,6 TOTAL 27 1 0 0.0 63 1 0 0 .0 36 100.0 202 100.0 392 100.0 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION [X2==36.4075, DF=4, PC.0001, ETA=.2269] TROUT 50 7 8 .1 36 8 1 .8 111 7 6 .6 164 8 8 .6 256 OTHER 14 2 1 .9 13 34 2 3.4 21 11.4 8 1 8.2 TOTAL 64 10 0 .0 44 1 0 0 .0 145 100 .0 185 100.0 9 5 .2 4 .8 269 100 .0 TROUT FISHING INTENSITY [X2=169.9688, DF=4, P<.0001, ETA=.4862] TROUT 41 4 8 .8 72 7 4 .2 160 9 1 .4 180 9 7 .5 176 9 8 .3 OTHER 43 5 1 .2 25 2 5 .8 15 8 .6 4 2 .2 3 1 .7 TOTAL 84 100.0 97 100.0 175 100.0 184 100.0 179 100.0 277 Table 12. APPENDIX R Au Sable River trout fishing after dark analyzed by fly-fishing specialization, non-oonsunptive orientation and trout fishing intensity. TROUT FISH IEVEL 1 AFTER DARK # IEVEL 2 %______ i _____% IEVEL 3 IEVEL 4 # ... # % IEVEL 5 %______ i _____L _ FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION [3^=55.9486, DE^=4, P< .0001, ETA=.2821] YES 6 2 3 .1 22 3 6 .1 26 7 4 .3 146 7 2 .3 271 NO 20 7 6 .9 39 6 3 .9 9 2 5 .7 56 2 7 .7 108 TOTAL 26 1 0 0 .0 61 100.0 35 100.0 202 1 0 0 .0 379 7 1 .5 2 8 .5 100.0 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION [X2= 16.2502, DE^=4, P= .0027, ETA?=.1523] YES 35 5 4 .7 24 5 4 .5 86 6 0 .6 128 6 9 .6 197 7 3 .8 NO 29 4 5 .3 20 4 5 .5 56 3 9 .4 56 3 0 .4 70 2 6 .2 TOTAL 64 1 0 0 .0 44 1 00.0 142 100.0 184 1 0 0 .0 267 100 .0 TROUT FISHING INTENSITY [X2=49.7134, DF=4, P c.0 0 0 1 , ETA=.2661] YES 38 4 6 .3 45 4 7 .9 116 6 8 .2 128 7 1 .5 144 8 1 .4 NO 44 5 3 .7 49 5 2 .1 54 3 1 .8 51 2 8 .5 33 1 8 .6 TOTAL 82 100.0 94 100.0 170 100.0 179 100.0 177 100.0 278 Table 13. APPENDIX R Reasons for selecting an Au Sable River fishing site analyzed by fly-fishing specialization. REASON FOR SELECTING A SITE SCAIE 1. PRIMARY REASON 2 . SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 3 . NOT A REASON FLY-FISHING MEAN REASON NUMHER SPECIALIZATION________ SCALE____________ STD DEV —EASY ACCESS TO THE RIVER: [F=5.2450, DF=4/713, P=.000 EEA SQUARED3. 029] [X2=20.9494, P=.0003]* 26 1 .6 0 .9 0 IEVEL 1 63 0 .8 5 IEVEL 2 1 .8 36 1 .8 0 .84 IEVEL 3 0 .7 8 202 LEVEL 4 1 .9 391 0 .7 9 LEVEL 5 2 .1 TOTAL 2 .0 0 .8 0 718 —CLOSE TO HOME/CABIN OR CAMPGROUND: [P=3.5810, DF=4/714, P=.0067, ETA SQUARED=.020] [X2= 11.5773, P*=.0208] IEVEL 1 26 2 .1 0 .9 9 IEVEL 2 2 .3 0 .9 0 63 IEVEL 3 1 .9 0 .9 1 36 LEVEL 4 2 .3 0.82 202 LEVEL 5 392 2 .4 0 .78 TOTAL 2 .3 0.82 719 —A FRIEND SUGGESTED IT : [F=2.7201, DF=4/712, P=.0 2 8 7 , EEA SQUARED3. 015] [X2= 9.9812, P=.0407] IEVEL 1 2 .2 0 .9 5 26 IEVEL 2 0 .94 2 .2 63 IEVEL 3 0 .8 1 2 .5 36 LEVEL 4 2 .4 0 .84 202 LEVEL 5 2 .5 0 .8 0 390 TOTAL 2 .4 0.83 **THCUGHT THERE WOULD BE FEWER ANGLERS: [FKL.0029, DF=4/713, P=.4052] [X2= 4.3557, P=.3600] TOTAL 2 .4 0 .7 6 717 718 279 Table 13. APPENDIX R Continued FLZ-FISHING MEAN REASON SPECIALIZATION________ SCAIE_____________STD DEV NUMBER **EXPECTED TO CATCH IARGER FISH: [F=0.8736, DP=4/714, P=.4793] [X2= 3 .7976, P=.4341] TOTAL 2 .1 0 .8 7 719 **EXPECTED TO CATCH MORE FISH: [F=0.5369, DP=4/714, P=.7086] [X2= 2 .2 1 0 8 , P=.6971] 719 TOTAL 2 .0 0 .8 5 —TRADITIONAL FISHING AREAS I'M FAMILIAR WITH: [P^=9.702: DF=4/712, P ! 6 __________ NOT IMPORTANT VERY IMPORTANT NON-CONSUMPTIVE MEAN ORIENTATION___________________ SUCCESS________STD DEV_______ NUMBER [ F = 6 .4 3 5 1 , D F = 4 /7 0 8 , P C .0 0 0 1 , ETA SQUARED=.0 3 5 ] LEVEL 1 170 3 .0 2 8 .3 LEVEL 2 102 9 .1 2 .9 3 LEVEL 3 248 2 .7 6 8 .1 LEVEL 4 136 2 .4 3 7 .4 LEVEL 5 57 2 . 9 4 7 .5 TOTAL 8.1 2 .8 1 713 APPENDIX S 294 T a b le 1 3 . I m p o r t a n c e o f t r o u t f i s h i n g m e th o d i n s a t i s f a c t i o n o f M ic h i g a n s t r e a m t r o u t a n g l e r s a n a ly z e d by f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n ­ c o n s u m p tiv e o r i e n t a t i o n a n d t r o u t f i s h i n g in te n s ity . IMPORTANCE OF FISH IN G METHOD SCALE 1 A A v v NOT IMPORTANT VERY IMPORTANT MEAN SEGMENTATION STD DEV NUMBER IMPORTANCE BASE FLY -FISH IN G SPECIA LIZA TIO N : [ F = 6 . 8 2 2 6 , D F = 4 /7 1 2 , P C .0 0 0 1 ETA SQUARED=.0 3 7 ] 372 2 .6 1 .0 2 LEVEL 1 264 2 .8 1 .0 1 LEVEL 2 3 .1 0 .8 9 22 LEVEL 3 3 .1 0 .7 9 34 LEVEL 4 25 3 .4 0 .9 2 LEVEL 5 1 .0 0 CO • 04 TOTAL NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION : [F = 3 . 7 4 7 8 , ETA SQUARED=.0 2 1 ] LEVEL 1 2 .6 LEVEL 2 2 .7 LEVEL 3 2 .7 LEVEL 4 2 .9 LEVEL 5 3 .2 TROUT FISH IN G IN TEN SITY : ETA SQUARED=.0 4 7 ] LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 TOTAL CO • 04 TOTAL [F = 8 .7 5 0 0 , 717 D F = 4 /7 1 3 , P = . 0 0 5 0 1 .1 5 0 .9 3 0 .9 4 0 .9 5 1 .0 5 171 103 249 138 57 1 .0 0 718 D F = 4 /7 1 6 , P C .0 0 0 1 , 2 .6 3 .0 2 .7 3 .3 3 .4 1 .0 3 0 .9 8 0 .9 4 0 .7 0 0 .8 4 447 131 83 46 14 2 .8 0 .9 9 721 APPENDIX S 295 T a b le 1 4 . P e rc e n t o f le g a l t r o u t v o lu n ta r ily r e le a s e d in 1 9 8 6 b y M ic h i g a n s t r e a m t r o u t a n g l e r s a n a l y z e d b y f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n -c o n s u m p tiv e o r ie n ta tio n and t r o u t f is h in g i n t e n s i t y . PERCENT TROUT SEGMENTATION STD DEV BASE RELEASED FLY -FISH IN G SPECIA LIZA TIO N : [ F = 1 2 .7 5 5 5 , D F = 4 /4 2 8 , ETA SQUARED=.1 0 6 5 3 2 .6 6 LEVEL 1 2 2 .6 3 1 .9 0 LEVEL 2 2 5 .4 3 1 .7 3 7 .9 1 LEVEL 3 3 9 .6 3 LEVEL 4 5 1 .9 3 3 .2 6 LEVEL 5 7 1 .3 TOTAL 2 8 .0 TROUT FISH IN G INTENSITY: ETA SQUARED=.0 2 1 ] LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 TOTAL 2 7 .9 [F = 2 .3 3 8 9 , 3 1 .0 7 D F = 4 /4 2 9 , 193 176 19 27 18 433 3 3 .2 6 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION: [F = 2 9 . 8 7 8 7 , D F = 4 /4 3 0 , ETA SQUARED=.2 1 7 5 LEVEL 1 2 0 .9 9 1 0 .4 LEVEL 2 2 3 .5 8 1 7 .1 LEVEL 3 3 2 .1 7 2 6 .3 LEVEL 4 3 8 .1 7 4 2 .8 LEVEL 5 1 7 .3 4 1 .6 9 TOTAL NUMBER P C .0 0 0 1 , P C .0 0 0 1 , 106 61 144 88 36 435 P = .0 5 4 5 , 2 3 .2 3 2 .1 25.8 37.0 37.0 3 3 .2 0 3 5 .1 7 33.01 38.83 46.60 191 116 69 44 14 27.8 34.78 4 34 APPENDIX S 296 T a b le 15. R esid en cy o f M ichigan s tre a m t r o u t a n g le r s a n a ly z e d b y f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and n o n -c o n su n p tiv e o rie n ta tio n . IEVEL 1 IEVEL 2 IEVEL 3 IEVEL 4 IEVEL 5 RESIDENCE # %_______ #___%_______ #___% # % # % FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION: [X2= 11.0391, VF=4, P = .0261, EEA=.1238] MICHIGAN 347 9 3 .0 243 9 1 .4 20 9 5 .2 34 9 7 .1 19 7 6 .0 OTHER 26 7 .0 23 8 .6 1 4 .8 1 2 .9 6 24. 0 TOTAL 373 1 0 0 .0 266 1 0 0.0 21 1 0 0 .0 35 100 .0 25 100.0 NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATION: [X2= 9 .96309, DF=4, P= .0411, EEA=.1176] MICHIGAN 164 9 5 .9 99 94. 3 228 9 1 .6 125 8 9 .9 48 84. 2 OTHER 7 4.1 6 5.7 21 8.4 14 1 0 .1 9 15.8 TOTAL 171 1 0 0.0 105 1 0 0.0 249 100 .0 139 100 .0 57 100.0 APPENDIX T (TABLES) T ro u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t io n v a r i a b l e r e l a t e d t o se g m e n ta tio n b a s e s f o r s tre a m t r o u t a n g l e r s — Au S a b le R iv e r and M ichigan s tre a m t r o u t a n g le r s 297 T a b le 1. APPENDIX T O p in io n s r e l a t e d t o f i s h i n g r e g u la tio n s a n a ly z e d b y f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n l e v e l s . OPINION SPORE 2 = STRONGLY AGREE 1 = AGREE 0 = UNDECIDED - 1 = DISAGREE ______________________-2 = STRONGLY DISAGREE_________________ FLY-FISHING MEAN OPINION SPECIALIZATION SPORE_____________STD DEV NUMBER OPINION: T ro u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s a r e o v e r ly p r o t e c t i v e and s h o u ld b e r e la x e d s a n e . LEVEL 1 128 - 0 .7 1.04 IEVEL 2 - 0 .9 91 0 .84 IEVEL 3 19 1 .07 - 0 .8 IEVEL 4 70 0 .98 - 1 .1 IEVEL 5 95 0 .77 - 1 .3 403 Mean - 1 .0 0 .9 5 [F=8.1064, DF=4/398, P < .0001, ETA SQUARED=.075] [X2= 34.2666, PC .0001]1 [R2= .0 7 2 , 2-TAHED SIGN. < .0 0 0 1 ]2 OPINION: Each s tre a m o r l o c a l a r e a s h o u ld h av e i t s own s e t o f t r o u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t io n s w hich i s b e s t s u i t e d f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s tre a m o r a r e a . LEVEL 1 127 - 0 .2 1.33 IEVEL 2 1 .27 92 0 .2 IEVEL 3 - 0 .1 1 .37 19 IEVEL 4 70 0 .5 1 .28 96 IEVEL 5 1 .3 0 0 .8 404 Mean 1 .3 0 0 .2 [F=7.8321, DF=4/399, P< .0001. ETA SQUARED=.073] [X2= 31.0490, P<.0001] [ R ^ .0 6 7 , 2-TAIIED SIGN. <.0001] 298 Table 1. APPENDIX T Continued. FLY-FISHING MEAN OPINION NUMBER SPECIALIZATION SCORE_____________STD DEV OPINION: F is h in g r e g u l a t io n s d e t r a c t from my t r o u t f is h i n g e x p e rie n c e . 128 0 .9 5 LEVEL 1 - 0 .9 92 IEVEL 2 - 0 .9 0 .9 1 19 LEVEL 3 0.69 - 1 .2 70 LEVEL 4 0 .83 - 1 .3 96 LEVEL 5 0 .87 - 1 .4 405 0 .8 9 Mean - 1 .1 [F=6.9946, DF=4/400, P <.0001. ETA SQUARED=.065] [X2=35.5992, P<.0001] [R2= .0 6 5 , 2-TAHED SIGN.<.0001] OPINION: C a rp e tin g w ith my t r o u t f is h i n g com panions i s an im p o rta n t p a r t o f my t r o u t f i s h i n g e x p e rie n c e . IEVEL 1 128 1.26 - 0 .4 92 LEVEL 2 1.2 6 - 0 .4 19 IEVEL 3 - 0 .5 1.43 LEVEL 4 70 - 1 .0 0 .9 9 97 IEVEL 5 0 .94 - 1 .1 406 Mean 1 .1 6 - 0 .7 [^= 6.7841, DF=4/401, P <.0001. ETA SQUARED=.063] [X2= 23.1900, P=.0001] [ R ^ .0 5 7 , 2-TAILED SIGN. <.0001] OPINION: T ro u t f i s h i n g r e g u la tio n s a r e n o t e n fo rc e d a d e q u a te ly . IEVEL 1 0 .0 1 .0 6 IEVEL 2 0 .1 1.04 IEVEL 3 0 .5 1.07 IEVEL 4 1.16 0 .4 IEVEL 5 0 .7 0.94 Mean 1.0 5 0 .3 [F=6.4584, DF=4/400, P<.0001. EEA SQ(IARED=.061] [X2= 25.4857, P<.0001] [R —.0 5 6 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] 128 92 19 70 96 405 299 Table 1. APPENDIX T Continued. FLY-FISHING MEAN OPINION NUMBER SPECIALIZATION SPORE__________ STD DEV OPINION: CNR Law E n fo rcem ent i s to o s t r i c t i n i t s e n fo rc em en t o f t r o u t f is h i n g r e g u la tio n s . 128 0.84 IEVEL 1 - 0 .9 92 IEVEL 2 - 1 .0 0 .78 19 IEVEL 3 - 1 .2 0 .7 6 70 LEVEL 4 - 1 .1 0.73 97 0 .6 1 IEVEL 5 “ 1 .3 406 0 .7 5 Mean - 1 .1 [F=3.5378, DF=4/401, P= .0075, ETA SQUARED=.034] [X2= 13 .3 2 9 7 , P=.0098] [R2= .0 3 1 , 2-TAILED SIGN.= .0004] OPINION: I t r u s t t h e CNR F i s h e r i e s D iv is io n t o manage t h e S t a t e 's t r o u t f i s h e r i e s re s o u r c e i n a f a i r and r e a s o n a b le m anner. 128 IEVEL 1 0 .7 0 .88 92 LEVEL 2 0 .7 0.94 LEVEL 3 19 0 .4 0 .9 0 IEVEL 4 70 0 .6 0 .98 96 IEVEL 5 0 .3 1.03 405 Mean 0 .6 0 .9 5 [F=3.1388, DF=4/400/ P= .0147. ETA SQUARED=.030] [X2= 13 .0 6 3 3 , P=.0110] [R2= .0 1 9 , 2-TATTED SIGN.= .0056] OPINION: M ost f i s h i n g r e g u l a t io n s have a sound b i o l o g i c a l b a s is . IEVEL 1 0 .7 0 .77 128 LEVEL 2 0 .8 92 0 .74 IEVEL 3 0 .4 0 .9 6 19 IEVEL 4 0 .6 0 .84 70 0 .9 6 97 IEVEL 5 0 .4 Mean 0 .6 0 .83 406 [F=2.9384, DF=4/401f B=.0205, ETA SQUARECN.029] [X2= 10 .1 4 4 2 , P=.0381] [R2= .0 1 8 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.= .0062] APPENDIX T 300 Table 1. Continued. FLY-FISHING MEAN OPINION NUMBER SPECIALIZATION SCORE_____________SID DEV OPINION: I t w ould u p s e t roe t o b e checked by a C o n se rv a tio n O f f i c e r w h ile I am t r o u t f is h i n g . 128 0.74 LEVEL 1 - 1 .2 92 0 .89 IEVEL 2 - 1 .2 19 - 1 .4 0 .77 IEVEL 3 69 IEVEL 4 - 1 .4 0 .8 1 97 IEVEL 5 0 .8 1 “It 5 405 Mean - 1 .3 0 .8 1 [F=2.2275, DF=4/400, P=.0654. ETA SQUARED=.022]* [X2= 15 .1 6 2 0 , P=.0044] [R2= .0 2 0 , 2-TAHED SIGN.=.0040] xK ru s k a l-W a llis one-way ANOVA, CHI SQUARE c o r r e c te d f o r t i e s 2sim p l e l n e a r reg ression * n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t 0 .0 5 a lp h a l e v e l T a b le 2 . T ro u t a n g l e r s ' o p in io n s a b o u t p e n a l t i e s f o r t r o u t f i s h i n g v i o l a t i o n s a n a ly z e d by f l y ­ fis h in g s p e c ia liz a tio n le v e l. FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION IEVEL 1 2 3 4 5 % % % % % (N=1281 m=92^ (N=19) (N=70) tt£=97) OPINION: P e n a l t i e s f o r t r o u t f is h i n g v i o l a t i o n s s h o u ld b e : INCREASED 2 8 .9 2 7 .2 4 1 .4 2 1 .1 5 4 .6 THE SAME 4 6 .1 4 4 .6 4 7.4 31.4 2 6 .8 DECREASED 1 0 .2 7 .6 5 .3 1 .4 0 .0 NO OPINION 1 4 .8 2 0 .7 2 6.3 2 5.7 1 8 .6 T o ta l 1 0 0 .0 10 0 .1 100.1 *CHI-SQUARE=38.99458, DF=12, P=.0001 9 9 .9 100.0 301 Table 3. APPENDIX T Opinions related to fishing regulations analyzed by non-consumptive orientation level. OPINION SCORE 2 = STRCNGIY AGREE 1 = AGREE 0 = UNDECIDED - 1 = DISAGREE -2 = STRONGLY DISAGREE NON-CONSUMPTIVE MEAN OPINION STD DEV NUMBER ORIENTATION SCORE p r o t e c tiv e OPINION: T ro u t f i s h i n g r e g u la t io n s a r e o v e r ly an d s h o u ld b e r e la x e d s a n e . 77 1 .15 IEVEL 1 - 0 .4 47 0.92 LEVEL 2 - 0 .6 107 0.87 IEVEL 3 - 0 .9 88 0 .8 9 IEVEL 4 —1 .2 84 0 .5 5 IEVEL 5 - 1 .5 403 0 .88 Mean - 1 .0 [F=17.9136, DF=4/398, P<.0001/ ETA SQUARED=.153] [X2= 62.7782, P < .0 0 0 1 ]1 [R2= .1 5 1 , 2-TAIIED S IG N .<.0001]2 OPINION: F is h in g r e g u l a t io n s d e t r a c t frcan my t r o u t f i s h i n g e x p e rie n c e . LEVEL 1 1 .10 77 - 0 .7 IEVEL 2 47 0.94 - 0 .8 IEVEL 3 109 0 .8 8 - 1 .0 IEVEL 4 87 0.74 - 1 .3 LEVEL 5 0.62 85 - 1 .6 0 .8 6 405 Mean - 1 .1 [F=15.2644, DF=4/400, P<. 0001, ETA SQUARED=.132] [R2= . 128, 2-TAIIED [X2= 3 7 .2 3 2 1 / P<.0001] SIGN. < .0001] OPINION: C cm peting w ith my t r o u t f is h i n g com panions i s an im p o rta n t p a r t o f my t r o u t f is h i n g e x p e rie n c e . IEVEL 1 - 0 .5 1.22 78 LEVEL 2 - 0 .0 1.27 47 IEVEL 3 - 0 .6 1 .1 1 108 IEVEL 4 - 0 .9 1.14 88 LEVEL 5 1 .0 6 - 1 .1 85 Mean - 0 .7 1 .15 406 [F=7.7565, DF=4/401, P<.0001/ ETA SQUARED=.072] [X2= 3 7 .3 8 4 8 / P=.0001] [R2= .0 5 1 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.< .0001] 302 Table 3. APPENDIX T Continued. NON-CONSUMPTIVE MEAN OPINION NUMBER ORTFNTATION______ SCORE__________ STD DEV OPINION: T ro u t f is h i n g r e g u l a t io n s a r e n o t e n fo rc e d a d e q u a te ly . 78 IEVEL 1 0 .0 1 .1 7 47 IEVEL 2 - 0 .2 0 .9 6 0 .3 107 IEVEL 3 0 .9 9 88 IEVEL 4 0 .4 1 .13 85 IEVEL 5 0 .7 0 .9 7 Mean 405 0 .3 1 .0 5 [F=6.9077, DF=4/400, P<.0001. ETA SQUAREEN.065] [X2= 26.9163, P<.0001] [R2= .0 5 5 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] OPINION: I t would u p s e t me t o be check ed by a C o n s e rv a tio n O f f i c e r w h ile I am t r o u t f i s h i n g . 78 0 .7 8 IEVEL 1 - 1 .1 46 IEVEL 2 - 1 .2 0 .8 4 108 IEVEL 3 - 1 .3 0 .8 4 88 0 .9 3 IEVEL 4 - 1 .4 _85 - 1 .6 0 .5 5 IEVEL 5 405 Mean - 1 .3 0 .8 0 [F=5.1907, DF=4/400, P=.0004. ETA SQUARED=.049] [X2= 26.5017, P<.0001] [R2= .0 4 4 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] OPINION: CNR Law Enforcem ent i s to o s t r i c t i n i t s en fo rcem en t o f t r o u t f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . IEVEL 1 - 0 .9 0 .9 0 IEVEL 2 - 0 .9 0 .6 7 0 .6 8 LEVEL 3 - 1 .0 IEVEL 4 0 .7 7 - 1 .1 IEVEL 5 - 1 .4 0 .6 9 Mean 0 .7 5 - 1 .1 [F=5.1228, DF=4/401, P=.0005. EEA SQUARED=.049] [X2=23.4706, P=.0001] [R2=.043, 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] 78 47 108 88 85 406 303 Table 3. APPENDIX T Continued. NON-CONSUMPTIVE MEAN OPINION ORIENTATION______ SCORE__________ SIP DEV NUMBER OPINION: Each stream or local area should have its cwn set of trout fishing regulations which is best suited for that particular stream or area. 78 1 .3 8 IEVEL 1 0 .1 47 1 .2 6 - 0 .1 LEVEL 2 107 1 .3 2 LEVEL 3 0 .1 87 1 .3 4 0 .4 IEVEL 4 85 0 .6 1 .3 1 IEVEL 5 404 1 .3 0 Mean 0 .2 [P=3.4319/ DF=4/399, P=.0090, ETA SQUARED=.033] [X2= 14.5805, B=.0057] [ R ^ .0 2 1 , 2-TAILED SIGN.= .0032] OPINION: Most trout fishing violations occur because anglers do not know the regulations, not because anglers deliberately break the laws. 78 1 .2 4 IEVEL 1 - 0 .2 47 1 .0 6 IEVEL 2 - 0 .1 108 1 .0 7 IEVEL 3 - 0 .5 87 1 .0 4 IEVEL 4 - 0 .5 85 - 0 .7 0 .9 8 LEVEL 5 405 1 .0 8 Mean - 0 .4 [F=3.1152, DF=4/400, P=.0152. ETA SQUARED=.030] [X2= 11.5690, P=.0209] [R2= .0 2 4 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.=.0020] OPINION: Conservation Officers are usually fair in their treatment of anglers. 78 IEVEL 1 0 .8 6 0 .8 0 .6 4 47 IEVEL 2 0 .7 108 IEVEL 3 0 .8 2 0 .7 IEVEL 4 0 .8 4 87 0 .8 0 .7 0 85 IEVEL 5 1 .1 0 .7 9 405 Mean 0 .8 [F=2.8697, DF=4/400f P=.0229, ETA SQUARED=.028] [X2= 12.7269, P=.0127] [ R ^ .0 1 1 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.= .0324] -^-Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA, CHE SQUARE corrected for ties 2SIMPIE LINEAR REGRESSION APPENDIX T 304 Table 4. Trout anglers' opinions about penalties for trout fishing violations analyzed by non­ consumptive orientation level.* NON-CONSUMPTIVE ORIENTATIONS IEVEL 2 3 4 5 1___ % % % % % _____________ (N=79) (N=471 (N=1081 (N=88l fN=84) OPINION: P e n a l t i e s f o r t r o u t f i s h i n g v i o l a t i o n s s h o u ld b e: 54 .8 2 2 .8 3 0 .6 4 4.3 2 3 .4 INCREASED 26.2 3 9 .2 3 7 .5 5 7 .4 4 1 .7 THE SAME 0 .0 1 6 .5 4 .3 3 .7 3 .4 DECREASED 1 9 .0 2 1 .5 1 4 .9 2 4 .1 14.8 NO OPINION T o ta l 100.0 1 0 0 .0 100 .1 100.0 1 00.0 *CHI-SQUARE=51.02684, DF=12, P<.0001 T a b le 5 . O p in io n s r e l a t e d t o f i s h i n g r e g u la tio n s a n a ly z e d by t r o u t f i s h i n g i n t e n s i t y l e v e l s . OPINION SCORE 2 = STRONGLY AGREE 1 = AGREE 0 = UNDECIDED - 1 = DISAGREE ______________________-2 = STRONGLY DISAGREE_________________ TROUT FISHING MEAN OPINION ______ INTENSITY_________ SPORE_____________STD DEV NUMBER OPINION: T ro u t f is h i n g r e g u l a t io n s a r e o v e r ly p r o te c t iv e and s h o u ld b e r e la x e d s a n e . 166 IEVEL 1 - 0 .7 1.02 64 IEVEL 2 - 0 .9 0 .98 IEVEL 3 - 1 .0 66 0 .88 54 IEVEL 4 - 1 .2 0 .7 9 - 1 .4 0 .77 54 IEVEL 5 Mean - 1 .0 0.93 404 [F=6.6418, DF=4/399, P<.0001. ETA SQUARED=.062] [X2=28.0201, P<.0001]1 [R^.062, 2-TAIIED SIGN. <.0001]2 305 Table 5. APPENDIX T Continued. TROUT FISHING MEAN OPINION _______INTENSITY__________ SPORE_____________ SID DEV NUMBER OPINION: Ccnrpeting with ray trout fishing companions is an important part of my trout fishing experience. 166 1.27 LEVEL 1 - 0 .5 64 1.23 IEVEL 2 - 0 .4 68 1 .0 5 IEVEL 3 - 0 .8 54 IEVEL 4 1 .0 1 - 1 .1 55 0.93 LEVEL 5 - 1 .1 407 1.15 Mean - 0 .7 [F=6.4248, DF=4/402, £= .0001, ETA SQUARED=.060] [X2= 24.2340, £=.0001] [R2= .0 5 2 , 2-dJAIIED SIGN. < .0001] OPINION: Fishing regulations detract from my trout fishing experience. 165 IEVEL 1 1 .00 - 0 .8 64 IEVEL 2 0.82 - 1 .1 68 IEVEL 3 0 .7 1 - 1 .2 54 IEVEL 4 0.87 - 1 .4 55 0.87 IEVEL 5 - 1 .4 406 0.90 Mean - 1 .1 [F=6.2601, D£=4/401, £= .0001. ETA SQUARED=.059] [X2=27.5159, P<.0001] [R2= .0 5 5 , 2-TAIIED SIGN. <.0001] OPINION: Trout fishing regulations are not enforced adequately. IEVEL 1 166 0.99 0 .0 IEVEL 2 64 1.18 0 .3 IEVEL 3 1 .05 68 0 .4 IEVEL 4 1.13 54 0 .5 IEVEL 5 1.06 54 0 .7 1.06 406 Mean 0 .3 [£=4.9580, DF=4/401, £=.0007. ETA SQUARED=.047] [X2=19.5140, £=.0006] [R2=.046, 2-^TAIIED SIGN. <.0001] 306 Table 5. APPENDIX T Continued. TPOUT FISHING MEAN OPINION _____ INTENSITY________ SCOPE__________ STD DEV NUMBER OPINION: CNR Law Enforcement is too strict in its enforcement of trout fishing regulations. 166 0 .8 1 IEVEL 1 - 0 .9 64 0.7 1 IEVEL 2 - 1 .1 68 0 .6 5 - 1 .1 IEVEL 3 54 0 .7 5 - 1 .2 IEVEL 4 55 0.72 IEVEL 5 - 1 .3 407 Mean 0.75 - 1 .1 [F=4.2104, DF=4/402, P=.0024. ETA SQUARED=.040] [X2= 17.8071, P=.0013] [R2=.038, 2-TAIIED SIGN.= .0001] OPINION: Each stream or local area should have its cwn set of trout fishing regulations which is best suited for that particular stream or area. 165 IEVEL 1 0 .0 1.32 63 1.32 IEVEL 2 0 .3 68 IEVEL 3 0 .3 1.29 54 IEVEL 4 0 .6 1.34 55 1.40 IEVEL 5 0 .6 405 Mean 1.33 0 .2 [F=3.7231, DF=4/400, P=.0055. ETA SQUARED=.036] [X2= 15 .6 0 2 1 , P=.0036] [R2= .0 3 3 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.= .0002] OPINION: Conservation Officers are usually fair in their treatment of anglers. IEVEL 1 166 0 .7 0.79 IEVEL 2 0 .90 64 0 .8 IEVEL 3 0 .8 0 .85 68 IEVEL 4 0 .6 1 53 0 .9 IEVEL 5 1 .1 0.74 55 Mean 0 .8 0.79 406 [F=2.9110, DF=4/401, P=.0214. ETA SQUARED=.028] [X2=12.7968, P=.0123] [R^.025, 2-TAIIED SIGN.=.0013] 307 Table 5. APPENDIX T Continued. TROUT FISHING MEAN OPINION ______ INTENSITY_________ SCORE_____________STD DEV NUMBER OPINION: I t would u p s e t roe t o b e checked by a C o n s e rv a tio n O f f i c e r w h ile I am t r o u t f is h i n g . 166 LEVEL 1 - 1 .2 0 .74 IEVEL 2 0.93 64 - 1 .3 IEVEL 3 - 1 .4 0 .93 68 IEVEL 4 0.8 0 - 1 .5 53 IEVEL 5 - 1 .6 0 .7 1 55 Mean - 1 .3 0 .8 1 406 [F=2.6681, DEV=4/401, P=.0320. ETA SQUARED=.026] [X2= 18.5100, P=.0010] [R2= .0 2 5 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.=.0013] •^K ruskal-W allis one-way ANOVA, CHI SQUARE c o r r e c te d f o r t i e s 2SIMPLE KENEAR REGRESSION T a b le 6 . T ro u t a n g l e r s ' o p in io n s a b o u t p e n a l t i e s f o r t r o u t f i s h i n g v i o l a t i o n s a n a ly z e d by t r o u t f i s h i n g i n t e n s i t y l e v e l .* TROUT FISHING INTENSITY IEVEL 4 1 2 3 5 % % % % % (N=167) TN=64) fN=67> (N=54) (N=55) OPINION: P e n a l t i e s f o r t r o u t f is h i n g v i o l a t i o n s s h o u ld b e INCREASED 2 4 .6 4 0 .6 37.3 4 6 .3 5 6.4 THE SAME 4 6 .7 3 9 .1 3 5.8 2 7 .8 2 9 .1 DECREASED 9 .0 4 .7 3 .0 1 .9 1 .8 NO OPINION 19.8 1 5 .6 2 3 .9 2 4 .1 12.7 T o ta l 1 00.1 9 9 .9 100.0 *CHI-SQUARE=30.48227, DF=12, P=.0024 100 .1 1 00.0 APPENDIX U (TABLES) Changes i n t r o u t f i s h i n g a t t i t u d e s and p r a c t i c e s r e l a t e d t o f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , n o n -c o n u n p tiv e o r i e n t a t i o n an d t r o u t f is h i n g i n t e n s i t y APPENDIX U 308 T a b le 1. Changes i n a t t i t u d e s and p r a c t i c e s ( s in c e th e y f i r s t s t a r t e d t r o u t f is h in g ) s e l f r e p o r te d by a n g le r s w hich w ere n o t r e l a t e d t o f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c ia liz a tio n . 1 2 DECREASED SCALE 3 STAYED THE SAME VARIABIES MEAN 2 .8 NUMBER OF DAYS YOU FISH EACH SEASON 3 .1 USE OF VACATION TIME FOR TROUT FISHING INTEREST IN CATCHING LARGER (TROPHY) TROUT 3 .2 TENDENCY TO SPECIALIZE FOR CERTAIN 3 .3 SPECIES 3 .3 TROUT FISHING WITH A PARTNER 3 .3 TROUT FISHING WITH FAMILY 3 .4 DISTANCE TRAVELED TO FISH TROUT DESIRE TO TRY NEW EQUIPMENT, TECHNIQUES, 3 .6 AND METHODS 3 .7 DESIRE TO FISH NEW HABITAT AND WATERS DESIRE TO FIND SOLITUDE IN FISHING 3 .9 4 .1 ENJOYMENT OF NATURE WHILE FISHING T a b le 2 . 5 INCREASED 4 STD DEV 1 .35 1.14 NUMBER 483 472 1.08 478 0.93 0.99 1 .01 1 .05 457 475 456 489 1.05 1 .0 1 0.92 0 .8 5 467 471 475 491 Changes i n a t t i t u d e s and p r a c t i c e s ( s in c e th e y f i r s t s t a r t e d t r o u t f is h in g ) s e l f r e p o r te d by a n g le r s a n a ly z e d by f l y - f i s h i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . 1 2 DECREASED VARIABLES FLY FISHING: SCALE 3 STAYED THE SAME FLY-FISHING SPECIALIZATION IEVEL 1 2 3 4 5 4 MEAN 2 .1 3 .0 3 .9 3 .9 4 .1 5 INCREASED STD DEV 1.13 1.09 0.94 1.13 1 .1 0 [F=30.367, DF=4/344, P <.0001, ETA SQUARED=.261] [X2= 8 9.0 2 9 8 / PC .0001]1 [R2= .2 2 8 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.< .0 0 0 1 ]2 NUMBER 104 179 19 28 19 APPENDIX U 309 Table 2. Continued. FLSf-FISHING VARTABTES SPECIAIJZATION IEVEL BAIT FISHING: 1 2 3 4 5 MEAN 3 .3 3 .1 3 .4 2 .0 1 .4 STD DEV 0 .8 9 1.0 4 1.2 7 1.02 0 .8 1 NUMBER 212 176 17 22 11 [F=19.142, DF=4/433, P<.0001, ETA SQUARED=.150] [X2= 54 .8 1 1 3 , P<.0001] [R2= .1 1 8 , 2-TAILED SIGN.<.0001] SPINNER FISHING: 1 2 3 4 5 3 .5 3 .4 3 .3 2 .5 1 .4 1 .03 0 .9 6 1 .3 1 1 .07 0 .8 4 197 178 17 19 10 1 .02 0 .9 8 1 .3 4 1.13 1.08 211 184 19 28 19 [F=14.526, DF^4/416, P<.0001, EIA SQUARED=.123] [X2= 3 7 .5 9 5 8 , P<.0001] [R2= .0 8 9 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] INTEREST IN LIMITING OUT: 1 2 3 4 5 3 .0 2 .6 2 .8 2 .2 2 .2 [F =7.809, DF=4/456, P<.0001/ EEA SQUARED.064] [X2= 2 6 .8 9 7 0 , P<.0001] [R2= .0 5 1 / 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] OFF SEASON ACTIVri'lES (TYING FU ES. CONSTRUCTING RODS. ETC.) : 145 2 .5 1 .1 9 1 2 .6 1 .0 2 138 2 18 3 3 .1 1 .1 1 23 4 1 .0 1 3 .1 3 .6 1 .33 17 5 [F^=5.015, DF=4/336, R=.0006, EIA SQUARED=.056] [X2=17.6221/ P=.0015] [R2=.049, 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] APPENDIX U 310 Table 2. Continued. FIX-FISHING VARTABTES SPECIAIJZATION IEVEL INTEREST IN CATCH-AND-RETFABE: 1 2 3 4 5 MEAN 2 .7 2 .7 2 .9 3 .5 3 .5 STD DEV NUMBER 1 .12 1 .1 1 1 .2 0 1 .37 1 .3 9 187 173 19 28 19 1 .08 1.03 1 .0 0 0 .9 9 0 .8 0 185 178 18 27 18 1 .0 5 1.0 0 1 .1 6 1 .1 5 1 .08 218 195 19 19 19 0 .9 8 0 .9 1 1 .0 0 0.8 2 0 .7 6 205 187 20 29 18 [F=5.444, DF=4/421, P =.0003, EEA SQUARED=.049] [X2= 17.9129, P=.0013] [R2= .0 4 2 / 2-TAIIED SIGN.< .0001] HANDICAPPING (LIGHT LINE. ROD. E T C . ) : 1 2 3 4 5 3 .4 3 .6 4 .2 3 .7 4 .1 [F=5.049, DF=4/421, P=.0006, EEA SQUARED=.046] [X2=18.8203, P=.0009] [R2= .0 3 2 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.=.0002] INTEREST IN CATCHING TRCUE TO EAT; 1 2 3 4 5 3 .2 3 .1 3 .3 2 .6 2 .2 [F=5.361, DE=4/475, P = .0003/ EEA SQUARED=.043] [X2=19.6847, P=.0006] [R2= .0 4 2 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] IMPORTANCE OF FISHING METHOD: 1 2 3 4 5 3 .5 3 .5 4 .0 3 .9 4 .1 [1^=3.716, DF=4/454, P=.0055, EEA SQUARED=.032] [X2=17.1633, P=.0018] [R2=.023, 2-TAILED SIGN.=.0012] APPENDIX U 311 Table 2. Continued. FLY-FISHING STD DEV VARTARTES SPECIALTZATION IEVEL MEAN INTEREST IN LEARNING ABOUT TROUT HABITAT. FOOD. ETC.: 1 .0 1 1 3 .6 0 .9 1 2 3 .8 0.79 3 4 .2 0 .93 4 4 .1 0 .8 6 5 4 .2 NUMBER 213 190 19 26 18 [F=3.400, DF=4/461, P=.0Q93, ETA SQUARED3. 029] [X2= 12.0495, P=.0170] [R2= .0 2 5 , 2-TAHED SIGN.=.0006] NUMBER OF FISHING AREAS USED: 1 2 3 4 5 3 .3 3 .5 3 .8 3 .7 4 .1 1 .0 6 1 .07 1.03 1 .0 0 0 .7 4 215 191 19 29 19 1 .14 1.16 0.93 0 .9 7 1.37 224 194 19 29 19 [1^=3.336, DF=4/468, P= .0104, EEA SQUARED3. 028] [X2= 14.1135, P=.0069] [R2= .0 2 6 , 2-TAILED SIGN.=.0005] MONEY SPENT ON TROUT FISHING: 1 2 3 4 5 3 .4 3 .5 4 .3 3 .7 3 .7 [1 ^3 .1 5 2 , DF=4/480, P= .0142, ETA SQUARED=.027] [X2= 18.8203/ P=.0009] [R2= .0 1 3 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.= .0127] CONFIDENCE IN CATCHING TROUT: fF=3.084r DF=4/483, P=.0159 / ETA SQUARED3 . 0 2 5 ] 1 2 3 4 5 3 .4 3 .5 3 .7 4 .1 3 .9 1 .0 5 1 .1 5 1.03 0 .8 0 1.13 227 193 20 29 19 [F=3.084, DF=4/483, P = .0159, ETA SQUARED3 . 025] [X2= 12.9966, P=.0113] [R2= .0 1 9 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.= .0020] -‘■K ruskal-W allis one-w ay ANOVA, CHI-SQUARE c o r r e c te d f o r t i e s . 2SIMPLE LINEAR REGRESSION APPENDIX U 312 Table 3. Changes in attitudes and practices (since they first started trout fishing) self reported by anglers which were not related to non-consumptive orientation. 1 2 DECREASED SCALE 3 STAYED THE SAME 4 VARIABLES MEAN OFF SEASON ACTIVITIES (TYING FLIES, CONSTRUCTING RODS, ETC.) 2 .7 NUMBER OF DAYS YOU FISH EACH SEASON 2 .8 FLY FISHING 2 .9 USE OF VACATION TIME FOR TROUT FISHING 3 .1 INTEREST IN CATCHING TROFHY TROUT 3 .2 TROUT FISHING WITH A PARTNER 3 .3 TROUT FISHING WITH FAMILY 3 .3 TENDENCY TO SPECIALIZE FOR CERTAIN SPECIES 3 .3 DISTANCE TRAVELED TO FISH 3 .4 SPINNER FISHING (LURES) 3 .4 MONEY SPENT ON TROUT FISHING 3 .5 NUMBER OF FISHING AREAS USED 3 .5 DESIRE TO TRY NEW EQUIPMENT, TECHNIQUES, AND METHODS 3 .6 IMPORTANCE OF FISHING METHOD 3 .6 HANDICAPPING (LIGHT LINE, ROD, ETC.) 3 .6 DESIRE TO FISH NEW HABITATS AND WATERS 3 .7 1 INTEREST IN LEARNING ABOUT TROUT HABITAT FOOD, ETC. 3 .8 DESIRE TO FIND SOLITUDE IN FISHING 3 .9 ENJOYMENT OF NATURE WHILE FISHING 4 .1 5 INCREASED STD DEV NUMBER 1 .13 1 .3 7 1 .2 7 1.14 1 .0 8 1 .0 0 1 .0 1 343 485 351 474 480 477 458 0 .9 2 1 .0 5 1 .0 8 1 .1 5 1 .0 7 459 491 423 487 475 1 .0 5 0 .9 5 1 .0 6 1 .0 0 469 461 428 473 0 .9 6 0 .9 1 0 .8 5 468 477 493 APPENDIX U 313 Table 4. Changes in attitudes and practices (since they first started trout fishing) self reported byanglers analyzed by non-consunptive orientation. SCALE 1 2 3 DECREASED STAYED THE SAME NON-CONSUMPTIVE VARIABLES ORIENTATION IEVEL INTEREST IN CATCHING TROUT TO EAT: 1 2 3 4 5 5 INCREASED 4 MEAN STD DEV 3 .8 3 .4 3 .0 2 .4 2 .0 NUMBER 1 .0 5 0 .7 8 0 .8 2 0 .9 1 1 .0 0 114 68 171 93 36 1 .0 8 0 .9 6 1 .0 9 1 .1 8 1 .2 8 105 60 141 86 36 1 .1 1 0 .9 8 0 .9 5 0 .9 7 1 .2 0 107 65 163 92 36 [F=45.196, DF=4/477, P <.0001, ETA SQUARED=.275] [ X —128.3579, P < .0 0 0 1 ]J[R2= .2 7 1 , 2-TAILED SIGN.< .0 0 0 1 ]2 INTEREST IN CATCH-AND-RETEASE: 1 2 3 4 5 2 .3 2 .7 2 .7 3 .2 3 .7 [P=14.399/ DF=4/423, P<.0001, ETA SQUARED=.120] [ X ^ S .8 6 1 7 , P<.0001] [ R ^ . l l l , 2-TAIIED SIGN.<.0001] INTEREST IN LIMITING OUT: 1 2 3 4 5 3 .1 3 .1 2 .7 2 .3 2 .4 [FV=11.076, D I^4/458, P <.0001, ETA SQUARED=.088] [X2= 41.3640, P<.0001] [ R ^ .0 8 1 , 2-TAIIED SIGN.< .0001] 314 Table 4. APPENDIX U Continued. NGN-CONSUMPTIVE VARIABLES ORIENTATION LEVEL BAIT FISHING: 1 2 3 4 5 STD DEV MEAN 3 .4 3 .2 3 .1 3 .0 2 .5 . 1 .0 8 0 .9 9 0 .9 5 1 .07 1 .1 6 NUMBER 109 62 155 82 32 1 .1 1 1.13 1 .0 5 1 .1 6 1.04 115 67 173 97 38 [F=5.754, DF=4/435, P= .0002, EEA SQUARED=.050] [X2= 18.2939, P=.0011] [r 2 = .045, 2-TAHED SIGN.< .0001] CONFIDENCE IN CATCHING TROUT: 1 2 3 4 5 3 .5 3 .4 3 .4 3 .6 4 .0 [1 ^2 .6 9 2 , DP=4/485, P = .0305. EEA SQUARED=.022] [ X ^ l l.8 6 9 8 , P=.0187] [R*=.011, 2-TAIIED SIGN.=.0217] iKruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA, CHI-SQUARE corrected for ties. 2SIMPLE LINEAR REGRESSION Table 5. Changes in attitudes and practices (since they first started trout fishing) self reported by anglers which were not related to trout fishing intensity. SCALE 1 2 DECREASED 3 STAYED THE SAME VARIABLES 4 5 INCREASED MEAN STD DEV NUMBER 2 .7 2 .8 2 .8 3 .1 3 .1 3 .3 3 .3 1 .14 1 .1 8 1 .07 1 .0 6 1 .0 5 0 .9 9 1 .0 1 343 428 463 482 440 477 458 3 .3 3 .4 3 .9 0 .9 3 1 .08 0 .9 1 459 423 477 OFF SEASON A C TIV ITIE S (TYTNG F IT E S , CONSTRUCTING RODS, ETC.) INTEREST IN CATCH AND RELEASE INTEREST IN LIMITING OUT INTEREST IN CATCHING TROUT TO EAT BAIT FISHING TROUT FISHING WITH A PARTNER TROUT FISHING WITH FAMILY TENDENCY TO SPECIALIZE FOR CERTAIN SPECIES SPINNER FISHING (LURES) DESIRE TO FIND SOLITUDE IN FISHING APPENDIX U 315 Table 6. Changes in attitudes and practices (since they first started trout fishing) self reported by anglers analyzed by trout fishing intensity. 1 DECREASED 2 SCAIE 3 STAYED TOE SAME 4 5 INCREASED TROUT FISHING STD DEV VARIABLES INTENSITY IEVEL MEAN INTEREST IN LEARNING ABOUT TROUT HABITAT. FOOD. ETC.: 0 .9 7 1 3 .5 0 .8 6 2 4 .0 0 .92 3 4 .0 0.83 4 4 .2 0 .8 1 5 4 .4 NUMBER 256 100 61 40 11 [Ev=9.469/ DF=4/463, P<.0001, EEA SQUARED=.076] [X2=