e f, 7, . t SDCID-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS. USE PATTERNS, AND EXPENDITURES OF MICHIGAN SALMON AND TROUT ANGLERS IN 1957 Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES EDWARD FOX 1.970 ‘ LIBRARY? 12530115??? ‘7‘ " .' t}: - BINDING BY ’5’ IIIIAG & SIIIIS' WPKE'I‘IIEBXJ'IE- ABSTRACT SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, USE PATTERNS, AND EXPENDITURES OF MICHIGAN SALMON AND TROUT ANGLERS IN 1967 BY James Edward Fox A mail questionnaire survey was undertaken in 1968 to define socio-economic characteristics, attitudes, and expenditures of Michigan salmon and trout anglers in the 1967 season. A rate of return of nearly 80 per cent was obtained through the use of five follow-ups plus the origi- nal questionnaire. Nearly all respondents were married, male, Michigan residents and experienced Michigan anglers. They tended to reside in populous counties or in counties with salmon and trout fishing close at hand. Most respondents resided in a city or village. Ages and occupations covered very broad ranges. Reported incomes tended to be higher than for state residents as a whole. Angling preferences among respondents prior to the coho introduction heavily favored trout and inland lake fishing. Overwhelmingly respondents plan to continue coho James Edward Fox fishing; although many suggestions for improving the fishery were given. A total mean expenditure of $931.00 was reported for durable fishing, boating, and camping equipment; while trip expenditures averaged $13.00 per day and $25.00 per trip. The trip expenditures included mainly purchases of food and beverages and gas and oil. The average fishing trip lasted about two days, and the mean party size was approximately three individuals. Respondents mainly were boat fishermen. Reported catches averaged slightly more than three coho per trip per party. Manistee and Benzie counties led all others in fishing effort. Most anglers fished within 400 miles of home. Recreational activity preferences among respondents covered a broad range of activities, with most respondents reporting participation in hunting and fishing. Several needed improvements in survey methodology became apparent during the course of the study. The angler sample should be selected from license holders, rather than from creel census interviewees. The questionnaire form should be shortened and several individual questions de- leted or made more clear or concise. It was concluded that the coho salmon program should be considered along with other recreational pro- grams in planning for optimum utilization of public funds. James Edward Fox State planning of fishery-related facilities is seen as a highly desirable management goal. Continuing annual surveys of anglers should provide useful information for planning sport fishery programs. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, USE PATTERNS, AND EXPENDITURES OF MICHIGAN SALMON AND TROUT ANGLERS IN 1967 BY James Edward Fox A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1970 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Clearly this thesis never could have been completed without the help of a number of people. The author specifi- cally wishes to express his thanks to each of these indi- viduals for time and thought generously given. Of course the author assumes full responsibility for accuracy and validity of all statements, computations, and conclusions. First appreciation is expressed to Dr. Michael Chubb, Assistant Professor, Departments of Resource Develop- ment and Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State Uni- versity, for suggesting the study, facilitating the c00per- ative agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, for providing continuing advice, encouragement, and invaluable criticisms through each phase of research and analysis, and for providing typing assistance. Mrs. Sheila Hoeve's skill in typing the thesis drafts and aid by other Recreation Research and Planning Unit staff members is gratefully acknowledged. The author is indebted to the following personnel of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for develOp- ing the survey instruments, permitting the author access to valuable data, and providing assistance and advice during. ii the mailing, coding, and evaluation stages of the study: Dr. David H. Jenkins, Chief of the Research and DevelOpment Division; Lawrence A. Ryel, Supervisor, James Ryckman, Louis J. Hawn, and Gale C. Jamsen, biometricians with that Division; and Ronald W. Rybicki, Management Evaluation Specialist with the Fish Division. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Dennis C. Gilliland, Associate Professor, Department of Statistics and Probability, Michigan State University for his valuable advice concerning statistical procedures. And finally a heartfelt thanks is expressed to my wife, Edna, for her patience, understanding, and encourage- ment during the past two years of work on this thesis. iii Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study. . . Study Objectives. . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . Sampling Procedures. . . . . The Questionnaire . . . . . REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE . . Characteristics and Expenditures of Fishermen and Hunters . . . Attitude and Opinion Studies. . Survey Techniques . . . . . RESULTS OF THE INVESTIVATION . . Questionnaire Surveys . . . . Response to the Questionnaire . Contacting Non-respondents . . Tabulations and Analyses of Findings Interrelationships Among the Variables CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Socio-economic Characteristics . Fishing Trip Characteristics. . Angling Preferences, Attitudes, and Opinions. . . . . . . Economic Data Obtained. . . . Recommendations for Improvement of the Survey . . . . . . . . Management Recommendations . . Correlations . . . . . . . iv Page (Dbl-4 10 10 13 20 21 38 43 49 49 52 56 60 88 103 103 105 106 108 111 116 117 Chapter BIBLIOGRAPHY . . APPENDICES Appendi A. B. C. X Creel Census Procedures Questionnaire and Follow-ups Code Book. Page 120 125 130 144 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Response to the Pre-test of the Coho Fisher- man Survey Questionnaire, January-March, 1968 I O O O O O O O O O O C 0 Summary of the Response to the Questionnaire Mailed to Michigan Salmon-Trout Fishermen, 1967 Season. . . . . . . . . . . Mailing and Pattern of Response to Salmon- Trout Fisherman Questionnaire, 1967 Season . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Non-Respondents to Questionnaire Contacted by Letter, Tele- phone, or Personal Interview . . . . . Comparison of Some Characteristics of Respondents and Non-Respondents to Salmon-Trout Fishing Questionnaire, 1967 . Comparison of Angling Success of Respondents and Non-Respondents to Salmon-Trout Fish- ing Questionnaire, 1967. . . . . . . State of Residence of Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . Place of Residence of Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . Sex of Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . Marital Status of Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . Age of Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . vi Page 14 53 54 58 59 59 61 64 65 65 66 Table Page 12. Occupations of Michigan Salmon—Trout Anglers, 1967 O O O O O O O O O O C O O 67 13. Income of Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 O O O O O O O O O O I O O 68 14. Prior Michigan Fishing Experience Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967. . . 70 15. Reasons Given for Salmon-Trout Fishing in Michigan, 1967. . . . . . . . . . 71 16. Location of Fishing Activity of Experienced Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers Prior to 1967 Season. . . . . . . . . . . 71 1?. Species Most Frequently Sought Among Experi- enced Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers Prior to the 1967 Season . . . . . . . . 72 18. Coho Fishing Plans for Following Season Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 73 19. Reasons Given by Respondents for Not Planning to Fish for Coho in 1968 . . . 74 20. Respondents' Opinions Concerning Facilities or Features of Great Lakes Fishing That Should be Improved to Make Fishing More Enjoyable . . . . . . . . . . . 76 21. Purchase of Durable Equipment by Michigan Salmon-Trout Fishermen, 1967 . . . . . 78 22. Use of Durable Equipment Purchased by Michigan Salmon-Trout Fishermen in 1967 . 79 23. Itemized Trip Expenses Reported by Michigan Salmon-Trout Fishermen, 1967 . . . . . 80 24. Size of Fishing Parties Reported Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967. . . 82 25. County of Fishing Activity Reported Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967. . . 83 26. Angling Success Reported Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967. . . . . . 84 vii Table 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Page Type of Fishing Reported by Michigan Salmon- Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . 84 County of Boat Launching Reported by Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967. . . 85 Distances Traveled One-Way from Home to Fishing Site by Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . 86 Recreational Activity Preferences Among Michigan Salmon and Trout Anglers, 1967 . 87 Prior Michigan Fishing Experience Compared with Several Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Type of Fishing Previously Selected Compared with Several Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Species of Fish Sought Prior to Introduction of Coho Salmon Compared with Several Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon and Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . 91 Mean Number of Fishing Trips Taken Compared with Several Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon and Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Purchase of Durable Equipment Compared with Several Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967. . . 93 Boat Ownership Compared with Several Socio- Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon- Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . 94 Boat Length Compared with Several Socio- Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon- Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . 94 Length of Fishing Trip Compared with Several Angling and Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 viii Page Table 39. Size of Fishing Party Compared with Several Angling and Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 O O O O O O O O 0 Location of Fishing Activity by County Com- 40. pared with Several Angling and Socio- Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon- . 97 1967 O O O O O O O 96 Trout Anglers, 41. Coho Angling Success Compared with Several Angling and Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . 42. Type of Fishing Done Compared with Several Angling and Socio-Economic Variables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . 43. Distance Traveled to Fish Compared with Selected Angling and Socio-Economic Vari- ables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . 99 44. Type of Lodging Utilized Compared with Selected Angling and Socio-Economic Vari- ables Among Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . 98 98 100 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure . Page 1. Residence, by County, of Resident Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . 62 2. Participation in Salmon-Trout Sport Fishery Relative to POpulation of County as Re- ported by Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 INTRODUCTION Significance of the Study In recent years, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has been searching for fast-growing predator fish species suitable for introduction into the Great Lakes. After considering several possible species, the coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum), was selected as the first of possibly several species of anadromous fish to be planted in Michigan waters. In the spring of 1966, yearling coho salmon were released in three Michigan streams: The Platte River, Bear Creek, and the Big Huron River.1 Before the end of June, most of the young fish or "smolts" were close to Lake Michigan or actually in the lake, where it was anticipated they would feed on the abundant forage fishes available. If the introduction proved to be successful, it was be- lieved that the coho would return to the site of planting to spawn in the fall of 1967.2 1Unpublished records of the Fish Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2David P. Borgeson and Wayne H. Tody, Status Report on Great Lakes Fisheries, Fish Management Report No. 2, Fish Division (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1967). UIIIIII 1:1 Two significant biological factors made the commencement of the coho planting a timely event. First the sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus, which for years had decimated commercial and sport fishing in the Great Lakes, had finally been brought under a high degree of control. Secondly the prolific alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus (Wilson), had become firmly established in vast numbers in the Great Lakes. The alewife was considered an ideal forage fish for predatory salmonid species. Like the sea lamprey, the alewife is indigenous to the Atlantic Ocean and apparently migrated into the Upper Great Lakes only since completion of the Welland Canal, which by-passes Niagara Falls.1 Prior to the entry of the lamprey into the Great Lakes, these waters supported large commercial and sport fisheries. The primary fish species sought was the lake trout.2 Basically the management goal of the Department of Natural Resources is to derive the maximum benefit from the fishery resources of the Great Lakes. More specifically the anadromous fish program is intended to utilize the 1U.S., Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission, Sport Fishinge-Today and Tomorrow, Study Report No. 7 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 66. 2Milton B. Trautman, The Fishes of Ohio (Baltimore: Waverly Press, Inc., 1957), pp. 145, 180. abundant and low-value alewife population to support de- sirable native and introduced predator species. Although the coho is the first of such introduced species, the long-range plan calls for possible intro- duction of a number of additional predators. The striped bass, Roccus saxatilis (Walbum), Chinook salmon, Oncor- hynchus tshawytscha (Walbum), Kokanee salmon, Onchohynchus nerka (Walbum), and Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar have been carefully studied to determine the biological characteris- tics and adaptability of each for possible introduction into the Great Lakes.1 The availability of sufficient eggs for the hatchery program and an apparent biological suitability resulted in the coho salmon being selected as the first of the anadro- mous species to be introduced. Eggs for the initial re- lease in 1966 were provided by the State of Oregon. Eggs for the 1967 planting were obtained from the States of Oregon, Alaska, and Washington.2 The coho salmon has a three-year life cycle. Therefore three successive years of planting (1966 through 1968) were required, using eggs from other states. After the first three years of planting, the hatchery program 1Wayne H. Tody and Howard A. Tanner, Coho Salmon for the Great Lakes, Fish Management Report No. 1, Fish DivisionILansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1966), p. 1. ‘ 21bid., pp. 24-25. will continue using adults from each year's fall run to obtain eggs and milt to support a continuing hatchery program. The anadromous sport fishery program ultimately may reach very large proportions in terms of economic benefit to Michigan. It is considered important at this time to estimate the present and potential impact of the anadromous sport fishery upon local communities and upon the state as a whole. In addition to the economic factors, the characteristics of the coho anglers, the amount of angler interest, and the degree of public acceptance of the new sport fishery are highly important in justifying support for continuation and expansion of the program. Study Objectives The objectives of the study might best be con- sidered in four broad categories. The first goal was to evaluate the state of the fishery in the 1967 season in terms of angler interest, attitudes, opinions, and expendi- ture patterns. The second goal was to determine whether or not significant correlations exist among variables measured by the survey. Such correlations may prove useful in fore- casting future demand, economic impact, and opportunities for entrepreneurship in providing goods and services to fishermen. The third goal was to improve the methodology for conducting questionnaire surveys of fishermen. Instru- ments and techniques used in the 1967 survey are reviewed and critiqued in the light of problems encountered. Finally the fourth goal was to obtain data needed for a report justifying Federal expenditure for the state's anadromous sport fishery program. Objective I: Evaluate the 1967 Coho Fishery The first goal of the analysis was to evaluate the coho fishery for the 1967 season. It was intended to determine the residence and socio-economic status of the coho angler, attitudes and degree of satisfaction among fishermen with the anadromous fishery program and with Great Lakes fishing in general, the willingness of the fishery users to spend money to pursue their recreational activities, and to obtain specific data relating to indi- vidual fishing trips. The first broad objective of the data analysis included, in part, a determination of the economic im- portance of the sport fishery to local communities, as well as to the state in general. It was further intended to show if any cost limitations exist which may restrict participation in the coho fishery to individuals of rela- tively high income. It was also desirable to find what opportunities exist for private enterprise, as well as for public agen- cies, to satisfy demands for specific improvements in goods, services, and facilities for Great Lakes sport fishermen. I jectives, the surve .In' N.4(1|ll~l.o » Ali: 1...: Haggis . . H¢\ .h In. .I\|4II Within the first general category of study ob- jectives, the following specific goals were outlined for the survey: 1. To determine the geographical distribution of coho fishermen by state and county. To examine residence and the socio-economic characteristics of the coho fishermen popu- lation. To find whether or not previous non-fishermen are participating in the coho fishery in large numbers. To determine previous fishing preferences and amount of Michigan fishing experience among 1967 coho fishermen. To determine the degree of interest and angler satisfaction with the coho fishery. To determine the major areas of dissatisfaction with Great Lakes sport fishing among anglers. To determine various characteristics of indi- vidual fishing trips taken. To determine the amounts spent by coho fisher- men in 1967 for individual fishing trips and for durable equipment, including fishing tackle, boating equipment, and camping equip- ment. To determine the preferences among coho fisher- men for certain types of recreational activities. Objective II: Correlations Among Variables Tested The socio-economic factors and angling charac- teristics measured by the survey were tested for valid interrelationships. Such characteristics as age, income, occupation, and angling success were examined. (For example, is angling success related to occupation?) The chi-square test was used to determine whether or not such relationships possibly exist. Objective III: Develop Improved Survey Methodology The third objective of the study was to refine and revise techniques in order to obtain more reliable and meaningful data in future surveys. Since the 1967 survey was the pilot study of coho fishermen, it is understandable that numerous flaws in methodology and analytical procedures were found. All instruments used in the survey were reviewed, and suggestions for improvement made. Particular attention was given to revising the format of the questionnaire. The author believes that many of the problems encountered dur- ing the 1967 survey could be avoided if the questionnaire were improved in format, length, and degree of complexity. Specific recommendations for improving individual questions were also made. Procedures used for coding responses for auto- matic data processing were reviewed, and recommendations for improvement made. Techniques of data analysis and presentation were critiqued. Objective IV: Justify Federal Expenditure The coho program is supported, in part, by Federal funding. One of the provisions of the Federal Anadromous Fish Act is that each state receiving such funds conduct a study of the benefits derived from the fishery and submit a report. The data obtained from this study were used to fulfill this Federal requirement. Limitations of the Study The study was intended to determine socio-economic _characteristics, expenditure patterns, and attitudes of anglers. Although limited biological information is in- cluded in the introductory comments, detailed consider- ation of the fisheries management and biological aspects of the Great Lakes anadromous fishery is considered beyond the scope of this study.1 Only the factors pertaining to the 1967 season are evaluated in the present study. 1For a discussion of the biological characteristics of the cOho salmon and other salmonid species, the reader is referred to the following Michigan Department of Natural Resources publications: Coho Salmon for the Great Lakes, published in 1966; and Status Report on Great Lakes Fisher- igg, published in 1967. The survey is concerned solely with the sport fishery. No consideration is given to any aspect of commercial fishing. Lake trout and rainbow-steelhead anglers were in- cluded in the sample, as well as anglers seeking only the coho. Therefore it would be impractical, if not impossible, to confine the study solely to coho anglers. While inter- viewees were asked to report angling success for rainbow- steelhead and lake trout, as well as for coho, it is felt that nearly all of the anglers in the sample were primarily seeking coho. As the focus of the present study is on the impact of the coho salmon sport fishery, no attempt is made to evaluate or discuss in depth lake trout or rainbow- steelhead sport fishing or any type of Great Lakes, stream or inland lakes fishing other than coho salmon fishing. The economic evaluation of the fishery is limited to discussion of reported angler expenditures. No attempt is made to expand the economic data obtained to the coho angler population as a whole. Nor is any attempt made to derive a "net value" of the fishery to the state or to individual communities. CHAPTER I METHODS AND PROCEDURES Sampling Procedures Prior to the 1968 fishing season, a fishing license was not required of Michigan's Great Lakes fishermen. Consequently it was necessary to obtain a sample of the coho fishermen population for this study from names of. anglers contacted during a creel census of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior fishermen and stream anglers. The cen- suses were conducted to determine angling effort and to estimate the total catch of coho salmon, lake trout, brown trout, and rainbow or steelhead. A detailed, long-range interview schedule was followed. The attempt was made to sample each area during six-hour periods, staggered to ultimately cover all periods of the day and each day of the week.1 For the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior censuses, shore anglers and boaters were selected and interviewed. During the interview period, counts were made of the total 1Detailed instructions for census interviews are shown in Appendix A. 10 11 number of observable boaters, excluding freighters, and the total number of shore anglers. The total counts were used to measure total angling effort. Interviewers were instructed to contact boaters without regard to the nature of their activities, so that a ratio between fishing and non-fishing activity could be established. For the stream census, "floating“ or drifting be- tween two points along the stream in a canoe was the method employed to obtain an estimate of angling effort. As with the lake census, interviews were made with anglers selected at irregular intervals. Interviews of Lake Michigan boat and shore anglers were conducted at the following locations: Manistee, Arcadia, Frankfort, Platte River mouth, Pentwater, and Ludington. Stream interviews were conducted along the Platte, Bear, Manistee, and Little Manistee rivers. The following Lake Superior locations were chosen for the census: Portage Entry, Keweenaw Bay, Huron Bay, Huron River mouth, Big Bay, Marquette, Laughing Whitefish River, Munising, and Grand Marais. Names and addresses of fishermen interviewed during the creel census were transferred from creel census forms to serialized punch cards. The names and address punch cards were used to obtain machine-printed, gummed labels for use in all mailings of questionnaires and follow-ups. Thus the method used for obtaining a sample of coho fisher- men was actually designed primarily for purposes other than 12 a mail survey. While flaws in the sampling method used do exist, methods of obtaining a more satisfactory sample were not feasible at the time.1 Several other aspects of the creel census pro- cedures may possibly have introduced bias. Although it is known that a great deal of fishing activity occurred in Lake Superior from April through June, shortages in per- sonnel prevented any survey effort during this period so this area is not represented as strongly as other parts of the state.2 Another factor possibly introducing a bias into the sample is the fact that for the boat interviews, boat- owners or operators were generally contacted. Passengers usually were not interviewed. Quite possibly boat owner- operators differ from the total angler population in in- come or other important variable. The degree of such bias and its significance to the results of the study are not known. 1William G. Cochran points out the problems of bias in samples which are not randomly selected and the ad- vantages of using reliable sampling procedures. See Chap- ter I in his Sampling Techniques (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1963), pp. 1-16. 2Ronald W. Rybicki, Fisheries Management Evalu- ation Specialist, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Personal Communication, July 9, 1968. 13 The_guestionnaire To carry out the initial survey of the coho sport fishery, a questionnaire was prepared. A copy of the questionnaire and each of the other instruments used in the survey are in Appendix B. The questionnaire was patterned rather closely after a form used for a study of economic benefits of the salmon-steelhead sport fishery in Oregon.1 The questionnaire might best be discussed in four sections: (1) The first section, on pages one and two, deals with individual characteristics of the fishermen. (2) The second section requests detailed information con- cerning each coho or trout fishing trip taken during the 1967 season. Information on angling success, type of fish- ing done, and trip expenses is requested. (3) The third section of the questionnaire requests a listing of all expenditures made in 1967 for durable equipment (fishing tackle, boating equipment, and camping equipment). The use made of newly-purchased equipment in 1967 is also re- quested. (4) The final section of the questionnaire is designed to determine recreational activity preferences and patterns among coho fishermen. 1William G. Brown, Ajmer Singh, and Emery N. Castle, An Economic Evaluation of the Oregon_Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishery, Technical Bulletin 78, Agri- cultural Experiment Station (Corvallis: Oregon State University, 1964), pp. 44-45. 14 Pre-testing the Questionnaire A sub-sample of fifty individuals was selected from the name-address punch cards prepared for each fisherman interviewed in the creel census. Each angler in the sub- sample was mailed a copy of the questionnaire with a cover- ing letter of explanation attached. The response to the pre-test is summarized in Table 1. TABLE l.--Response to the pre-test of the Coho Fisherman Survey Questionnaire, January-March, 1968. . . Number of Percentage of Ma1l1ng Date Respondents Response ,Initial January l6 16 32 First reminder February 1 10 20 Second reminder February 28 13 26 Total 39 78 After reviewing the results of the pre-test, the following changes were made in the questionnaire: (1) the information was multilithed on good-quality paper; (2) drawings were added on pages one through four; (3) question two was added to identify urban and town dwellers; (4) question three was expanded to include marital status; (5) question nine was added to determine how many first- time Michigan fishermen were attracted by the coho sport fishery; (6) question 11 was added to determine the pre— ferred type of fishing prior to introduction of the coho; 15 (7) question 14 was added to elicit suggestions for improv- ing sport fishing conditions on the Great Lakes; (8) the chart in question 15 was expanded to include a number of additional recreational activities. Also the caption "approximate amount spent on equipment" was dropped from question 18 because of low response on the pre-test; and (9) the request for names and addresses of other coho fishermen was dropped after the pre-test.1 Judging from the results of the pre-test, a high rate of return was anticipated from the survey. Initially it was hOped to achieve at least a 90 per cent total re- sponse by following the original mailing with four to six reminder letters and post cards, as needed. The Revised Questionnaire In its revised form, the questionnaire consisted of seven pages, stapled together. The questionnaire re- quested the following specific information from coho fisher- men: 1. The state and county of residence, and whether or not the individual resides in an urban area. 2. The sex, age, marital status, occupation, in- come, and number in household of individual. 1Cochran, Sampling Techniques, p. 8, reports, "It has been found useful to try out the questionnaire . . . on a small scale. This nearly always results in improvements in the questionnaire. . . ." 2See questionnaire in Appendix B. 16 The number of years of Michigan fishing experience of individual and the nature of such experience. a. Fishing experience in Michigan streams, inland lakes, and Great Lakes. b. The Species of fish sought in past years. 1968 coho fishing plans. a. If individual does not wish to fish for coho in 1968, he is asked for the reason. Aspects of Great Lakes fishing which anglers feel should be improved. Specific information relating to each coho fishing trip taken by the fisherman in 1967. a. The month and date or dates of each trip. b. The number of people in the fishing party: from immediate household, others, and total in party. c. The site of fishing activity. d. The numbers of lake trout, coho, and rain- bow or steelhead caught by the party. e. The number of hours the party fished on the trip. f. The type of fishing done (i.e., shore or dock versus boat). 9. The number of miles from home to the fishing site, one-way. 17 h. The number of people for whom the re- spondent paid trip expenses. i. The type, location, and cost of overnight lodging, if any. j. Expenditures on the trip for food and beverages, gas and oil for individual's own car and boat, gas and oil expenses for other car or boat, rental of boat and motor and for tackle and gear, and other expendi- tures. Expenditures for durable equipment purchased in 1967. a. Tackle including rod, reel, line, lures, boots, waders, and other. b. Boating equipment including boat, boat trailer, outboard motor, and accessory equipment. c. Camping equipment including tent, tent trailer, camper, house trailer, sleeping bag, lantern, camp stove, and other. Approximate days of participation in 1967 in each of the following recreational activities: bicycling, horseback riding, golf, tennis, other outdoor games or sports, fishing, canoe- ing, sailing, other boating, swimming, water skiing, hunting, camping, walking and hiking, bird watching, other nature study, wildlife 18 and bird photography, picnics, automobile driving for pleasure, watching outdoor sporting events, attending outdoor concerts, plays, etc., ice skating, snow skiing, sledding and tobogan- ning, snowmobiling, and other. Mailing thegQuestionnaire and Follow-ups The first mailing of 2,240 questionnaires was com- plerted on May 3, 1968. Each person was mailed one copy of the: questionnaire, an attached letter of explanation, and a pxostage-paid return envelope. The forms were mailed first-class in order to facilitate contacting people who had moved since the creel survey. Each individual in the sample was identified by a sernial number, which was placed on the first page of the questionnaire. As each day's return mail was received, sernial numbers were checked; and address cards of respond- entés were moved from the "not received" to the "received" files. Thus a continuing record of responses was maintained. only? punch cards from the "not received" file were used for Prirrting labels for each follow-up. A total of five follow-up was mailed to non- reSpondents during the course of the survey. Three of the follow-ups were post-card reminders, one was a letter alone, andone was a letter plus a copy of the questionnaire.1 1Copies of the forms used for each mailing are in Appendix B. 19 Additional copies of the questionnaire were mailed on request to people who reported that they had lost the original form. Completed questionnaires returned after August 2, 1968, were not included in the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE In this section only materials are cited which, in the opinion of the author, are directly pertinent to the coho survey. Primary emphasis is given to articles and reports dealing with characteristics and expenditures of fishermen and hunters. Literature concerning opinion and attitude surveys among hunters and fishermen is given secondary emphasis. Finally, selected literature pertain- ing to survey techniques and methodology is included. Since about 1955, a considerable amount has been written concerning the social and economic values of recre- ational resources, particularly sport fishery and game resources. Most studies reviewed were designed to justify public eXpenditure for continuation or expansion of manage- ment programs or else to develop "economic yardsticks" to aid resource managers in planning for optimum resource allocation, where several alternatives exist. Economic evaluations of fish or game resources are based primarily upon real or estimated expenditures of sportsmen. The degree of sophistication and detail of the studies reviewed varied greatly. Generally the recent 20 . . I l - *M —G F 1 S S t r t r _ E 1‘ . I fl 3 Me. 3 .3 . e o i e .. In“ a e .1. Ma. Q S e e \1 C .5 C .3 S O X l mu. M e a 3. u S S 1 C .1 .. F. d E l I. C . .. n. O m C d a .d .1 I a 3 E . u n,“ . .l S e E . .1 P l u. S e h... r . “a :. To t n .1 I I .4 . 5 T. I at .l. S .... .3. C 3 .u a .V.-. .3 C 1. s I 3. F. 3 a. :5 1 t \.\ .6. I “t 21 literature adhered more closely to sound economic principles and statistical measurements. For example, most of the recent literature covered favored determining a "net expenditure" rather than the "gross expenditure,“ which was usually sought in earlier studies. Also the authors of more recent studies point to the problems of relying upon emotion and aesthetic appeal in evaluating recre- ational resources, rather than seeking to define the values in monetary terms. Characteristics and Expenditures of Fishermen and Hunters The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission discussed in some depth the reasons for the tremendous in- crease in participation in recreational activities and in- creased expenditures in recent years. The growing oppor- tunity to participate and greater affluence of the American public are well-known.1 The Commission adds that the pri- mary benefits of recreation “ . . . are not to be justified on a cost accounting basis. Like education, outdoor recre- ation is one of those elements of the full life that should be made available to the general public." The report con- tinues that there are, however, economic implications of lU.S., Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission, Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 25-46. Also see Reynold E. Carlson, Theodore R. Deppe, and Janet R. Maclean, Recreation in American Life (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1967), pp. 61-65, for a discussion of the reasons for the recent increase in demand for outdoor recreation services. '5-4, P‘A‘ Po V“ V'.’ LU“ law .03 I '"i -e ‘00: I -te 5“ HF" 5‘ p- .- ~itial recreatio ation in as“ ‘4. 1 I . F. ‘ O S 2‘ .C S E :L + e .1 t e 1 1 22 outdoor recreation which should not be overlooked. Often initial public investment in outdoor recreation provides long-term economic benefits to a local economy. The Report discusses itemized expenditures by recreationists. Total annual spending for outdoor recre- ation in 1962 was reported to be $20 billion and for sport fishing, $3 billion. The classes of expenditures and their importance to local economies are discussed.2 The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report No. 7 discusses the economic importance of Sport fishing on a national scale.3 The retail sales value of fishing tackle increased from $118 million in 1950 to $160 million in 1960.4 The Report also reviews the tremendous increase in demand for sport fishing opportunities in recent years, and projects this trend to the years 1976 and 2000. Fisherman— days of effort in the year 2000 are expected to be three times as great as in 1960. The problem of supplying a fishing opportunity of suitable quality and quantity to meet the tremendous anticipated demand is discussed, and . . . 5 alternat1ve solutions are cons1dered. lIbid., pp. 75-76. 21bid., pp. 78-80. 3U.S., Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission, Sport Fishing--Today and Tomorrow, Study Report No. 7 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962). 41bid., p. 11. 51bid., p. 1. 23 Alternative demands upon our waterways and fisheries resources will grow and threaten the continuation of sport fishing opportunities. Both the quality and quantity of water available for recreational use are declining. Waters available to sport fishermen are inventoried and evaluated.2 The roles and responsibilities of various state and federal agencies are discussed.3 The Report discusses changing attitudes among anglers in recent years. The authors feel that crowding actually seems to appeal to a sizable segment of the fish- ing population.4 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report 24 defines primary benefits as those benefits which accrue to the recreationists. "They differ from other primary benefits of public resource developments in that they do not represent a source of income for the bene- ficiaries."5 Government operation or installation of recreational facilities should be decided on the basis of welfare, rather on a purely economic basis.6 Secondary lIbid., p. 47. 21bid., p. 16. 3 . 4 . Ib1d., pp. 23-46. Ib1d., pp. 62-77. 5 U.S., Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission, Economic Studies of Outdoor Recreation, Study Report No. 24 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 60. 6Ibid., the report continues, "In order to justify government intervention in the market to create or operate 24 benefits of outdoor recreation are defined as those bene- fits " . . . accruing to the Nation as a whole, above and beyond any primary benefits to the recreationers."1 By adding the primary and secondary benefits, and subtracting the costs, one may derive the "net benefits from recre- ation."2 The report continues that the major difficulty in determining the primary benefits a particular recre- ational facility is the absence of a market price.3 Study Report 24 further points out that utilization of a particular resource for recreational purposes can be justified only if no other use of that resource would re- sult in greater benefit to the community. The problem, then, lies in attempting to measure precisely the value of recreation.4 In 1953, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department carried out a survey to determine the gross expenditures 5 made by hunting and fishing licensees in 1952. After the initial mailing, two follow-up letters were sent to recreational facilities it must simply be shown that the distribution of total output in welfare terms is altered favorably by such intervention. 1 2 Ibid. Ibid., p. 61. 3 4 Ibid., p. 68. Ibid., p. 49. 5David L. White, How New Hampshire Attached the Dollar Sign to Its Fish and Wildlife, Technical Circular 11, Management and Research Division (Concord: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 1955). 25 non-respondents at three-week intervals. Approximately 30 per cent of the resident non-respondents were contacted in person by representatives of the department following the cessation of mailing.1 A total response rate of nearly 70 per cent was achieved, and non-response was not con- sidered a problem of major significance.2 An average total expenditure of $144.66 was calcu— lated. Average expenditures were determined for each category of licensee and for fourteen categories of ex- pense.3 The estimated total gross value of 22 million dollars is thought to be an extreme minimum figure, since numerous New Hampshire hunters and fishermen are legally unlicensed, and some types of expenditures were not in- cluded in the survey.4 Sport fisheries economic research on the West Coast has long been oriented toward evaluating potential economic effects of proposed dams on rivers used by anadromous fishes for spawning runs. Economic values derived from dams can be expressed in understandable terms; however, the effects of dams on fisheries are often difficult to assess economically. Pelgen attempted to measure the economic values of California striped bass, salmon, and steelhead sport 1Ibid., p. 2. 2Ibid., p. 9. 3Ibid., pp. 4-5. 4Ibid., p. 12. 26 fishing.l He felt that the most understandable and usable expression of value was the average cost per angler of one day's fishing. Pelgen pointed out that values of any wildlife resource are practically intangible, and that determining the amount people spend reflects the importance of these values.2 Pelgen obtained his data by means of a question- naire mailed to fishing license holders. A follow-up was mailed to non-respondents three weeks after the initial mailing. A total return of 90 per cent was obtained. Of the respondents, 75 per cent mailed in usable question- naires.3 Pelgen found that striped bass fishermen spent an average of $9.00 per angler day; salmon anglers, $16 per angler day; and steelhead anglers, $18 per angler day. The major items of expenditure among anglers included trans- portation, food and lodging, and services and supplies.4 Those who responded after the follow-up letter reported lower expenditures than those who reSponded earlier.5 1David E. Pelgen, "Economic Values of Striped Bass, Salmon, and Steelhead Sport Fishing in California," Cali- fornia Fish and Game, XLI (January, 1955). 21bid., p. 6. 31bid., p. 7. 41bid., p. 13. 51bid., p. 11. 27 Following Pelgen's study, Mahoney published "An Economic Evaluation of California's Sport Fisheries in 1 As with numerous other economic studies of fish 1960." and game resources, the objective was to obtain a value for sport fishing which could be used in evaluating alter- native uses of land and water. As with Pelgen's study, the aim of the survey was to obtain gross expenditure information from fishermen to indicate the economic status of sport fishing in California. However, Mahoney's work is more extensive than that of Pelgen in that the total state- wide expenditures for both saltwater and freshwater angling and for hunting were estimated. A mailed questionnaire with two follow-ups yielded a response rate of 70.5 per cent. Per capita expenditures on a daily and annual basis and the total annual expenditure were estimated. A study by Wallace2 represents an early attempt to determine the economic values of fish and wildlife re- sources to a state, based on projections of gross total expenditures by hunters and fishermen. The author used a mail questionnaire to determine sportsmens' expenditures. 1John Mahoney, "An Economic Evaluation of Cali- fornia's Sport Fisheries," California Fish and Game, XLVI (January, 1960), 199-209. 2Robert F. Wallace, Economic Aspects of Wildlife Resougpes in the State of Washington, Economic and Busi- ness Studies, Bulletin No. 1947Pullman, Wash.: The State College of Washington Press, February, 1962). 28 The author was concerned with developing a suitable measure for the economic values of sport and commercial fisheries to compare with projected values of proposed hydroelectric projects, usually detrimental to anadromous fisheries. He points out that relative importance of goods and services can be measured only by the amounts people are willing to spend to obtain them. Therefore, the social value of wildlife resources can be measured only be ex- penditures of members of society to enjoy these resources. Wallace feels that total expenditures by sportsmen provides a measure of the gross economic value of fish and wildlife resources. Further, such a measure is useful to administrators in obtaining the fullest development and utilization of the state's resources and in making policy decisions where conflict among alternative uses of the resource occurs.2 Wallace mailed out questionnaires to licensees, in some cases, eighteen months after the individual had pur- chased his license. A return rate of 94 per cent was ob- tained through the use of two mailings, plus telephone and personal contacts of non-respondents.3 The author con- cluded that indeed fisheries and wildlife resources are responsible for a significant portion of income in the lIbid., p. 2. 21bid., p. 3. 31bid., p. 6. 29 state's economy as compared to other goods and services. No determination of net values was made. Brown, Singh, and Castle carried out a study to determine both "gross" and "net" economic values of the 2 Question- Oregon salmon-steelhead sport fishery in 1962. naires were mailed to licensees at intervals throughout the season. A rate of return of nearly 80 per cent was obtained.3 Many respondents failed to complete the portion of the questionnaire relating to itemized expenses. This failure was thought to be due to the complicated nature of the questionnaire.4 As in the study by Pelgen, it was found that those who responded earlier to the question- naire reported greater expenditures, both for durable equipment and for trip or "current" expenses. Mean seasonal expenditures for durable equipment and trip expenses were calculated, while mean values for non-respondents were extrapolated.5 To refine the data on total economic importance of the fishery to the state, the net economic value was calcu- lated. The net economic value is defined as the estimated lIbid., p. 24. 2Brown, Singh, and Castle, An Economic Evaluation of the Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishegy. 3 4 Ibid., p. 15. Ibid., p. 19. 51bid., pp. 20—25. 30 monetary value of the sport fishery resource if the resource were owned by a single individual, and a market for fishing opportunity existed. The net value, then, approximately would equal the value of the sport fishery to an owner, who could charge for permission to fish.1 Brown, e2_21., expanded total eXpenditures for durable equipment and for trip expenses to the total fish- ing population, and calculated the gross and net economic value of the fishery to the state.2 The total gross value of the sport fishery was determined to be approximately $18 million, while the net value was approximately $2.5 to $3.1 million per year. Travel distance and family in- come were shown to be important variables affecting demand.3 Castle points out that recreation, along with flood control and pollution control, is an example of an "extra- market good" to be assigned a value in considering alter- native uses of a resource.4 The use of gross expenditure data in the evaluation of recreational use provides impres- sive figures, but avoids a true evaluation of "recreational experiences." The author feels that such measurements are l . 2 . Ib1d., p. 28. Ib1d., pp. 27-28. 3Ibido ' pp. 3-4. 4Emery N. Castle, "Activity Analysis in Water Planning," in Econonics and Public Policy in Water Resource Develo ment, ed. by Stephen C. Smith and Emery N. Castle (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1964), pp. 171-85. ‘ 31 of little real value in view of the growing and conflicting demands being placed on our resources. The author attacks the notion that recreation bene- fits are intangible and incapable of measurement. He com- pares benefits of recreation to those of baseball, music, and other human experiences, which are largely emotional or aesthetic. Indeed measurement of recreational benefits (primary) is necessary if recreation is to be considered equally with other uses of the resource.2 Marion Clawson compares fishing with other forms of outdoor recreation.3 Clawson points out that the value of the sport fishery resource depends upon what peOple are willing to pay for the recreational experience, rather than 4 He discusses the upon the inherent value of the fish. difficulty of obtaining data concerning fishermen's expenditures and the problems of reliability of such infor- mation, once collected. Problems of memory bias and de- ciding which expenditure to include in evaluating the resource are discussed.5 Clawson concludes that total expenditures incurred by fishermen reflect the cost of recreational experience, however, this does not necessarily 2 lIbid., p. 181. Ibid. 3Marion Clawson, "Economic Aspects of Sport Fish- ing," Canadian Fisheries Reports, IV (May, 1965), 12-24. 4 5 Ibid., p. 21. Ibid. 32 reflect the value of the resource to the user. Fishermen might be willing to pay considerably more than they actually do to enjoy their sport.1 Scott has eXplored some of the theoretical aspects of evaluating sport fisheries.2 He pointed out that the best way to determine accurately the true market value of fish and game resources is to impose a toll. If a toll were levied upon all users of a fishery resource and the level of the toll were such that local users of the re- source changed their frequency of visits to equal that of remote visitors, the optimum toll could be called the "value of the resource to the visitors."3 The author discusses the importance of determining the values of recreational resources in order to allocate such resources among several competing user groups.4 Scott concludes that visitors from near the recreation site will tend to be predominantly people of lower income, making shorter visits than visitors from farther away.5 11bid., p. 22. 2Anthony Scott, "The Valuation of Game Resources: Some Theoretical Aspects," Canadian Fisheries Reports, IV 4 31bid., p. 27. . Ibid., p. 45. 51bid., p. 33. 33 Spargo discusses some of the procedural errors in past economic evaluations of sport fisheries.1 Most of such evaluations have been attempts to determine the eco- nomic value of the resource within a certain political boundary. Usually the evaluation is in terms of gross expenditures. Impressive total values are presented, and an optimistic outlook is projected for future demand. Although no definite value has been proven for such studies, they are often used to justify increased public investment in the fishery resource. The weaknesses of such an approach to fishery valuations are discussed.2 The author points out that expenditure studies often in- correctly report secondary benefits as primary benefits.3 The danger of evaluating the resource strictly on an economic basis is pointed out. Often primary benefits, which accrue to persons with little or no expenditure, are overlooked.4 Spargo concludes that the gross expenditure method is considered useful chiefly in determining economic bene- fits accruing to a local area. In addition to the gross expenditure method of valuation, the following methods are 1R. A. Spargo, "Methods and Techniques of Evalu- ation of Sport Fishing," Canadian Fisheries Reports, IV 2 3 Ibid., p. 54. Ibid., p. 59. 41bid.’ p. 62. 34 discussed: educated guess, catch, time, distance traveled, imputed prices and values, and alternatives.1 In 1966 the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife published the results of a nationwide study of the socio- economic characteristics, participation patterns and ex- penditures of hunters and fishermen.2 Comparisons were made with similar studies conducted in 1955 and in 1960. Data were fathered from personal interviews of 16,000 households.3 Fishermen were reported to have spent an annual total of nearly $3 billion, or a mean per capita amount of $103.00 in pursuit of their sport. The report itemizes expenses in various classes. No estimation of net economic values of hunting and fishing is given.4 It was felt that the amount of money spent by hunters and fishermen provided a reliable indication of the value of the sports to the users of the resources. Gross expenditures were presented as an indicator of business values of hunting and fishing. The report expresses the feeling that the "intangibles" of enjoyment and satisfaction are beyond economic appraisal.5 11616.. pp. 60-64. 20.8., Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1965 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Publication No. 27 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966). 3 4 Ibid., p. 65. Ibid., p. 4. 51bid., p. 3. ' 'ILI'SI 1 ‘Vf‘r- Ag. A"? III- ' < 4 n “it": d 35 Factors relating to participation in hunting and fishing, such as age, sex, residence, and distance traveled, are discussed in detail.1 In 1967, Davis reported a study of hunting and 2 The objectives of his fishing values in Arizona in 1965. study were threefold: (1) measure economic contributions to the state, (2) determine motivational factors, and (3) discuss recommendations of hunters and fishermen. The author categorizes expenditures made by sportsmen as "pri- mary or direct" contributions to the state's economy, con- trary to the definition provided by Spargo.3 Only initial expenditures of hunters and fishermen are considered. Subsequent expenditures and net returns to businessmen are not estimated. An itemized discussion 1Ibid., pp. 49-61. 2William C. Davis, Values of Huntingpand Fishing in Arizona in 1965 (Tucson: University of Arizona, College of Business and Public Administration, 1967). 3Spargo, "Methods and Techniques of Evaluation of Sports Fishing," p. 59, also Brockman, discuss "primary" and "secondary" benefits derived from recreation. In- tangible values, such as improved efficiency of workers, increased productivity of the nation and reduced need for law enforcement and correctional institutions are included in primary benefits. Such benefits cannot be measured by economic means. On the other hand, "secondary or indirect benefits" are the measurable effects of recreation on the economy of a local community, a state or the nation as a whole. C. Frank Brockman, Recreation Use of Wild Lands {New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959): PP. 81-85. “‘5 nrl u flfiy- n uC.le 64'4“: Byte->4! u.1 ; SActcul & L338. ”Vans 1;»: 138 a: 1'01 1" “V f] I R‘ n!- 51‘ hr— .‘ 1n.“ - \..." ‘~~‘ 36 of types of expenditures is provided by the author.1 Total 1965 expenditures for each species of fish and game are provided.2 Davis further attempted to measure social benefits derived from hunting and fishing. Socio-economic charac- teristics of hunters and fishermen were studied.3 Sports- men's attitudes and motivational values are discussed in detail.4 The publication is profusely illustrated with sketches of fish and game, and is written in a semi-popular tone. Scheftel presents another example of a study of gross expenditures.5 A survey was designed to determine the amounts of money which accrued to those in Minnesota who provided services to sport fishermen. A combination of personal interview and mail questionnaire methods was used to obtain a response rate of 75 per cent.6 It was lDavis, Values of Hunting and Fishing in Arizona in 1965, pp. 23-26. 21616.. pp. 29-43. 31bid, pp. 9-14. 4Ibid., pp. 43-72. 5Zane Scheftel, "An Economic Evaluation of Sport Fishery in Minnesota," Transactions Twenty-third North American Wildlife ConferencegTWashington, D.C.: Wildlife .Management Institute, 1958), pp. 262-68. 61bid., p. 264. . :A"I Lula .I-r: hi. .. rny fix. I N'uv" v'u.‘ L',‘ but ...,_ M‘L 37 found that over three-fourths of the total expenditures went for food, lodging, and transportation. Total expendi- ture figures calculated for non-respondents corresponded closely with figures obtained by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1955 Survey of Hunting and Fishing.1 Crutchfield criticizes the use of gross eXpendi- tures and gross market values to define the value of a sport fishery.2 He points out that most of the money spent by anglers in pursuit of their recreation would merely be redirected to another activity if the fishery should be curtailed.3 While gross expenditures for fishing are a reasonable estimate of the value of the fishery to the user, the great bulk of gross expenditure studies done in recent years on sport fishing values are of no value in determining the relative worth of fisheries, as compared to alternative uses of the resource.4 The author suggests the use of "net economic yield," or the amount the user would be willing to pay for the right to fish. This is a difficult value to derive, but is the only sound basis for evaluating fishery 1Ibid., p. 266. 2James A. Crutchfield, "Valuation of a Fishery," .densactions Twenty-seventh North American Wildlife Con- ference (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, 1962): pp. 335-47. 31bid., p. 341. 41bid., p. 342. Cw v.5 re" “‘11.. .we ,«u. If 3! ir. . 6'... IJInIIItlE-‘El' . . .n .. .. .. “11.2.5 _ «i 9.2m FHL vk~ .6 Q an. n 6v «\U a» i» v.4 -.v.. :0 v . I 38 resources.1 Several methods of determining the net eco- nomic value, or willingness ot pay are discussed. Thompson, Gram, and McGinnes conducted a mail questionnaire survey to determine total hunter expenditures in Virginia.2 The sample, drawn from license holders, was asked to indicate an "eXpenditure interval“ rather than to recall a specific amount of expenditures.3 No follow-up or assessment of non-response were made. Those who hunted in the county of residence were found to spend less money than those who reside in another county or state.4 The problem of inability to recall expenditures was found to be a significant source of bias.5 Attitude and Opinion Studies An opinion survey of sport fishermen was carried out by McFadden, Ryckman, and Cooper in Michigan.6 The 1Ibid. 2Emmet F. Thompson, James M. Gary, and Burd S. McGinnes, Estimating Hunting Expenditures in Virginia, Research Report 116 (Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Research Division), 1967. 31bid., p. 2. 41bid., p. 7. 5Ibid., p. 5. 6James T. McFadden, James R. Ryckman, and Gerald P. Cooper, "A Survey of Some Opinions of Michigan Sport Fisher- men," Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, XCIII (April, 1964), 183-93. .rma-‘wnx duct .4; a; vb- r-r Vb. n-r by“ my- Vb 'VA EU I U a. .- s 39 attempt was made to obtain an unbiased estimate of public opinion concerning fishery management programs. A geo- graphically stratified random sample of licensees was mailed postcard questionnaires. A response rate of 85.7 per cent was obtained by means of three attempted mail contacts plus one additional attempt by mail, telephone, or personal contact. It was found that relatively few fishermen felt that too much money was being spent on trout stocking pro- grams. This applied to non-trout and trout-fishermen alike. More trout fishermen preferred stocking trout in streams than in lakes. All fishermen groups agreed that trout stocking should be expanded to meet future needs, and that a greater share of the department's budget should be allocated to this activity. The most frequently selected of several alternative needed management activi- ties was "lake and stream improvement," followed in order by "research on improvement of fishing," and "warm water fish stocking." A study which amplifies the work by Brown, e£_el., in Oregon was completed by Stevens. In addition to costs associated with fishing, Stevens pointed out that the quality of the recreational experience should be con- sidered a relevant factor in the demand for sport fishing.1 1Joe B. Stevens, "Angler Success as a Quality Determinant of Sport Fishery Recreational Values," Trans- actions, American Fisheries Society, XCV (October, 1966), 357-62. . .L / Til ,1 3 S E . ‘r. _ '4‘: fl” tire: SICK; n‘q 'vuJ I ct, I." n; n . a .V'. N. 5.. §.“- 40 Numerous factors, such as quality of roads, weather, and crowding may affect the quality of the fishing experience; however, only angling success is the one universal, ob- jective, and measurable determinant of such quality.1 The author measured salmon angling effort in Oregon coastal waters under varying conditions of angling success. The observations were followed up by mailed questionnaires. Stevens found that angling effort was profoundly affected by angler success.2 Individuals with higher incomes and longer travel distances to fishing sites showed more pro- nounced response to changes in success.3 Stevens points out the limitations of determining gross values of sport fisheries. While gross value indi- cates the total amount the anglers contribute to the econ- omy, it does not state how much the angler is willing to pay specifically for the opportunity to fish. Only the "net" value, or the amount the angler would be willing to . pay an owner for the privilege of fishing, assuming a market existed for sport fishing, is a true expression of the worth of the fishing.4 Alexander and Shetter studied fishing and boating activities on portions of the AuSable River in Michigan.5 1Ibid., p. 358. 21bid. 3 4 Ibid., p. 359. Ibid., p. 361. 5Gaylord R. Alexander and David S. Shetter, "Fish- ing and Boating on Portions of the AuSable River in Michi- gan, 1960-63," Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, xcvx (3u1y, 19677T'25736'. pr». 1;". . thrul'mb w _. jj‘ fit. I. . - blah" 41 Of major concern was the problem of conflict for space be- tween anglers and boaters, primarily canoeists. Two methods were employed to obtain an estimate of manhouse of use: "progressive counts," which consisted of counting boaters and anglers while paddling or drifting through a test section of the river; and "instantaneous counts," in which observers counted all boaters and anglers visible at a given time at a randomly selected site along the stream.1 It was determined that conflict indeed does exist between canoeists and anglers along certain portions of the river. Green and Wadsworth reported on factors influencing participation among boaters, fishermen, and hunters in southern Indiana.3 It was hypothesized that the following variables determined the participation as measured by number of trips: (1) income, (2) occupation, (3) age, (4) days of paid vacation, (5) age of youngest child at home, (6) education, (7) sex, (8) marital status, (9) number of children living at home, (10) employment status of wife, (11) number of years boat has been owned, and (12) dis- tances traveled.4 1 2 Ibid., p. 259. Ibid., p. 263. 3Bernal L. Green and H. A. Wadsworth, Boaters, FiehermenLHunters: What Affects Participation and What Do They Want? Research Bulletin 829, Agricultural Experi- ment Station (Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University, 1967). 4Ibid., p. 15. 42 A mailed questionnaire produced a 50 per cent re- sponse among boaters and a 43 per cent response among fishermen. The amount of participation in boating was found to be influenced by the following variables: income, vacation, number of years of boat ownership, distance to place of boat operation, and distance from home to nearest boating area. Among fishermen, five statistically signifi- cant variables were found to influence participation. These are occupation (clerical and craftsmen showing signifi- cantly higher participation), marital status, employment status of wife, and average distance from home to fishing site.1 Peterle determined some of the socio-economic characteristics and attitudes of hunters by means of a mail questionnaire.2 He concludes that the hunters are an important group in determining the future of our wild- life resources, even though they are diminishing as the population grows.3 11bid., p. 5. 2Tony J. Peterle, "Characteristics of Some Ohio Hunters," The Journal of Wildlife Management, XXXI (April, 1967), 375-89. 31bid., p. 388. 43 Survey Techniques C. E. Richard reported on a survey of ocean sport fishing in Virginia from 1955 through 1960.1 Angling effort was estimated by means of boat counts at a check- area, log book entries, interviews and aerial observations. Maximum fishing effort was found to occur between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., and week-end day effort was three times as great as week-day effort. Creel census information was obtained from log books, interviews, and postcards. Eco- nomic values of the salt water sport fishery were deter- mined using the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1966 (Crossley Report) average daily expenditure for Gulf and Atlantic Coast sport fishing. The average daily ex- penditure was multiplied by the average number of trips per angler to find the average annual expenditure per angler. The average annual expenditure, in turn, was multiplied by the total number of anglers to provide an estimated total value of the sport fishery. Another study of angling success and total fishing pressure was done by Elser on the Northeast River, a freshwater tidal tributary of Chesapeake Bay, in Maryland in 1958.2 Fishing pressure was determined by making counts 1C. E. Richards, "A Survey of Salt-Water Sport Fishing in Virginia, 1955-1960," Chesapeake Science, III (December, 1962), 223-35. 2Harold J. Elser, "Creel Census Results on the Northeast River, Maryland, 1958," Chesapeake Science, I (June, 1960), 41-47. 44 of all fishermen on the river at two specified times dur- ing the day. The creel census was conducted by one man who interviewed anglers while they were fishing. Fishing pres- sure was found to vary during the season. Anglers were classified by sex and state of residence. The average length of fishing trips was found to be 5.4 hours, and the average daily catch was 1.5 fish of all species.1 Jensen found that California salmon fishermen tended to provide exaggerated reports of angling success in response to postal card surveys. Verification of catch estimates by reviewing party-boat logs and records of skiff livery operators indicates that postal-card respond- ents may indicate a total catch several times as great as the actual catch, as determined by fishery sampling and party-boat logs.2 Frisbie and Ritchie reported on a comprehensive study of sport fishing on the Potomac Estuary from 1959 3 through 1961. The study made use of aerial surveys, mailed questionnaires and interviews of anglers. The 1Ibid., p. 45. 2Paul T. Jensen, "Landings Estimates of California's Marine Recreational Salmon Fishery," California Fish and Game, L (January, 1964), 48-52. 3Charles M. Frisbie and Douglas E. Ritchie, Jr., "Sport Fishing Survey of the Lower Potomac Estuary, 1959- 1961," Chesapeake Science, IV (December, 1963), 175-91. 45 following goals were outlined for the study: determination of angling pressure and angling success, determination of total harvest and the species composition of the catch, evaluation of the economic importance of the sport fishery, and evaluation and improvement of survey techniques. Response to postcard questionnaires increased from 33.5 per cent in 1959 to 40 per cent in 1960. The increase was attributed to two factors: (1) an additional question was added in 1960, which asked whether or not the respond- ent was satisfied with the fishing, and (2) a follow-up letter was mailed to non-respondents.1 The economic portion of the study consisted of a determination of gross trip expenditures.2 The authors found evidence of bias in reporting of catches in the 1959 survey.3 It was felt that personal interviews and postcard surveys were of equal value in determining rate of catch and either could be used alone, if supplemented with aerial surveys. Also interviews and mail questionnaires appeared to be of equal value in determining expenditures.4 Johnson and Wroblewski studied sources of error in creel censusing on Minnesota Lakes.5 The five 1 2 Ibid., p. 181. Ibid., p. 188. 3Ibid., p. 190. 4Ibid. 5 Merle W. Johnson and Leonard Wroblewski, "Errors Associated with a Systematic Sampling Creel Census," Transactions_of the American Fisheries Society, XCI (April, 1962f, 201-07. 46 statistical components of creel census sampling were de- fined as: "(l) interval boat counts, (2) average number of fishermen per boat, (3) average trip length in hours, (4) average number of fish taken per trip by species, and (5) average weight in pounds of fish taken by species."1 Creel census information is useful in determining fishing pressure, success, and total harvest. Each of the five components of the creel census is discussed in terms of possible introduction of bias. The advantages of probability sampling over non- probability sampling for estimating the number of angler days are discussed by Abramson and Tolladay.2 Probability sampling is defined as any sampling method in which the chance of selecting any unit in the population is known. On the other hand with nonprobability sampling, or "judg- ment," the chance of selecting any particular unit in the population is unknown. Using nonprobability sampling the precision of the estimate obtained cannot be determined, however, the authors point out that nonprobability sampling is sometimes the only practical method available.3 Abramson and Tolladay define optimum allocation as a plan where " . . . the sample is allocated so that each lIbid., pp. 202-03. 2Norman Abramson and Joyce Tolladay, "The Use of Probability Sampling for Estimating Annual Number of Angler Days," California Fish and Game, XLV (1959), 303-11. 31bid., p. 305. 47 stratum sample size is proportional to the product of the stratum size and the stratum standard deviation."1 The optimum allocation plan was found suitable for estimating the total angler days in California in 1957.2 Hayne reviewed methods currently employed for estimating catch and fishing effort in marine sport fish- eries and suggests a sampling design for such estimates. The author discusses possible exaggeration of angling success among postcard questionnaire respondents. Also the possibility of inflating success figures because of memory bias is considered.3 Abramson places possible errors in surveys into three classifications: (l) sampling error; (2) response error, where respondents do not report true values; and (3) non-response error, where respondents differ in some way for non-respondents.4 Sampling error can be reduced or eliminated by use of suitable statistical methods. Non-response error can be corrected through the use of field surveys to interview all or some of the 1Ibid., p. 309. 2Ibid., p. 311. 3Don W. Hayne, The Measurement of Catch and Effort in Marine Sport Fishing, A Report to Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior, prepared by the Institute of Statistics (Raleigh: Uni- versity of North Carolina, 1964). 4Norman J. Abramson, "Distribution of California Angling Effort in 1961," California Fish and Game, XLIX (July, 1963), 174-82. 48 non-respondents. However, response error is the most difficult type to eliminate. Many respondents have diffi- culty remembering details while others have a tendency to exaggerate.1 Palmer studied the public recreational use of state-owned lands in southern Michigan.2 The survey covered types and intensity of visitor use, with special reference to hunting. Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of users were determined by means of a mail questionnaire. A return of 84 per cent was obtained with the use of one or two reminder notices.3 1Ibid., p. 175. 2Walter L. Palmer, An Analysis of the Public Use of Southern Michigan Game and Recreation Areas, Research and Development Report 102 (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1967). 31bid., p. 29. CHAPTER III RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION This chapter is devoted to the analysis of the data obtained by the questionnaire. The following sequence is followed: (1) the validity and usefulness of question- naire responses in general are considered, (2) the re- sponse to the questionnaire is discussed, and (3) tabu- lations and analyses of the data are presented, and statistical correlations among the variables are shown. Questionnaire Surveys According to Kerlinger, the mail questionnaire has two serious drawbacks if used alone: (1) generally the response rate is too low to make valid generalizations, and (2) the researcher is unable to check on the validity of the answers given. Kerlinger concludes that a rate of return of less than 80 per cent indicates that the response is from a select population, and that results are almost invariably open to question.1 In the present study, the Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Re- search (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966), p. 397. 49 50 total rate of response was 78.89 per cent of all deliverable questionnaires. This is considered to be a satisfactory return. However, Kerlinger's second criticism of question- naire surveys, concerning the validity of responses, is a matter which can only be speculated upon. It is important to keep in mind the problem of questionable validity in discussing the results of this survey. The questionnaire, like the personal interview, obtains only as much infor- mation as the subject is willing to reveal about himself. Much controversy has developed over the value of individuals' self-reports. It is known that when a person feels threatened by a question, or if truthful reporting may embarrass him or show him in an unfavorable light, the validity of his response is highly questionable.1 Some items included in the coho fisherman question- naire, innocuous as they may seem, possibly elicited un- truthful or exaggerated responses from some individuals. Unfortunately there was no feasible way to check on the occurrence of such responses in this study. A further general problem with questionnaire sur- veys is the frequently made tacit assumption that the recipient of the questionnaire understands the questions lClaire Sellitz, Marie Johoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964): pp. 236-237. 51 and is able to answer, if only he can be motivated to do so. However, it is known that such an assumption often is not warranted. Even commonplace facts, relating to day-to- day living, are frequently unknown.1 Closely related to the problem of lack of knowledge is that of memory lapse. As Payne observed, “ . . . recall may differ from fact, and therefore should not be taken as fact."2 The researcher feels that the problem of memory lapse might be especially great in the present study. In some cases more than one full year had elapsed between the time of fishing activity and the receipt of the question- naire. While questionnaire surveys apparently yield a high degree of uniformity, different people frequently respond to a given question in dissimilar ways. Meanings to words and phrases are far from universally accepted, and it would be erroneous to believe that all respondents read and answered the questionnaire with the same level of understanding.3 Therefore, it must be borne in mind that the answers provided by the respondents were tempered by time and momory and were made with varying degrees of under- standing of the questions and knowledge of the answers. 1Stanley L. Payne, The Art of Askinnguestions (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1951), pp. 138-39. 2Ibid., p. 29. 31bid., pp. 16-17. 52 In addition, lack of sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a reply may account for some of the non-response. In spite of the weaknesses of questionnaires, there are certain advantages to their use in a survey. The cost of a mailed questionnaire is considerably less than per- sonal interviews or telephone calls. Also, a higher degree of standardization can be obtained through the use of questionnaires than through interviews.1 A further ad- vantage of the questionnaire type of survey is that the respondent may fill out his answers at his leisure, with little pressure for immediate response. He has ample time to consider each item and to consult personal records or to question other members of his family or group.2 Response to the geestionnaire Nearly 80 per cent of the total forms mailed and presumably delivered were returned and were usable. Table 2 summarizes the response to the survey. Questionnaires were returned undelivered by the Post Office for a variety of reasons. The primary causes of nondelivery were "incomplete address,“ "adressee un- known," and "addressee moved with no forwarding address." While a rate of return in excess of 80 per cent had been hoped for, the response rate obtained was 1Sellitz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, pp. 238-39. 2Ibid., p. 240. 53 considered quite satisfactory for the purposes of the study, particularly in View of the length and complexity of the questionnaire. TABLE 2.--Summary of the response to the questionnaire mailed to Michigan salmon-trout fishermen, 1967 season. Item Number Adjusted sample sizea 2,203 Questionnaires returned undelivered 62 Questionnaires presumably delivered 2,141 Unusable responses 36 Usable responses 1,687 Percentage of usable response to question- naires delivered 78.89 aThirty-nine individuals were dropped from the original sample because they were under seventeen years of age. The following table (Table 3) provides a summary of each mailing and response by waves. It is noteworthy that response dropped off sharply following the first follow-up. Probably the use of more than five follow-ups would not be justified in view of the length they would add to the survey time. It is felt that an improved and shortened questionnaire would yield an equally high rate of total return with fewer follow-ups. 54 TABLE 3.--Mailing and pattern of reSponse to Salmon-Trout Fisherman Questionnaire, 1967 season. a No. No. Received Mailing Date Forms Prior to Percentage Mailed Next Mailing Initial Mailing May 3 2,240 651 38.6 First Follow-up May 15 1,553 558 33.1 Second Follow-up May 30 985 128 7.6 Third Follow-up June 13 882 216 12.8 Fourth Follow-up June 27 583 92 5.4 Fifth Follow-up July 12 472 42 2.5 Total Response 1,687 100.0 aThe initial mailing consisted of one copy of the questionnaire plus an attached letter of explanation. The first, second, and fourth follow-ups were each of the form of postcard reminders. The third follow-up consisted of a letter plus a copy of the questionnaire. The fifth follow-up was in the form of a letter. All correspondence forms used are included in Appendix B. Editing Responses Upon receipt, each questionnaire was dated and checked for completeness and usability. Questionnaires which were returned blank, unreadable, or with only a few questions answered were discarded. The sampling method used introduced several problems into the study. Some of the individuals inter- viewed during the creel census reported that they had never fished for coho or had done no fishing in 1967. This can be explained by the fact that the interviewers 55 were instructed to contact people without regard to their fishing activities.1 Responses from non-fishermen were not used in the survey. A few husband-wife teams were interviewed, with both members being included in the sample. This resulted in some duplicated responses; however, the number of such teams in the sample is not thought to be great enough to affect any results. No attempt was made to identify or discard duplicate husband-wife responses. Another editing problem relating to the sampling method used concerns children. A number of respondents were under seventeen years of age, and therefore would not have been included in a sample made up of license holders. The quality of response from individuals under seventeen was often low, and such individuals will not be included in samples of fishermen in future studies. Therefore it was decided to remove all respondents under seventeen years of age from the sample. It is not possible to determine how many such individuals were originally included in the sample but failed to respond to the questionnaire. Coding Questionnaires All returned questionnaires which were considered usable were coded for later analysis and tabulation by electronic data processing equipment. Since the question- naire is long and detailed and had several open-ended 1See instructions for creel census, Appendix A. 56 questions, the coding process was rather lengthy. The coding procedure was designed to include as much of the given information as possible in the computer analysis. Contacting Non-respondents Non-response is defined as the failure to measure some portion of the selected sample.2 Clearly the data obtained by means of a mail questionnaire reflect only the characteristics of individuals in the sample who are willing to complete and return the questionnaire.3 Brown, e£_el. has shown that non-respondents may differ from respondents in terms of expenditures associated with sport fishing.4 Where non-response is in excess of 20 per cent, the validity of any projections of data obtained may be highly question- able.5 Although the rate of response to the salmon-trout fisherman survey was nearly 80 per cent, it was considered 1A c0py of the code book developed for the survey is enclosed in Appendix C. 2Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, p. 397; also Cochran, Sampling Techniques, p. 357. 3Peterle, "Characteristics of Some Ohio Hunters," pp. 375-890 4Brown, Singh, and Castle, Net Economic Value, pp. 20-25. 7 5Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, p. 397. 57 desirable to attempt to determine if measurable differences between respondents and non-respondents could be found. By July 19, 1968, 456 individuals in the sample had not yet responded to the questionnaire. A 10 per cent sub-sample of the non-respondents was selected by means of a table of random numbers and contacted by telephone, letter, or personal interview. The following questions were asked of the non- respondents: (1) Have you fished in Michigan before 1967? (2) What kind of fish do you usually fish for? (3) Did you fish for salmon or trout in 1967? (4) How many fish- ing trips did you make? (5) How many lake trout, coho, and rainbow (steelhead) did you catch? and (6) Where did you fish? In addition to the above questions, telephone interviewees were asked whether or not they had received a copy of the questionnaire. The following three tables summarize the results of contacting the non-respondents and provide a comparison between respondents and non-respondents for selected vari- ables. Of the fifty-six non-respondents in the sub-sample, a total of fifty-one (91.07 per cent) were contacted. After every practical effort to contact the five remaining indi- viduals had failed, they were omitted from further study. Table 4 shows some of the characteristics of the non-respondents. The non-respondents indicated little dissatisfaction with either the salmon-trout sport fishery or the questionnaire itself. Nearly all the non-respondents 58 in the sub-sample had received the questionnaire and had fished for salmon or trout in 1967. TABLE 4.--Characteristics of non-respondents to question- naire contacted by letter, telephone, or personal interview. Characteristic Number Percentage Non-respondents contacted 51 100.00 Reported nonreceipt of question- naire 3 5.88 Fished for salmon or trout in 1967 46 90.20 Indicated dissatisfaction with questionnaire 4 7.84 Indicated dissatisfaction with coho fishery 1 1.96 Table 5 compares respondents with non-respondents with regard to previous fishing experience and frequency of fishing trips during 1967. Non-respondents were found to have had significantly less Michigan fishing experience than respondents. No differences in favorite fish species or amount of angling done in 1967 were found to be signifi- cant. The angling success reported by respondents and non-respondents is compared in Table 6. A chi-square test revealed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of angling success. Unfortunately it was not feasible to obtain full information from the non-reSpondents contacted. It is 59 TABLE 5.--Comparison of some characteristics of respondents and non-respondents to salmon-trout fishing questionnaire, 1967.a Percentage or Mean Characteristic Non-respondents Respondents Fished in Michigan before 1967 90.20 96.62 Species most sought before 1967 Trout 43.14 51.73 Other 47.06 48.23 Mean number fishing trips, 1967 6.85 3.22 aA chi-square test indicated a significant differ- ence between respondents and non-respondents with regard to previous Michigan fishing experience but none for species of fish sought in previous seasons (P > 0.05). TABLE 6.--Comparison of angling success of respondents and non-respondents to salmon-trout fishing questionnaire, 1967.a Mean Number of Fish Caught During Season per Individual Species Non-respondents Respondents Lake trout 0.86 1.35 Coho 0.90 3.04 Rainbow-steelhead 0.86 0.93 Total success 2.62 5.32 aChi-square test revealed no significant difference between respondents and non-respondents (P > 0.05). 60 suggested that non-respondents may have significantly lower income than respondents, or the two groups may differ in some other socio-economic characteristic. Tabulations and Analyses of Findings This section summarizes the responses to the questionnaire and provides a profile of the salmon-trout angler in terms of socio-economic characteristics, angling preferences, expenditures, and recreational activities preferences. It is important to keep in mind that sampling bias is probably too great to state with certainty that the data summarized here reflect the characteristics of all Michigan salmon and trout fishermen. However, it is felt that the profile presented approximates an accurate portrayal of such anglers. Residence of Salmon-Trout Anglers Table 7 clearly indicates that the great bulk of the respondents were Michigan residents. However, non- residents may have been excluded from the sample because of the sampling method used. Many non-resident anglers possibly had completed their fishing and left the state before the creel census was undertaken. Figure 1 shows the residence pattern of Michigan salmon-trout anglers in the sample. Clearly the bulk of the anglers appear to reside in populous counties or in 61 TABLE 7.--State of residence of Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Residence Number Pgicggtzie Michigan 1,626 96.4 Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana 49 2.9 Other 5 0.3 Unknown 7 0.4 Total 1,687 100.0 counties where salmon-trout fishing is close at hand. Kent County was the leading contributor, with 185 anglers or 11.38 per cent of the sample. Kent County's high repre- sentation is somewhat predictable in that Kent County has both a relatively large population, and salmon and trout fishing is in close proximity. Figure 2 shows the contribution of each county to the sample, relative to the total county population. Thus Wayne County, with 114 residents in the sample and a very large population, shows a low relative participation. On the other hand, Benzie County, with only thirty-one resi- dents in the sample and a low population, showed a very high relative participation. Generally counties with very high relative participation have salmon-trout within their borders or in very close proximity; while the counties with very low relative participation generally are the counties Part' Low Mode Iiigll Very 62 I‘Ll IOVILI '(vl In I? ‘ 5.». Q 'W §Xiv count OIxL:__~.' .1: I“??? - . ‘JL .i. ~r.J°""° :uouloa. 31.1.1 , nut-II o ' ' x! I I ¥—~-r9 , / (I'LL‘ ' 1335433 ucou In "I. mung .‘2'- .- 0“: 1.3;". I u um: luau: , LI'IGISNI) . . Per cent of respondents ' ' ‘ ) . . . lbldelcn roSiding 1n county NUIOI quig.4uua u4n¢”'"""‘ - L- D 0. 0-0 . 4 ’ , “5°“ 35...}. _._. rate EZI 0.5—1.4 ' nun ‘7’?“- z. 4 ll 1.$Q.4 2.44} 14 ‘ dun". ., . ,IUUU 'f‘tflLil‘f. .. ”.43. '~ D", Hr). ~‘ DI. .' '.l.‘_ ' . .‘.fp ' 9 T" . . , _-. . ~- .. ., mag ‘~-," ”UH! I. 2.5 and Gr eater ._ .. _gfi--”a:- u . mNUfl L% L‘ .‘.: ’ ' . . . 7 NH 4.1-1? ' .T‘m‘lfl Lu.) Figure l.--Residence, by County, of Resident Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 63 “(w ('IJI'LLL A}. Participation of residents relative Location to population of county quotient 111111.! M‘ .u-Iua Low [:] o.0-49.9 Moderate E] 50- 0-149. 9 ”H with." .' High . 150.0—399.9 ' .. . 5'94. ,5} ”— Very High . 400.0 and Greater . . _ 3"” En'Nfi‘o -- u" 1‘ la; I.‘ -' W '93"? “':'d"'-' I Tl.."~>.---."-"I. 1For each county a "participation coefficient" was calculated by using the following formula: (Number in Sample Residing in County 3 Total in Sample) (Population of County 2 Population of State) 8 100. Thus a "location quo- tient" of 100.0 would indicate that the county is contributing to the resident angler population exactly in proportion of the county's population. Calculated from 1965 population projections, Lynn C. Myers and Lawrence F. Pinson, Michigan Statistical Abstract, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration (East Lan- sing: Michigan State University, 1968), pp. 16-18. Figure 2.--Participation in Salmon-Trout Sport Fishery Relative to Population of County as Reported by Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers, 1967 64 farthest from fishing sites. In other words the percentage of residents of a county that participate in the fishery appears to be influenced by proximity to fishing Oppor- tunity. Table 8 shows the sample primarily was composed of city or village dwellers. As "city or village" was not defined in terms of population size, it is not known how many of the respondents were "rural" or "urban" dwellers, as the Bureau of Census defines these terms. TABLE 8.--P1ace of residence of Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Place of Residence Number Percentage Within city or village 1,135 67.3 Not within city or village 544 32.2 No information given 8 0.5 Total 1,687 100.0 Other Socio-Economic Characteristics Table 9 shows the sex of anglers as reported on the questionnaires. The overwhelming numerical superiority of males among respondents may be attributable, in part, to the sampling method used. As mainly boat owner-Operators were contacted, female passenger-anglers in the boats possibly were often overlooked and excluded from the sample. ,.. . . finillII. . ..r-....,,..-.... I .. . .V '1 . L. Inst“ 65 TABLE 9.--Sex of Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Sex Number Percentage Male 1,661 98.5 Female 22 1.3 No information 4 .2 Total 1,687 100.0 Table 10 indicates that most of the anglers in the sample were married. TABLE 10.--Marital status of Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Marital Status Number Percentage Married 1,544 91.5 Unmarried 136 8.1 No information 7 .4 Total 1,687 100.0 Table 11 shows the age distribution of respondents. A total of 1,062 or 62.9 per cent of the anglers were be- tween the ages of thirty and fifty-four; while 1,364 or 80.8 per cent were between the ages of twenty-five and fifty-nine. Table 12 shows the occupations reported by the respondents. The following four categories account for 996 respondents or 59.0 per cent of the total: 66 TABLE ll.--Age of Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Age Group Number Percentage 17-19 22 1.3 20-24 66 3.9 25-29 142 8.4 30-34 188 11.1 35-39 202 12.0 40-44 216 12.8 45-49 255 15.1 50-54 201 11.9 55-59 160 9.5 60-64 108 6.4 65-69 56 3.3 70 or greater 36 2.1 Not given 35 2.1 Total 1,687 99.9 67 TABLE 12.--Occupations of Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Occupation Number Percentage Professional, technical and kindred workers 237 14.0 Farmers and farm managers 25 1.5 Managers, officials, and proprietors 231 13.7 Clerical and kindred workers 30 11.2 Sales workers 113 6.7 Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers 308 18.3 Operatives and kindred workers 220 13.0 Private household workers 0 0.0 Service workers, except private household 86 5.1 Farm laborers and farm foremen l 0.1 Laborers, except farm 173 10.3 Student 35 2.1 Housewife 14 0.8 Retirees 114 8.5 Military V 13 0.8 Unemployed 9 0.5 Other 11 0.7 No information 37 2.2 68 professional, technical, and kindred workers; managers, officials, and proprietors; craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers; and operatives and kindred workers. Table 13 shows the income of the respondents. It has been suggested that possible the sampling method used introduced an upward bias in the reported income.1 Inasmuch as boat owners or operators were generally those inter- viewed, perhaps a sizable number of less affluent anglers TABLE l3.--Income of Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Income Class .Number Percentage Percentage 1n Sample in Sample 1n Statea Under 3,000 81 5.2 21.6 3,000-5,999 186 12.0 29.6 6,000-9,999 632 40.7 30.0 10,000 and over 665 42.8 14.3 Total reported 1,554 100.7 100.0 Total not reported 133b Note: Chi-square significant, P < 0.01. Incomes in sample different from incomes in state. aIncomes for Michigan residents were taken from 1960 figures, Myers and Pinson, Michigan Statistical Abstract, p. 114. bThe "not reported" category accounts for 7.9 per cent of all respondents. lSupra, p. 4. 69 who were passengers in boats owned and operated by others, were excluded from the sample. Then too, it is not known if "shore" and "boat" anglers were represented in the sample in their true proportions. Conceivably boat owners or operators would show higher incomes than anglers who do not own or Operate a boat. However, a comparison of in- comes of boating and nonboating anglers is not feasible in the present study. Therefore, it was concluded that possibly participation in the salmon-trout fishery is largely restricted to the middle and upper income levels. A chi-square test shows a significant difference between respondents to the questionnaire and state resi— dents as a whole with regard to income. The Michigan resident income figures are based on 1960 estimates, and would, therefore, be somewhat lower than actual incomes in 1967. However, the degree of difference shown is great enough to indicate clearly higher incomes among respond- ents. The mean household size among respondents was 3.9 individuals. Angling Experience and Preferences Table 14 shows the previous angling experience of respondents. Clearly the bulk of the respondents were 'well-experienced Michigan anglers. In fact, 96.7 per cent reported at least some Michigan angling experience between 70 1962 and 1966. Very few (3.4 per cent) first-time anglers were included among respondents. TABLE l4.--Prior Michigan fishing experience among Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Number Years Experience, Number of 1962-1966 Anglers Reporting Percentage 0 57 3.4 1-4 175 10.5 5 1,455 86.2 Total 1,687 100.1 Among the first-time anglers in the sample, a variety of reasons were given for participating in the salmon-trout sport fishery in 1967. Table 15 summarizes the reasons given. Table 16 shows the preferred locations of fishing activity prior to the 1967 season. Of course there was a (zonsiderable overlapping among locations indicated by the respondents. Many fishermen previously fished at more than one of the alternative locations given on the question- naire. Curiously, "Inland Lake" led the other two alter- natives in responses, even though no sampling was done on inland lakes to secure the sample for this study, and no coho fishing was available on inland lakes. Possibly respondents confused "Inland Lake" with "Great Lakes," or the resurgence of Great Lakes sport fishing after a long 71 TABLE 15.--Reasons given for salmon-trout fishing in Michigan, 1967. Reason Number Percentage News of the coho 31 43.1 New resident of the state 13 18.1 Friend induced to fish 3 4.2 Spouse induced to fish 3 4.2 Fished for species other than coho 2 2.8 Fishing incidental to travel or other vacation activities 5 6.9 First time anglers with no response 15 20.8 a Total inexperienced anglers 72 100.1 aThe actual number of anglers without experience 1962-66 is forty-four, as indicated in Table 14. While only first-time anglers were asked to indicate a reason for salmon-trout fishing in 1967, a number of experienced anglers also responded. All responses are summarized in this table. TABLE l6.--Location of fishing activity of experienced Michigan salmon-trout anglers prior to 1967 season. Location of Activity Number of Anglers Great Lakes 948 Inland Lake 1,373 Streams 1,153 Total 1,643 ___..—-—-n-—_ ’ -‘- I 72 period of decline attracted many anglers who had previously fished inland lakes and streams only. Table 17 shows the species preferences among the experienced anglers within the sample prior to the 1967 season. As with location of previous fishing, many of the respondents indicated more than one of the alternatives. However, only the species most fished for is given in Table 17. Trout was the most popular species by far among the angler sample prior to 1967. TABLE l7.--Species most frequently sought among experienced Michigan salmon-trout anglers prior to the 1967 season. Species Most Sought of i:§§::s girgigizg: Trout 814 49'5 Pan fish 192 11-7 Walleye 164 10-0 Bass 199 12.1 Pike 97 5'9 Perch 97 5'9 Other 10 0'6 Not reported 70 4'3 Total 1,643 100.0 73 Attitudes and Opinions Among Salmon—Trout Anglers Table 18 summarizes the response to the question, "Do you plan to fish for cohos in 1968?" Overwhelmingly the anglers in the sample did plan future coho fishing activity. Therefore, clearly the coho fishery is highly acceptable among the respondents. Possibly if the non- respondents had provided answers to this question, the popularity of the coho fishery might appear to be appre- ciably lower, although little dissatisfaction with the fishery was found even among non-respondents contacted. TABLE 18.--Coho fishing plans for following season among Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Res onse Number Percentage of p Anglers Respondents Plan to fish coho in 1968 1,537 91.1 Do not plan to fish coho in 1968 ' 150 8.9 Total 1,687 100.0 Respondents who indicated no fishing plans for 1968 were asked for the reason for their decision. Eight cate- gories of response were developed, based on the first wave of responses. Table 19 summarizes the reasons given for not planning to fish for coho in 1968. A large number of those who did not plan to fish for coho the following season did not provide any reason 74 for their decision. Perhaps they were displeased or bored with the questionnaire, or possibly they were displeased with the fishery but were unable or unwilling to disclose the reason. A number of respondents provided several reasons for planning no future coho fishing. Where multiple re- sponses occurred, the reason given first was the only one coded for the individual. Three of the reasons, crowding, eXpense, and preference for another type of fishing, account for 46.0 per cent of the negative responses. TABLE l9.--Reasons given by respondents for not planning to fish for coho in 1968. Number of Anglers Reason Reporting Percentage Fishing conditions too crowded 23 15.3 Coho fishing too expensive 15 10.0 Lack of angling success in 1967 5 3.3 Prefer another type of fishing 31 20.7 Creel limit too small 3 2.0 Moved from area 4 2.7 No time to fish 2 1.3 Not reported 67 44.7 Total 150 100.0 75 All respondents were asked to suggest facilities or features of Great Lakes fishing which, in their opinion, could be improved to make fishing more enjoyable. As was expected, the responses covered a very wide spectrum. To make useful and manageable tabulations of the data, all responses were placed in four broad categories, and then broken down into more specific sub-categories. Table 20 summarizes the responses given. The coding method used enabled the researcher to record a maximum of four suggestions from each returned questionnaire, provided each of the four suggestions fell into a different broad category of response. The method did not allow recording of multiple responses if each suggestion fell within the same broad category. For example: if an individual suggested “more boat launching sites, improvement of existing sites, more launching ramps, and more toilets," only one of his suggestions could be coded, since all his suggestions would fall into "Part I: Public fishing or launching sites and associated facili- ties." In such cases, only the first response appearing on the questionnaire was coded. A total of 2,000 suggestions for improving Great Lakes fishing was coded, or an average of 1.2 suggestions per angler. Thus while many anglers felt the fishery could stand improvement, overwhelmingly their reasons for TABLE 20.--Re5pondents' fishing tha . -._.. “an-.. . -- -.-__’-.. .._.... Suggested Improvement 76 opinions concerning facilities or features of Great Lakes t should be improved to make fishing more enjoyable. Number Fisherman Responding Percentage Part 1: Public fishing or launching sites and associated facilities More boat launching site Improvement of existing More launching ramps More toilets Other No response Totals 5 515 30.5 sites 138 8.2 135 8.0 19 1.1 9 0.5 871 51.6 1,687 99.9 Part 11: Additions or improvement of facilities other than boat launching facilities More parking Improved access to river More or improved state p Improved or increased ca Improved or increased ea More facilities for moor More specialized service freezing of fish Other No response Totals 198 11.7 s and lakes 104 6.2 arks 17 1.0 mpsites 132 7.8 ting and/or lodging places 21 1.2 ing or docking of boats 46 2.7 s, such as cleaning and 5 0.3 21 1.2 1,143 67.8 1,687 99.9 P art III: Regulation or control needed Reduce crowding of fishe Reduce crowding of campe Reduce littering More laws or better law Guard, Consvrvatinn He Inu)r(»v:: htblLlllq CtHJllJ‘Sy luq>r()VL: (h'e.1t lulkLH; w.1te water pollution on pus HLIIUI‘ NU ruSpUHHI‘ ‘l'utalu rmen 35 2.1 rs 19 1.1 29 1.7 enforcement by Coast partment or police 65 3.8 and spnrl_:~;nmn:;hip 26 l.‘3 1' quality, or air or licidu txnltrol 01 3.0 12 0.7 1,440 85.4 1,687 99.9 Part 1V: Federal, State or Local Responsibilities Improve local Weather re warnings More information on Grea lodging, services, etc Provide brOuder distribu planting of coho or ot Stock more coho or other Revise or abolish season creel limits Improve the mouth of the lY)r bruitiiig Other 14L) r\::;;)(»r1:;r‘ Totals porting and storm 79 4.7 t Lakes fishing, . 49 2.9 tion of stocking or her Species 79 4.7 Species 95 5.6 a1 restrictions on 2r) 1.6 Platte River 22 1.3 44 2.0 1,294 70.7 1,687 [01).] m“ wm‘h‘id nn' 8 77 dissatisfaction were not great enough to cause them to forgo plans for fishing the following season. Of the total of 2,000 suggestions, 1,158 or 57.9 per cent dealt with "improvements" relating to boating or automobile use. On the other hand, 272 or 13.60 per cent of the suggestions dealt with regulations, restrictions or controls needed for the fishery. A total of 352 or 17.60 per cent of the responses concerned miscellaneous services and facilities, not related directly to boat or automobile use. The response indicates great concern for accommodating the mechanized sportsman. However, relatively little con- cern is shown for regulation of the fishery or for provid- ing goods, services, and facilities not directly related to power boat and automobile use. Expenditures Made by Michigan Salmon-Trout Anglers Table 21 shows the pattern of expenditure for pur- chase of durable equipment among the respondents. The questionnaire asked all respondents to list their expendi- tures regardless of the amount of expenditure or nature of use made of the equipment. Most respondents indicated purchase of fishing tackle, but the average expenditure shown was relatively low. On the other hand, relatively few respondents indi- cated purchase of boating or camping equipment; but because of the high cost of such equipment, the average expendi- tures were high, as compared to that of fishing tackle. 78 TABLE 21.-—Purchase of durable equipment by Michigan salmon- trout fishermen, 1967. Type of Fishermen PurchaSing Mean Expenditure Equipment Among Among A11 Number Percentage Buyers Respondents Fishing tackle 1,332 78.9 $ 52.70 $ 41.61 Boating equipment 492 29.2 877.33 330.66 Camping equipment 293 17.4 771.33 558.66 Table 22 shows the use made of durable equipment purchased by respondents. Also shown for each category of equipment is the mean expenditure which may be attributed to coho fishing. It is noteworthy that in each category of equipment, less than one-half of the days of use re- ported were for coho fishing. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that such purchases are a direct response to the coho fishery. The interviewees were asked to itemize fishing trip expenditures in several categories. Table 23 pro- vides an itemized listing of trip expenses reported by the respondents. Very few of the respondents indicated expendi- tures for rental of equipment. This may be interpreted as a desire to own, rather than rent, fishing equipment. However, possibly the low number of renters among the respondents indicates that there was little suitable rental equipment available at a fee favorable to the angler. 79 I!5§.!liliifill. .mucwpcommmu Ham Mom endpflpcmmxo Hmuou coma ou zmcflnmflm 0:00 on pmusnfiuuum mm: Hmeou wo mmmunmouom: msflmammm >9 ucmfimwnoo mo muomoumo some now pocflmuno ousmflmm Hm.mmH m.hm m.e n.5a ucofimwsvm mcflmsmo om.ooH m.mm e.e m.am ucmEmHoUo mcwumom ma.¢aw o.vm m.m H.o~ maxomu mcflnmwm macaamam oaoe schemes once on nousnauuaa on empsnanuum schemes oaoo nee mm: Hmuoa uaosaasam usopcommom mod on: Hmuoe we on: when new: mama new: wo maze ousufiocomxm coo: mmmucoonmm .hmma ca smsumcmwu usouulcOEHMm cmmflQOflz an pommcousm #Qmfimfldvo manmusp MO mmDII.NN mammB 80 mm.maw mean» Ham How monsuflpcomxm mane maflmp new: mm.vmm mean» Ham How mensuflpcmmxw menu amuou cmoz ss.a NH.NH s.sa momcmaxm “mayo em.o mm.oa m.m nmmmumaxoma nv.o v>.ma v.m Houofilumom "Hmucmm om.o vH.m m.m neon Hmauo om.o NH.m m.m Hmo Honuo HN.N nv.m m.mv econ cso mm.o mm.oa o.vm Hmo CBC "HHOImmw om.m em.ma o.mm mmmum>mnueoom mm.~ m av.mam m.oH scamcoa momcmmxm mucopcommmm Ham musuflocomxm mcwuuom mcauuomom . omcmmxm moose QHHB Hem Iom emcee moose QHHB n so scene 0 anomo m endpflpcomxm cmoz Hem mHSUHpcomxm one: u p m w u 0 mo ommucmouom .nmma .cmEnoanm usonulcoEHmm Gamecoflz ha pounommu momcmmxw menu UoNHEopHII.mm mamas 81 Most of the respondents reported expenditures for food and beverages and for gas for their own car on fishing trips, and nearly one-half of the respondents reported expenditures for gas and oil for their own boat. On the other hand, less than one-fifth reported any expenditure for lodging. Probably several factors each partially account for the low expenditure figure for lodging: (1) many of the trips were of one day's duration only, (2) many of the anglers camped or slept in their vehicles, and finally (3) lodging accommodations were in short supply during the peak of the coho season. Few of the respondents indicated purchasing gas or oil for boats or cars other than their own. While this fact probably indicated preference for using one's own car and boat, the low figures given also possibly reflect a sampling bias, favoring boat owner-operators. Data from Individual Fishing Trips In addition to the expenditure data previously discussed, interviewees were asked to provide certain other information concerning individual fishing trips.1 Trip information is summarized in this section. The mean trip length was calculated to be 1.9 days. The length of the trip was defined as the entire period of time the individual stayed away from home. Thus for those lSee questionnaire, Appendix B. 82 anglers who traveled great distances to fish, the trip length might be several days longer than the period of time actually spent at or near the fishing site. Table 24 shows the average size of fishing parties reported. It is not known how many anglers included them- selves with others of the "Immediate household" in the party as it was intended. TABLE 24.--Size of fishing parties reported among Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967.a Immediate Others Household in TOtii giggers in Party Party y Mean 1.4 1.1 2.6 aThe above figures are based on 4,618 fishing trips reported. Table 25 shows the location, by county, of fishing activity among the respondents. The fishing activity was heavily concentrated in the two counties of Manistee and Benzie, which together accounted for 70.0 per cent of the trips reported. Of course unequal sampling effort may have produced a bias favoring counties where such effort was heaviest. Lower Peninsula counties combined accounted for 73.8 per cent of the reported total fishing trips, while Upper Peninsula counties combined accounted for 20.2 per cent. "r“_"w 83 TABLE 25.--County of fishing activity reported among Michi- gan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. County T Number of Percentage of All rips Reported Reported Trips Not given 278 6.0 Manistee 1,823 39.5 Benzie 1,418 30.7 Baraga 386 8.4 Marquette 367 7.9 Alger 108 2.3 Mason 75 1.6 Mecosta 38 0.8 Houghton 34 _ 0.7 Other Lower Peninsula 54 1.2 Other Upper Peninsula 37 0.8 Total 4,618 99.9 Because of the general and ambiguous nature of many of the responses received, it was not considered practical to code fishing sites to categories more specific than county. Table 26 shows the angling success reported among respondents. The mean total hours of reported fishing activity per party per trip was calculated to be 10.7. The reported average catch of about one coho per trip and three per season probably accounts, in part, for the apparent high degree of angler interest in the fishery. -aua—v- hI': ‘ ‘ v m. ,L-Lg ‘5 I 84 TABLE 26.--Angling success reported among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. Mean Catch Species of Fish Per Respondent Per Per Angler for Season Trip Hour Lake trout 1.35 0.49 0. 05 a ' ir‘ Rainbow-steelhead 0.93 0.34 0.03 5 Coho 3.04 1.12 0.10 ‘ 1 Totals 5.32 1.94 0.18 F Table 27 shows that overwhelmingly the respondents chose boat fishing rather than shore or dock fishing. This might be partially attributed to the fact that coho fishing in the lake and river mouths can be best accomplished from a boat. However, it must be kept in mind that the sampling method used possibly introduced a bias favoring boat owner- operators over non-boating fishermen. TABLE 27.-~Type of fishing reported by Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. Trips Reported Type of Fishing Number Percentage Shore or Dock 680 14.7 Boat 3,603 78.0 No information given 335 7.3 TOtal 4,618 100.0 ¥ 85 Boat fishermen were asked to indicate the boat launching site used for each fishing trip reported. Few responses could be interpreted with certainty as to the exact launch site. Therefore, only the county of boat launching was coded, where possible. Table 28 shows the counties selected by the respondents for boat launching. As could be expected, the counties of launching closely parallel the counties of fishing activity. TABLE 28.--County of boat launching reported by Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. County gaunches Percentage eported of Total Manistee 1,318 40.5 Benzie 1,183 36.3 Marquette 304 9.3 Baraga 202 6.2 Alger 85 2.6 Mason 53 1.6 Oceana 28 0.9 Kent 22 0.7 Other 61 1.9 Total 3,256 100.0 86 Interviewees were asked to indicate the number of miles traveled one-way from home to the site of fishing activity. Table 29 shows that the respondents indicated a willingness to travel considerable distances to participate in the salmon-trout fishery. However, few respondents re- ported traveling distances greater than one day's automo- %7 bile drive. The possibility of a sampling bias favoring Michigan resident anglers is discussed on page 60. TABLE 29.--Distances traveled one-way from home to fishing y site by Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Distance Traveled Number of Trips Percentage in Miles Reported of Total 0-30 1,317 28.5 31-100 1,112 24.1 101-400 2,100 45.5 401 and over 89 1.9 Total 4,618 100.0 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities Receipients of the questionnaire were asked to indicate the number of days of participation in several selected recreational activities during 1967. Table 30 shows the participation indicated by respondents. Many respondents provided no information concerning their outdoor recreation activity preferences. In some cases this omission may indicate lack of participation; 87 TABLE 30.--Recreationa1 activity preferences among Michigan salmon and trout anglers, 1967. Percentage of Mean Days Recreational Respondents Participation Activities Indicating Among All PartiCipation Respondents in 1967 Fishing 86.00 31.62 Hunting 65.00 11.10 Auto driving for pleasure 49.91 6.42 Picnicking 49.90 3.90 Swimming 43.01 7.40 Boating 37.90 7.05 Camping 35.10 5.90 Spectator sports 33.10 3.90 Water skiing 23.20 2.71 Golf 20.80 3.82 Walking and hiking 19.85 2.95 Snowmobiling 18.36 2.74 Canoeing 16.70 1.08 Other outdoor games and sports 15.61 2.48 Sledding and tobogganing 11.41 0.57 Ice Skating 10.45 0.71 Snow skiing 7.73 0.82 Bicycling 7.31 1.28 Outdoor Concerts, plays, etc. 7.19 0.31 Sailing 6.78 0.62 Other activities 6.71 1.42 Bird watching 4.75 1.41 Other nature study 4.69 0.88 Horseback riding 4.34 0.32 Wildlife and bird photography 4.24 0.36 Tennis 3.44 0.38 88 while in other cases apparently the omission reflects an oversight or boredom with the questionnaire. For example nearly 100 per cent of the respondents were fishing at the time of the initial creel census interview. However, only 86 per cent of the respondents indicated "fishing" as a recreational activity on their questionnaires. Interrelationships Among the Variables The questionnaire measured several socio-economic and angling characteristics or variables of salmon and trout anglers. Selected pairs of these variables were matched and tested by means of electronic data-processing equipment to determine whether or not statistically sig- nificant relationships could be found. The set of tables in this section is designed to suggest possible reasons for phenomena observed in tabu- lating the results of the survey. For example, is boat ownership among anglers related to income, occupation, fishing experience, or to none, or all of these factors? The significant associations found are not to be considered as definite cause-and-effect relationships. It is believed that the data are not sufficiently representa- tive of all Michigan salmon and trout anglers to state with certainty the causes for angling characteristics observed. The chi-square test was the primary statistical tool used. This test compares the expected or theoretical results with the actual observed results. The test further Iit i a. ,o.,~y.1a.. ,...«.fl‘é. V V . R outl- 89 determines the amount of disparity between the expected and actual results and determines the probability of the disparity being due purely to chance.1 In each case, the null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between the two variables being tested and that the frequency of responses in each category in purely random. Where chi- square is significant, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the paired variables are said to be associated. Apart from chi-square, no attempt to made to define the exact nature of the relationship between the variables matched. For example, a significant association is shown between purchase of fishing equipment and age. Thus the relationship is not random. However, there is no attempt to show how the two are associated. It is not determined which age group or groups purchased equipment in greater percentage than other age groups. Tables 31 through 36 match a series of angling variables with each of the four following socio-economic variables: county of residence, age, occupation, and income. Table 31 matches previous Michigan fishing experi- ence with each of the four selected socio-economic vari- ables. Fishing experience was recorded from the question- naires as a "yes-no" response, without regard for the amount or angling success of such experience. lHerbert Arkin and Raymond R. Colton, Statistical Methods (New York: Barns and Noble, Inc., 1967): p. 112. 90 None of the pairs tested in Table 30 show sta- tistical significance through use of the chi-square test. Therefore, none of the four variables tested have any apparent association with fishing experience. TABLE 31.--Prior Michigan fishing experience compared with several socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees 2 Variable Variable square Freedom for X Experience County of 7.64 81 residence Experience Age 15.64 12 Experience Occupation 20.28 16 Experience Income 8.32 7 Table 32 matches the type of fishing done prior to 1967 with each of the four socio-economic variables. The type of fishing was recorded as "Great Lakes" and “Other." The chi-square test reveals that the type of fishing is associated somewhat with county of residence. Possibly anglers residing near the Great Lakes tend to select Great Lakes fishing significantly more often than residents of inland communities; however, this is not proven. Table 33 matches the species of fish sought by respondents prior to the coho introduction with each of the four socio-economic variables. Responses to type of fish sought were recorded as "Trout" and "Other." Only 91 county of residence showed a significant association with species sought through use of the chi-square test. Possibly the differences in availability of fish species throughout the state accounts for the significant relationship found. TABLE 32.--Type of fishing previously selected compared with several socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees of Variable Variable square Freedom,x Type of fishing County of residence 183.05* 81 Type of fishing Age 18.89 12 Type of fishing Occupation 20.11 16 Type of fishing Income 8.83 7 *Indicates x2 significant, P < 0.05. TABLE 33.--Species of fish sought prior to introduction of coho salmon compared with several socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon and trout anglers, 1967. Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees of Variable Variable square Freedom, X2 Species sought County of residence 172.66* 81 Species sought Age 13.42 12 Species sought Occupation 7.98 16 Species sought Income 9.40 7 *Indicates X2 significant, P < 0.05. 92 Table 34 matches the mean number of fishing trips taken with each of the four socio-economic variables. The variables county of residence, age, and income all show association (chi-square) with the number of trips taken. TABLE 34.--Mean number of fishing trips taken compared with several socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon and trout anglers, 1967. Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees of Variable Variable square Freedom, X2 Mean no. trips County of residence 1276.15* 782 Mean no. trips Age 298.48* 264 Mean no. trips Occupation 287.28 352 Mean no. trips Income 299.28* 154 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. Table 35 matches purchase of durable fishing equip- ment with each of the four socio-economic variables. In each matching a significant relationship (chi-square) is demonstrated. Thus purchase of fishing equipment apparently is related to each of the four socio-economic variables. The variable "equipment purchase" was recorded only as a "yes-no" response. 93 TABLE 35.--Purchase of durable equipment compared with several socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967.a Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees of Variable Variable square Freedom, X Equipment purchase County of residence 106.76* 81 Equipment purchase Age 32.27* 12 Equipment purchase Occupation 42.88* 16 Equipment purchase Income 75.34* 7 * Indicates chi-square significant, P g 0.05. aDurable equipment includes fishing tackle, boats, or boating equipment and camping equipment. Table 36 matches boat ownership with each of the four socio-economic variables. Only respondents who were using their own boat at the time of the creel census inter- view were recorded as being boat owners. Chi-square tests indicate significant relationships between each pair of variables matched in this table. Therefore, apparently boat ownership is associated with county of residence, age, occupation, and income. Table 37 matches length of boat with each of four Socio-economic variables. Chi-square tests indicate boat llength has significant relationships with county of resi— Cience and income. Only data from boat users are included. TEE? 94 TABLE 36.-~Boat ownership compared with several socio- economic variables among Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees of Variable Variable square- Freedom, X2 Boat ownership County of residence 217.66* 162 Boat ownership Age 46.32* 24 Boat ownership Occupation 49.17* 32 Boat ownership Income 40.02* 14 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. TABLE 37.--Boat length compared with several socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees of Variable Variable square Freedom, X Boat length County of residence 2259.87* 738 Boat length Age 212.42 264 Boat length Occupation 222.06 352 Boat length Income 230.12* 154 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. Boat users are identified as those respondents who were fishing from a boat at the time of the creel survey inter- View. 95 Tables 38 through 44 match a series of angling variables with each of the following angling or socio- economic variables: traveled to fish, county of residence, occupation, income, and previous fishing experience. county of fishing activity, distance Table 38 matches length of fishing trip (days) with each of the selected angling or socio-economic variables. Chi-square tests indicate that trip length is related to county of fishing activity, distance traveled to fish, county of residence, occupation, and income. Previous fishing experience apparently is not associated with length of fishing trip. TABLE 38.--Length of fishing trip compared with several angling and socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. . Angling or . Angling . _ . Chi- Degrees of Variable SOCIO economic s uare Freedom X Variable q ' Trip length County of fishing 7609.71* 986 Trip length Distance traveled 1496.19* 203 Trip length County of residence 3788.90* 349 Trip length Occupation 819.42* 464 Trip length Income 277.95* 203 Trip length Fishing experience 17.69 29 b *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. C v.1 A a?" 96 Table 39 matches size of fishing party with each of the selected angling and socio-economic variables. Chi- square tests reveal that size of party is associated with county of fishing activity, distance traveled, county of residence, occupation, and income. Of all variables matched, only previous Michigan fishing experience showed no relationship with party size. TABLE 39.--Size of fishing party compared with several angling and socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. Angling or engling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees sz ariable Variable square Freedom, X Party size County of fishing 647.88* 510 Party size Distance traveled 300.25* 105 Party size County of residence 2027.81* 215 Party size Occupation 440.95* 240 Party size Income 185.19* 105 Party size Fishing experience 14.92 15 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. Table 40 matches the county of fishing activity with each of the selected angling and socio-economic vari- ables. Chi-square tests indicate that county of fishing activity is associated with distance traveled, county of residence, occupation, income, and fishing experience. 97 TABLE 40.--Location of fishing activity by county compared with several angling and socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon-trout anglers, 1967. Angling Soipgieggngmic Chi- Degrees of Variable 1 . square Freedom, X Variable County fished Distance traveled 341.20* 42 County fished County of residence 1912.36* 342 County fished Occupation 206.45* 96 County fished Income 97.36* 42 County fished Fishing experience 31.71* 6 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. Table 41 matches coho angling success with each of the selected angling and socio-economic variables. Chi- square tests show each of the following to be associated with success in coho angling: county of fishing activity, distance traveled to fish, county of residence, income, and previous fishing experience. Only occupation of all variables matched shows no statistical relationship with coho angling success. Table 42 matches the type of fishing done ("shore or dock" or "boat") with each of the selected angling or smocio-economic variables. The type of fishing done is that irudicated by the respondent for each trip he reported. Chi- Sqnaare tests indicate that each of the matched pairs is asusociated. Therefore, each of the following variables is refilated to the type of fishing engaged in: county of “Wm .—._‘. v‘ 98 TABLE 41.-~Coho angling success compared with several angling and socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. Angling Soéggiéggngmic Chi- Degrees of2 Variable Variable square Freedom, X Coho successa County fished 2563.41* 400 Coho success Distance traveled 466.73* 280 Coho success County of residence 2886.40* 240 Coho success Occupation 666.36 640 Coho success Income 308.74* 280 Coho success Fishing experience 72.46* 40 *Indicates chi—square significant, P 0.05. aCoho success is defined as mean number of coho caught per trip per fishing party. TABLE 42.-—Type of fishing done compared with several angling and socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. 3:31:23. so’31‘3ié’33n3riic 333;. 33223:; Variable -’ Type of fishinga County fished 1653.20* 70 Type of fishing Distance traveled 525.54* 14 Type of fishing County of residence 424.36* 162 Type of fishing Occupation 108.26* 32 Type of fishing Income 80.14* 14 Type of fishing Fishing experience 7.42* 2 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. aCoded as "shore or dock" or "other." 99 fishing activity, distance traveled to fish, county of resi- dence, occupation, income, and previous fishing experience. Table 43 shows the relationships between distance traveled to fish and selected angling and socio-economic variables. All chi-square tests indicated significant relationships. Therefore, distance traveled to fish is associated with each of the following: county of fishing activity, county of residence, occupation, income, and previous fishing experience. TABLE 43.--Distance traveled to fish compared with selected angling and socio—economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. Angling Angling or. Chi- Degrees of , . Seeio-economic Variable . square Freedom, X Variable Distance County fished . 2380.65* 210 Distance County of residence 7418.17* 486 Distance Occupation 486.31* 96 Distance Income 411.92* 42 Distance Fishing experience 20.56* 6 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. The questionnaire asked for the type of lodging used during each fishing trip reported. The alternatives were the following: your home; friend's home; cottage; motel or hotel; tent, trailer, or camper; car; and other. Table 44 matches the type of lodging selected with each of lOO several selected angling and socio-economic variables. Significant chi-square values were obtained for each pair matched, indicating each of the following factors is associ- ated with type of lodging selected: county of fishing activity, distance traveled, county of residence, occu- pation, income, and previous fishing experience. TABLE 44.--Type of lodging utilized compared with selected angling and socio-economic variables among Michigan salmon- trout anglers, 1967. Angling or Angling Socio-economic Chi- Degrees of Variable Variable square Freedom, X Lodging County fished 729.54* 245 Lodging Distance traveled 1600.28* 49 Lodging County of residence 3204.01* 567 Lodging Occupation 480.67* 112 Lodging Income 367.09* 49 Lodging Fishing experience 16.02* 7 *Indicates chi-square significant, P < 0.05. Each significant chi-square relationship found in the tables of this section indicates the two matched vari- ables are associated or related in a non—random manner. However, the nature of each significant association can only be speculated upon without more detailed study. . . . It is worthwhile to emphasize that although valid conclusions can always be drawn from frequency data by applying the correct tests of significance, 101 yet the results of these tests are generally of a low order of accuracy. It is usually better to avoid hav- ing to present the data as a contingency table if there is any reasonable alternative.1 None of the pairs matched showed a significant correlation coefficient. Where chi-square is significant and correlation coefficient is not significant, the nature of the association is unknown. It must be appreciated that the non-significance of a particular regression coefficient does not in any way imply that the independent variable concerned does not affect, or is not related to the dependent vari- able. It implies merely that, at the level of signifi- cance adopted, the confidence limits for the estimated effect, or slope, include zero as a possible value. . . . We may only be justified in concluding further work is required to define the relationship more pre- cisely.2 It is suggested that possibly a multiple regression could be demonstrated.3 Perhaps a group of independent variables, acting in concert, could be shown to influence a given dependent variable; while the individual influence of each independent variable could not be shown. “Fre— quently a quantity of interest . . . will be dependent on the levels of not one but a number of variables. The 1Owen L. Davies, ed., Statisticalfiyethods in Re- search and Production (London: Oliver and Boyd, 19585, p. 297. 21bid., pp. 235-36. 3Dennis C. Gilliland, Associate Professor, Depart- mnent of Statistics and Probability, Michigan State Uni- Vrersity, Personal communication, October 31, 1969. 102 situation is often complicated by the fact that these vari- ables are themselves related."1 It is suggested that further study, including use of multiple correlation, may help define more precisely relationships between pairs of variables. Further, the use of data more clearly representative of all Michigan salmon and trout anglers will yield more reliable results. Davies, Statistical Methods in Research and EEroduction, p. 208. rs-p—nl-RTZMQH -. :3 W ‘ gl‘inlia-l.!" 5‘ Lair l CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Several conclusions were reached concerning charac- teristics and attitudes of respondents, based on analysis of the findings. It should not be assumed that the data concerning angler characteristics and attitudes are fully representative of the Michigan salmon-trout fishing pOpu- lation as a whole. The 1967 survey, augmented with find- ings of subsequent surveys, will provide a much clearer picture of the fishery and the angler. Several recommendations were developed from the results of this investigation. These recommendations are concerned mainly with improving survey techniques and in- suring more complete and useful data from future surveys. Recommendations concerning sport fishery and recreation management are given, and certain implications of the findings for private entrepreneurs are pointed out. Socio-economic Characteristics Only a very small number (3.6 per cent) of the respondents resided outside Michigan. While an unbiased sample may reveal a higher proportion of non-residents, 103 104 clearly the anadromous sport fishery is mainly attracting Michigan resident anglers. Within counties of the state two factors appear to influence participation in the fishery: total population of the county, and proximity to salmon or trout angling. The respondents were primarily urban dwellers. Nearly 70 per cent reported that they resided within a city or village. Possibly the name-address punch cards could be utilized in making a more accurate determination of residence patterns. Using the cards, 100 per cent of the sample could be identified as to state, county, and city of residence. The following general identifying characteristics were noted among respondents. Nearly 100 per cent were male, and over 90 per cent were married. Possibly a more representative sample would reveal a higher percentage of females. Reported ages covered a wide range; however, over 80 per cent were between the ages of twenty-five and fifty-nine. Nearly all occupational groups were repre- sented. The four categories "Professional, technical and kindred workers"; "Managers, officials and proprietors"; "Craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers"; and "Operatives and kindred workers" accounted for nearly 60 per cent of the respondents. ‘52 105 Incomes reported were significantly higher than for the population of the state as a whole. Some reluct— . l ance to report income was noted. Fishing Trip Characteristics This section summarizes characteristics of indi- vidual fishing trips, excluding trip expenditures, which were derived from analysis of returned questionnaires. The average trip length was about two days, in- cluding travel time. The average fishing party consisted of 2.6 individuals. Fishing activity within the two Lower Peninsula counties of Benzie and Manistee alone accounted for 70 per cent of the total reported angling effort. Participation within the three Upper Peninsula counties of Baraga, Marquette, and Alger accounted for a further 19 per cent of reported angling effort. Nearly all respondents had some success at coho fishing. The mean coho catch was about three fish for the season and one fish per trip. About 80 per cent of the respondents were boat fishermen. It is not known if the sample was biased in favor of boating fishermen. Nearly one-half of the respondents reported travel- ing between 100 and 400 miles one-way from home to their fishing site. However, fewer than 2 per cent reported travel distances in excess of 400 miles. Thus nearly all 1Supra, p. 112. W‘mmfi‘fi' 106 the respondents fished within one day's driving time of their home. Angling Preferencesy Attitudes, and Opinions Nearly all the respondents were experienced Michigan fishermen prior to the 1967 season. Analysis of the returned questionnaires revealed no evidence that many previous non-anglers are being induced to participate in the coho salmon sport fishery. Among first-time anglers contacted, fewer than one-half indicated that the coho introduction caused them to become a fisherman. Anglers indicated that they previously fished mainly streams and inland lakes, and to a lesser degree the Great Lakes. The resurgence of Great Lakes sport fishing, sparked by the coho introduction, very likely will cause a shift in popularity from inland lakes toward Great Lakes and stream fishing. The majority of anglers reported preference for trout fishing over any other type prior to the salmon introduction. The author feels that the high rate of response to the questionnaire is somewhat indicative of the amount of interest developed among anglers by the coho introduction. The questionnaire form was lengthy and complex and was sent out long after the actual fishing took place. However, nearly 80 per cent of the mailed forms were completed and returned. ulmr“““““‘*iifll 107 Few respondents indicated that they were so dis- pleased with the fishery that they intended to give up salmon-trout fishing. However, most suggested specific areas of improvement for Michigan fishing. Suggested improvements covered a wide variety of topics. Most sug— gestions were concerned in some way with aiding the modern sportsman in getting to and from his fishing site with ample space and a minimum of difficulty. It is felt that the suggestions provided by respondents reflect the high degree of mechanization and the amount of high-priced equipment associated with the fishery. Relatively little concern was shown for needed regulations or conservation practices pertaining to fish- ing. Perhaps this fact suggests a public information need for the state. The anglers surveyed represent a highly vocal and rather affluent group. It is.important that such individuals be aware of the problems facing sport fishing such as maintaining water quality, the threat posed by pesticides, and the influence of other interest groups competing for water resources and for state funds. Reported recreational activities preferences in- cluded the entire range of alternatives provided. One- half or more of the respondents participated in hunting, fishing, auto driving for pleasure and picnicking. 108 Economic Data Obtained Data on Expenditures The mean total reported expenditure per angler for durable equipment attributed to coho fishing was $267.00. In each category of durable equipment, less than one-half of the total use in 1967 was attributed to coho fishing. The mean daily trip expenditure reported per angler was about $13.00. Total trip expenditures averaged $25.00 per angler. Trip expenditures consisted mainly of food and beverages and gas and oil for the angler's own car or boat. Relatively little expenditure was recorded for rental of equipment or for lodging. Perhaps the anglers preferred ownership of equipment to rental, or perhaps there was simply not sufficient equipment available at a suitable rental fee. Similarly with lodging, perhaps the respond- ents preferred commuting or sleeping in a tent or car. On the other hand, possibly there was not sufficient lodging available at a price the angler was willing to pay. While the use of “gross expenditure“ studies is generally criticized, Spargo points out that such studies can provide useful data on the importance of expenditures to the local community.1 Segments of the state's economy are certain to benefit from the angler's expenditures; however, it is not possible to ascertain how much of the lspargo, “Methods and Techniques of Evaluating Sports Fishing," p. 60. ‘r— m-a 109 expenditures will be made in the fishing regions. Indeed, most of the larger expenditures for durable equipment and a large portion of the trip expenditures will be made in areas close to the angler's home, rather than near his fishing site. Many anglers invested heavily in boating and camping equipment. Thus sporting goods stores in Detroit, for example, may profit more from angler expendi- tures (and indirectly from the coho introduction) than entrepreneurs in the salmon-trout fishing region. The fishing regions probably derive the greatest economic benefit from increased lodging receipts, meal and gasoline sales, and to a lesser degree from increased sales of fishing tackle and other durable equipment. Respondents indicated a willingness to spend siz- able sums and reported incomes well above the state average. The possibility exists that participation in the sport fishery is restricted to a relatively high income group. Studies from subsequent seasons should indicate with more validity the income and expenditure patterns among anglers. Improvement of Economic Data While anglers' expenditures for durable goods and for individual fishing trips may provide useful infor- mation, such data should not be construed as "net inputs" into the economy of the state or region. As pointed out by Brown, if the fishery suddenly were to be abolished, most of the money previously spent on spent on sport mt 110 fishing merely would be redirected toward other activities.1 Thus the expenditures of Michigan salmon-trout anglers may influence the distribution of "wealth" within the state but not necessarily indicate a net increase in expenditures. The evaluation technique devised by Clawson probably could be applied to the Michigan salmon-trout sport fish- ery.2 However, it it beyond the scope of the present study to determine or estimate a gross or net economic value of the fishery. Accurate determination of such values, using data obtained in the present study, is probably impossible. Problems of sampling bias, already discussed, preclude an accurate expansion of the data to the entire angler popu- lation. However, a determination of the "net economic value" based on future questionnaire surveys should pro- vide highly useful information. It is recommended that such a determination be undertaken. It is felt that more meaningful data on the overall economic impact of the salmon-trout sport fishery could be obtained if angler expenditure studies could be supple- mented with other studies. Such factors as sales at ser- vice stations, restaurants, motels, bait and tackle shops, and other businesses in the fishing regions and elsewhere in the state could be valuable indicators of the local 1Brown, Singh, and Castle, “Steelhead Sport Fishery," p. 268. 21bid., p. 272. lll economic importance of the fishery. It would be expecially useful if sales trends before and after the introduction of the coho could be compared. Recommendations for Improvement of the Survey Sampling Techniques E Because licenses were not required of Great Lakes anglers at the time of the survey, the Department of Con- servation had to resort to creel census data to obtain a F sample of anglers. Samples for future surveys will be selected from license holders, thus providing a more sta- tistically reliable sample. The_guestionnaire As a general criticism, the author feels that the questionnaire used in the 1967 coho fisherman survey was too long and asked for too detailed information. Of course, shortening the form would result in some sacrifice in the amount of information obtained. However, the loss in information might be well compensated by a higher rate of return and more complete, and more usable responses. Below are specific changes suggested for the questionnaire format and wording. The first suggested change is to pre-code, or pre- pare the questionnaire form for later analysis, prior to mailing. It is felt that all responses to the question- naire, with the possible exception of those relating to 112 individual fishing trips, could be coded on the question- naire form, without transferring the data to 80-column grid sheets. Key punchers could then work directly from the questionnaire form. The author feels that a great deal of time and effort could be saved by careful pre- coding. l a It is suggested that question five, requesting the amount of total family income, be placed toward the end of the questionnaire. Nearly 8 per cent of the respondents t did not answer the question, and it seemed to generate P some antagonism. A few individuals indicated that the question was too personal. Some returned the form com- pletely blank. Others, who indicated displeasure with the question, simply left it blank and completed the rest of the questionnaire. It is felt that a hostile reaction to the question may reduce the validity or completeness of answers to subsequent questions. Perhaps the negative reaction would have been less pronounced if the question on income had been placed in a less conspicuous portion of the questionnaire, such as the last page. Question number eleven asked, "Do you plan to fish for cohos in 1968?" In addition to the blocks for "yes" and “no" answers, another block labeled "undecided“ should be provided if the question is used in future surveys. 1Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, Survey Research (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1—‘5'963 ,‘p" . 112-13. 113 Many people wrote in "do not know. or some similar re- sponse to the question. Coders were unable to record responses other than "yes" or "no." Questions fifteen and sixteen requested detailed information concerning each fishing trip taken by the respondent. Many individuals, with otherwise complete responses, were unable to provide usable information on individual fishing trips. Some people wrote in seasonal summaries and approximations, while others wrote that they could not recall, or else simply left the section blank. Much of the poor response to questions fifteen and sixteen probably can be attributed to the great time lag between the 1967 fishing trips and the receipt of the questionnaire. The 1967 questionnaire was mailed out as long as one year after the fishing activity had occurred, in some cases. The problem of time lag probably will be greatly reduced in future surveys. Subsequent question- naires will be delivered to the fishermen, at most, four to five months after the fishing has taken place. In addition to the problem of recall, the great amount of highly detailed information requested in questions fifteen and sixteen, coupled with the overall length of the questionnaire, may have discouraged some people from pro- viding information about their fishing trips. Perhaps a shorter, simpler form and briefer questions would be less discouraging and time consuming to the respondent. Since many of those who completed questions fifteen and sixteen illfigsl flgr‘.4 ‘ .. . . , \ v. . .. III-Ill... fr: 5.. I 114 indicated that their responses were estimates and averages, it is felt that little data would be lost if people were asked merely to summarize the data for all fishing trips made during the season. The problem of obtaining accurate trip data was particularly great among local fishermen. Many anglers reported that they live within a very few miles of their fishing sites. Many such individuals fish almost daily and undoubtedly account for a large portion of the total man-hours of coho fishing effort; however, these fishermen are often unable to recall any of the details of indi- vidual fishing trips. Therefore, a seasonal summary of fishing trip information would be particularly useful in obtaining data from local fishermen. In question fifteen, the column headed "Day or Days" caused confusion during coding. Some individuals provided inclusive dates of each fishing trip, as was intended. However, many people apparently indicated the total number of days duration of all fishing trips. In many cases it was not possible to determine which meaning was intended by the respondent from the number or numbers he provided. To clarify this problem, another column with a heading such as "Number of Days Fishing Trip Lasted" should be added to the question, and the caption "Day or Days" should be re- worded "Inclusive Dates of Fishing Trip." If it is considered desirable in future surveys to determine the specific site of boat launching, it is “EH-‘fi W T”!- 1' 7:- n 115 recommended that a sample of the returned questionnaires be reviewed to establish a code for the launch sites used. The American Automobile Association listing of Michigan launching sites proved to be of little value in coding as only a very few of the sites indicated by respondents could be found in the "AAA" listing. Under the caption "Types of Fishing" in question fifteen, some of the respondents reported that they par- ticipated in both "Shore or Dock" and "Boat“ fishing on the same fishing trip. Either the question should be re- worded to ask for the primary type of fishing engaged in during the trip, or another code should be established for participation in both types of fishing. In the second column of question sixteen, the following caption appears: "If overnight trip, what kind of lodging was used?" The phrase, "If overnight trip," should be deleted. Many people left the column blank. In such cases it was not possible to determine if they meant the trip was of one day's duration only, or if they neglected to indicate the type of lodging. Each person should be asked to indicate the code letter, regardless of whether or not the trip was "overnight,“ since the lodging choices include "At your home" as one of the alternatives. Question seventeen asks for the amounts spent for, and use of, specific items of fishing tackle, boating equipment, and camping equipment. The author feels that 116 asking the respondents to summarize expenditures for each class of equipment probably would provide information equally accurate as asking for itemized expenditures. Also if the respondent were to indicate sums for fishing tackle, boating equipment, and camping equipment, the coder would not be burdened with the task of adding up the itemized expenditures in each class. The author recommends that question eighteen be dropped from future questionnaires. The total days of participation in certain recreational activities may prove useful to a study of coho fishing if data could be col- lected and compared over a period of several years. How- ever, in view of its marginal utility and the great length it adds to the questionnaire, it is recommended that the question simply be omitted. Management Recommendations The findings revealed an apparent high degree of acceptance of the anadromous sport fishery among respond- ents. It is felt that this acceptance is probably shared by most anglers who participated in the fishery. It is a virtual certainty that demand for sport fishing opportunity and other recreation will continue to grow. The Michigan coho salmon fishery holds vast potential for satisfying this demand. It is recommended that the coho fishery be considered, along with other state supported recreational programs, in planning for optimum use of public funds. mar” El 117 It is recommended that with the growth of the anadromous sport fishery there be a concomitant increase in boat launching sites, access roads, parking areas, and camp- ing areas. Even if additional streams are opened to salmon fishing, the growth in angler participation will probably necessitate improved facilities for the mechanized angler. B The state should provide coordinated planning for the needed I facilities. Where feasible, private entrepreneurs should be encouraged through tax incentives or other means to E assist in providing these facilities. Respondents' recom- mendations indicated a definite shortage of such facilities during the 1967 season. The state has a very clear responsibility in the area of maintaining suitable water quality to insure con- tinuation of the sport fishery. Such problems as pesti- cide contamination and industrial and domestic sewage pollutants require continuing study. A detailed exami- nation of water quality problems is beyond the scope of this thesis, but the relationship of such problems to sport fisheries is certain. Correlations Certain aspects of the data gathered in this study were subjected to correlation analysis on the com- puter, as described earlier, in an attempt to determine possible relationships between the angling phenomena ob- served. No linear relationships were found using 118 correlation coefficients. The chi-square test indicated significant associations between several pairs of vari- ables tested. These associations are summarized below. Both fishing location and species of fish sought prior to the coho introduction are associated with county of residence. The number of fishing trips taken in 1967 is associated with county of residence, age, and income. The purchase of fishing equipment in 1967 is associated both with county of residence and income. Length of fish- ing trip and size of fishing party are both associated with county of fishing activity, distance traveled to fish, county of residence, occupation, and income. The county of fishing activity is associated with distance traveled to fish, county of residence, occupation, income, and fish- ing experience. Coho angling success is associated with county of fishing activity, distance traveled to fish, county of residence, income, and fishing experience. The type of fishing done (boat or shore) and the type of lodging selected are both associated with county of fish- ing activity, distance traveled to fish, county of resi- dence, occupation, income, and fishing experience. The length of boat being Operated is associated both with county of residence and income. The precise nature of the associations found is unknown, and this may prove to be a fruitful area for further research. For example, it has been shown that the number of fishing trips taken is related in some manner to 119 county of residence, age, and income. It may be useful to determine which counties of residence and which age and income groups tend to be associated with many fishing trips, and, conversely, which tend to be associated with fewer trips. It is recommended that investigations ex- plore these relationships more extensively once.more representative data are available from future salmon-trout angling surveys. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Arkin, Herbert, and Colton, Raymond R. Statistical Methods. New York: Barns and Noble, Inc., 1967. Backstrom, Charles H., and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Re- search. Minneapolis: Northwestern Union Press, 1963. Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Brockman, C. Frank. Recreation Use of Wild Lands. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Carlson, Reynold E.; Deppe, Theodore R.; and MacLean, Janet R. Recreation in American Life. Belmont, Calif.: wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1967. Castle, Emery N. "Activity Analysis in Water Planning." Economics and Public Poligy in Water Resource Development. Edited by Stephen C. Smith and Emery N. Castle. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Uni- versity Press, 1964. Clawson, Marion, and Knetsch, Jack L. Economigg of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. Cochran, W. G. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. Davies, Owen L., ed. Statistical Methods in Research and Production. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1958. Davis, William C. Values_gf Hunting and Fishing in Arizona in 1965. Tucson: University of Arizona, College of Business and Public Administration, 1967. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966. 120 .m c A" ”‘4. “‘flh- 121 Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. New York: Van Refs Press, 1964. Payne, Stanley L. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1951. Sellitz, Claire; Johoda, Marie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964. Slonin, Morris James. Sampling. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960. Smith, Stephen C., and Castle, Emery, N., eds. Economics and Public Policy in Water Resource Development. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1964. Snedecor, George W. Statistical Methods. Iowa City: Iowa State University Press, 1956. Trautman, Milton B. The Fish of Ohio. Baltimore: Waverly Press, Inc., 1957. Articles and Periodicals Abramson, N. "Distribution of California Angling Effort in 1961." California Fish and Game, XLIX, No. 3 (1963), 174-82. , and Tolladay, Joyce. "The Use of Probability Sampling for Estimating Annual Number of Angler Days." California Fish and Game, XLV (1959), 303-11. Alexander, Gaylord R., and Shetter, David S. "Fishing and Boating on Portions of the Au Sable River in Michigan, 1960-63." Transactions American Fisher- ies Society, XCVI, No. 2 (1966), 257-67. Brown, William G.; Singh, Ajmer; and Castle, Emery N. "Net Economic Value of the Oregon Salmon-Steelhead Sport Fishery." Journal of Wildlife Management, XXIX, No. 2 (April, 1965), 266—79. Clawson, Marion. "Economic Aspects of Sport Fishing." Canadian Fisheries Reports, XXXXX, No. 4 (May, 1965), 12-24. Crutchfield, James A. "Valuation of a Fishery." Trans- actions North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, XXVII (1962), 335-47. 122 Elser, Harold J. "Creel Census Results on the Northeast River, Maryland, 1958.“ Chesapeake Science, III (June, 1960), 41-47. Frisbie, C. M., and Ritchie, D. E., Jr. "Sport Fishing Survey of the Lower Potomic Estuary, 1959-1961." Chesapeake Science, IV, No. 4 (1963), 175-91. Jensen, Paul T. "Landing Estimates of California's Marine Recreational Salmon Fishery." California Fish and Game, L, No. 2 (1964), 48-52. F1 Johnson, Merle W., and Wroblewski, Leonard. "Errors 53 Associated with a Systematic Sampling Creel Census." L Transactions Amgrican Fisheries Society, XCI, No. 7 2 (1962), 201-07. ' McFadden, J.; Ryckman, J. R.; and Cooper, G. P. "A Survey * of Some Opinions of Michigan Sport Fishermen." g Transactions American Fisheries Society, XCIII, No. 2 (1964), 183-93. Mahoney, J. "An Economic Evaluation of California Sport Fisheries." California Fish and Game, XLVI, No. 2 (1960), 199-209. Pelgen, D. E. "Economic Values of Striped Bass, Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishing in California." California Fish and Game, XLI, No. l (1955), 5-17. Peterle, Tony J. "Characteristics of Some Ohio Hunters." Journal of Wildlife Management, XXXI, No. 2 (1967), 375-89. Richards, C. E. "A Survey of Salt-Water Sport Fishing in Virginia, 1955-1960." Chesapeake Science, III Scheftel, Zane. “An Economic Evaluation of the Sport Fishery in Minnesota.“ Transactions North American Wildlife Conference, XXIII (1958 , 262—68. Scott, Anthony. “The Valuation of Game Resources: Some Theoretical Aspects." Canadian Fisheries Reports, Spargo, R. A. "Methods and Techniques of Evaluating Sport Fishing." Canadian Fisheries Reports, IV (May, 123 Stevens, J. "Angler Success as a Quality Determinant of Sport Fishery Recreational Value.“ Transactions American Fisheries Society, XCV, No. 4 (1966), 357-62. Reports Borgeson, David P., and Tody, Wayne H. Status Report on Great Lakes Fisheries. Fish Management Report 2. Lansing: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1967. Brown, William G.; Singh, Ajmer; and Castle, Emery N. An Economic Evaluation of tfhe OregopISalmon afl Steelhead Sport Fishery. Technical Bulletin 78, Agricultural Experiment Station. Corvallis: Oregon State University, 1964. Clawson, Marion. Economic Studies of Outdoor Recreation. A Report prepared for the Outdoor Recreation Re- sources Review Commission (ORRRC Study Report 24). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. Green, Bernal L., and Wadsworth, J. A. Boaters, Fisher- men, Hunters--What Affects Participation and What Do They Want? Research Bulletin 829. Lafayette: Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station, 1967. Hayne, Don W. The Measurement of Catch and Effort in Marine Sport Fishing. A Report to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior. Prepared by the Institute of Sta- tistics. Raleigh: University of North Carolina, 1964. Jamsen, Gale C.; Ryckman, James R.; and Fox, James E. Mail Survey of Sglmon and Trout Sport Fishermen in Michiggn, 1967. Research and Development Report No. 158. Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1969. Palmer, Walter L. An Analysis of the Public Use of Southern Michigan Game apgfiRecreation Areas. Research and DeveIopment Reportiloz. Lansing: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1967. Thompson, Emmet F.; Gray, James M.; and McGinnes, Burd S. Estimating Hunting Expenditures in Virginia. Research Report 116. Blacksburg: Virginia Poly- technic Institute, 1967. 124 Tody, Wayne H., and Tanner, Howard A. Coho Salmon for the Great Lakes. Fish Management Report 1. Lansing: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1966. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1960 National Survey of Fishing and Hgnting. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961. . 1965 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. . Sport Fishingr-Today and Tomorrow. A Report parepared for"the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recpeation fogAmerica. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. Wallace, Robert F. Eggnomic Aspects of Wildlife Rgsources of the State of Washington. Economic and Business Bulletin 19. Pullman: State College of Washing- ton, 1952. White, David L. How_New Hampshire Attached the Dollar Sign to its Fish and Wildlife. Management and Research Division Technical Circular 11. Concord: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 1955. Uppublished Material Michigan Department of Conservation. Economic Study of Salmon in Michigan. A proposal prepared by Research and Development DiVision, Fish Division, and Recreation Resource Planning Division. Lansing, Michigan, 1968. (Mimeographed.) Other Sources Michigan Department of Conservation. Personal interview with Ronald W. Rybicki, Fisheries Management Evaluation Specialist, July 9, 1968. Michigan State University. Personal interview with Dennis C. Gilliland, Associate Professor, Depart— ment of Statistics and Probability, October 31, 1969. n ‘An.' ‘“H_- p“: y \ traw- APPENDICES WWW-“:37 APPENDIX A CREEL CENSUS PROCEDURES APPENDIX A CREEL CENSUS PROCEDURES Procedures for the Lake Michigan and Stream Creel CensusesI Lake Michigan It is anticipated that the currently lethargic sport fishery on Lake Michigan will be stimulated into action when salmon and trout begin moving toward the Manistee and Platte rivers for the autumn migration. The most probable areas to receive the anglers' attention are listed in Table l. The census schedule is given in Table 2. Even though the census is slated to begin on July 1, sampling at any given port need not begin until fishing activity is readily apparent; therefore, it will be Field's prerog- ative to judge when angling intensity warrants the imple- mentation and continuation of the creel survey. The schedule can easily be extended should the need arise. The Platte River mouth and Manistee stations are not lInstructions prepared by Ronald W. Rybicki, Fisheries Management Evaluation Specialist, Department of Conservation, for the Creel Census of Fall, 1967. 125 126 included on the lake schedule after July 31, but will con- tinue to be surveyed as a part of the stream creel census beginning August 1. The ports have been grouped into statistical districts I through III. The sampling of all ports within a statistical district will require up to eighty hours per pay period, and can be done by one individual per district. Implementation or discontinuation of censusing at any given port will not interfere with the remainder of the schedule. Instantaneous counts of boat and shore anglers (pier and wading) should be made at the times indicated on the schedule. All boats (except freighters) observable with the aid of binoculars should be counted regardless of activity. It may be difficult to separate pier anglers from nonanglers; in this case, count everyone on the pier. Be certain to note whether the count is for boats or shore individuals. In addition to each count, please record date, time, and location. As many interviews as possible should be conducted during the sampling day. As with the counts, it is essen- tial that no distinction be made regarding the activity of the potential interviewee. This is necessary so that a ration can be established between fishing and nonfishing activity; the ration will then be used in the angling effort calculation. Where a small boat ramp and a large boat marina are adjacent to each other, attempt to sample large and small craft in proportion to their numbers. Most 127 interviews will be at locations where inland boating activity will also occur; it will not be necessary to fill out a census form for boating activity strictly on inland waters. Interviews are to be recorded for completed fish- ing trips only; a completed trip for boat anglers will be upon landing, and for share anglers, upon leaving the pier or the beach. One interview form is to be completed per share angler, and one form per boat party. Stream Census “liq-.33» - Wu :3 Discussion with Field regarding the proposed stream census revealed several problems in the design of the survey. The schedule and procedures for this phase of the project will be forwarded to Field as soon as re- visions have been made. The Platte, Bear, Manistee and Little Manistee rivers are the project streams. The creel survey is scheduled to begin on August 1 and terminate on November 25 (sooner if justified). To obtain counts and inter- views, two teams of two men each will be needed; one member of the team will float the designated stream and count anglers while the second member conducts interviews. The schedule will require eighty hours per pay period per man. Creel census forms will be supplied by staff. Please forward all data to Fish Division, Lansing, at the end of each two-week period. 128 Stream Creel Census Procedures The creel surveys for the Platte, Bear, Manistee, and Little Manistee rivers are scheduled for the period August 1 through November 25. The project will require two crews of two men each, with each man working approxi- mately the following number of hours per pay period: August l-September 2--eighty hours; September 3-October 28 --fifty-six hours; and October 29-November 25—-forty-two hours. In most cases the schedule calls for a work period of from two to four successive days for each crew, followed by a pass period of from two to four successive days. Each work day will be of approximately from six to ten hours-- four to eight hours for sampling, and two hours travel time to and from the project area. Each sampling day has been divided into two shifts; the shift hours vary as noted on the schedule. The Manistee and Little Manistee rivers each have been divided into two sections--I and II--so that each section is statistically equivalent to one stream. The streams have been paired so that one pair can be censused per scheduled day with a minimum of travel time between stations. For the period of October 29-November 25, only one stream per scheduled day per crew will be censused, however, should angling effort be greater than anticipated, the schedule should be expanded. Wfi‘b—Tfim :‘CE' :3 1- .. .. 129 Floating will be the method used to obtain angler counts. Hopefully, only one man of the two-man crew will be needed for the float trip. Counts are to be made of all boats passed as well as individual bank and wading fishermen. The Manistee and Platte lakes probably can be censused most efficiently by both crew members from the vantage points suggested in Table 2. Please maintain separate records for inland lakes and streams census. While the float trip is in progress, the second member of the team should be conducting interviews at access points along the stream. The ground rules for interviewing are given in the Lake Michigan Creel Census Procedures. The portions of the creel census form desig- nated as "Maximum Distance from Port" and “Area Where Most Fish Were Caught" may be eliminated for the inland lake and stream census. The Lake Michigan stations located at Manistee and the Platte River Mouth should be censused concurrently with the Manistee and Platte rivers surveys. STAY! OF MICHIGAN owsuvwow commssnon @ W" "- “mm" stone: ROMNEY, Governor Chairmen C.,”..onnso" DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION a, M. W.,, STEVENS 1. MASON BUILDING, lANSlNG, MICHIGAN 48926 mm C. McuUGHllN “W A. MAC MUllAN. Dine!" A0608? SCHOll! (x III “III “I! “A" . ’2'; MICMI'G’ ‘) I.) A- I Dear Salmon Fisherman; Last summer or fall you were interviewed during a creel census by a member of the Michigan Department of Conservation. Your cooperation in answering questions at that time was very much appreciated. As you know, a great deal of interest was stimulated by the success of the coho salmon introduction into the Great Lakes. This interest has prompted the Conservation Department to conduct a much more intensive survey of salmon and trout fishermen. The present survey is designed to measure the recreational merits and economic value of the Great Lakes fish program. The resulting information will help in planning the future fish-stocking pro- gram, water access and boat launching and camping facilities. We again ask you for the Spirit of cooperation extended in the past. Enclosed is a list of questions, most of which are related to past fishing trips. Would you please complete this questionnaire as soon as possible, and return it in the pre-addressed envelope provided? - We realize that answering these questions will require some time and effort on your part. Also time dulls the memory and you might not be able to recall your expenditures exactly. But we hope you will do the best you can. We are sure that the time and effort will be well spent, for they will contribute to future fishing and other recreational development in Michigan—-besides, it is good to think back and recall the fun we all had being in on the first big salmon "catch. " Your help will be greatly appreciated and, of course, all information that you supply will be treated confidentially. Sincerely yours, waam David H. Jenkins, Chief Research and Development Division Michigan Department of Conservation 130 131 GREAT LAKES SALMON- TROUT FISHING QUESTIONNAIRE In which county do you live Do you live within the limits of a city or village? Yes i I No C] What is your sex Age Are you married Single What is your occupation In 1967, what was the approximate total yearly income of your household? If single, give your income; if married, the total of both yours and your Spouse. Under $3,000 [3 s a, 000 - 9 9,999 [:1 $3, 000 - $5, 999 C] $10, 000 - $14, 999 [:1 $6, 000 - $7, 999 [:1 $15, 000 - $24, 999 [:1] $25, 000 and over [:1 How many people are there in your household?- Did you fish in Michigan in any of the years from 1962 through 1966? Yes I: No I: If yes, check the years you fished. 1962 E 1963 D 1964 [:3 1965 C] 1966 [:1 If your answer to question 6 was no, what prompted you to go fishing in 1967? 132 If your answer to question 6 was yes, what kinds of fishing have you usually done in the past in Michigan? Check one or more in both A arid 8 listings: A. Location 3. Kind of fish Great Lakes [:3 Trout [:3 Bass ‘[_‘_"_| inland lake C] Pan nah [:1 Pike [:1 . Streams [j Walleye [:1 -. » Perch C] ' Other [:1 Which one of the above kinds of fish do you fish for most? Do you plan to fish for cohos in 1968? Yes D No D If not, why not? What facilities or features of Great Lakes fishing could be improved to make your future fishing trips more enjoyable? ’4. 4» $7 '57 I :v ..o / ,‘ 49, t - L., . A ‘g. . tg’ r 7 5‘1““ A. A V.- -\ t I “it “i - it" ‘ i .52: .«o So an: .93 use so $3232 0.88 .8 0.5 5 none: sou : ..i... .3» 5:» wanna: one? 055 0:3: as was»: :ouEEo was 3.5%. .30» mcmoE Eonomso: oumweoEEN ace 6:: one so who“. 52. an: .952. 23 tonne one £9596 page so.» .2 £23. 680... Eon.“ an»; 3.: 23cm 05 3 238 Eng. a. 133 S m m N. m m w m m H {mm «6 33m x E N 33m SEE v a a m 2 .80 “3an owucom a ma -xm uoam mi once—:2 amomxoofio no coco: pmofooum onoU 50.3 *naoxfl so Emohm 230912230 5302.9an 520? 3.: use: 0» 30% EU 98% .3an 6 3095mm 3:3 .«0 oEm: .323 pcfl -omsosro hag mcEmE 080: TE: 9823 madam: 5.30m 3.3a n Emsao -5 .8 :8an so.“ ooEEH «..me oocfimae Jaon .3 .«o 89:. an: .«o sobEsZ 633 “mouse: vim yam E 39:32 hasioco .moxmq 3on0 som .xoaaa wnmc 90>. Ev 0.7.5.3 .marz wcfimc 0:00 52 .30» «zoom cofimEuomfi 25338 on» 5. Eu omon .2 134 .850 0 .80 .m .08 .0020: 008 3:88 000500 .8 28:0,: .809 m 050% 8 80:88 .850 0:0 0:0 30% m ..N: 88: .8 882 0 $020: .2808 .30» 8 000808 .38 05 .0000 .8280 .80 0.008 000058 0mm» 80 0 0.83 00% m 0.8: .L: 03.5 000.898 085 E 0000 so» 3 .3000 :0 0:0 008: 0.0.88h m Ema 008. :0» 30085008 5:80.. .30.» 8 00m 8 000:0 .30» 3 0.8.80 028 0...... 0:82 08% 4. .1. 0.8.885 0800 000305 .9000 9030: 0:0» .3 a. - S m 0 N. 0 m w m N 0 0000008 000m .0 .886 0000 000 0000 .80 .800: .30 E 000803 3.3300 8x 60.: 0200.50». 3.5 .850 02009 a 80m 3.000050 08% 00h 920305 .0800 9:303 .8080 .88m 9.30305 8 880m 00 End .00m000>0b mcameota 00.3 0.855 «000: 003 ME .08 300 00000 :0 a 000 new 000% .903 .8 05.x 8% .9000 000,8me 08.5 0:0». “0:3 8:00 5 08000 £08.88 : .8 80822 . .0>0nm 008: 03.5 05 .8 £000 .8 sfl 38000 8:08 8 80050 022.5 8.800 05 00: 00005 .2 135 17. Did you purchase any of the following equipment (for any purpose) during 1967? Yes I I No If yes, please fill in appropriate spaces with your best estimates of costs and days of use. Approximately how Approximately how many days did you many days did you Approximate use each item of use this equipment cost equipment in 1967? for coho fishing? ‘3 un- . nu}! TACKLE Eggs Reels Line ”ram: -- no- new Lures Boots 0 waders Other BOATING EQUIPM ENT Boats Boat trailer Qutboard motor Accessory equipment ' CAMPING EQUIPMENT Ient Tent trailer Campers flouse trafiiler mepimz bags .antern 17. (continued) 136 Approximate cost Approximately how many days did you use each item of equipment in 1937? Approximately how many days did you use this equipment for coho fishing? Camping equipment (continued) 18. Camp stove 0.0;: Please indicate the approximate number of days in 1967 on which you participated in the various outdoor recreational activities listed below: Activity Days mcycling florseback- riding GQIf miss Other outdoor games or sports (badminton, horseshoes, snufflgbgard. etc. ) fishing mesm— S .1. Qmer boating Sgimm ing ‘3‘“ 137 18. (continued) Activity Days Wage: skiinar Hunting (Lapping walking and hiking gird watching ther nature study Wildlife and bird photography Picnics Automobile driving for pleasure (sightseeing, color tours, etc.) Watching outdoor sporting events (baseball, softball, football, golf, horse races, stock car races, etc.) Attending outdoor concerts, plays, etc. Ice skating fingw skiing Sledding and tobogganing Snowmobiling er 138 First Follow-up1 Dear Mr. Fisherman: This is a reminder about the salmon-trout fish- ing questionnaire that you received recently. We have been receiving completed questionnaires from other fishermen but at our last check, yours was not among them. We realize that the questionnaire is long and difficult and requires a considerable amount of patience and diligence to complete. It is hard to convey to you in just a few words the real importance of this survey, but survey results will certainly be considered in planning the future of the trout and salmon programs. Please send us your completed questionnaire! Thank you, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Second Follow-up2 Dear Mr. Fisherman: We would like to remind you that we have not yet received your response to the salmon-trout questionnaire. If you are reluctant to return the questionnaire because you think it is too late to be of any value, let us assure you that the questionnaires returned now are just as important as those that were returned earlier. The information that you can supply us will be an important consideration in planning the future of the trout and salmon programs. Your cooper- ation will be greatly appreciated. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION lMailed May 15, 1968. 2Mailed May 30, 1970. 2237 ” :n‘ufi-fllm 139 Third Follow-up1 Dear Fisherman: Several weeks ago we mailed you a salmon-trout fish- ing questionnaire, asking for information about your 1967 fishing experiences. So far we have not heard from you. In case the questionnaire has gone astray, we have enclosed another which we hope you will complete and re- turn as soon as possible. This survey is rapidly coming to a close, and it is important that your information be included in the survey results. You may not be able to recall your expenses exactly after almost a year, but we know that you will do the best you can in completing the questionnaire. The information you supply will be greatly appreciated and, of course, will be treated confidentially. Would you please complete this questionnaire and return it in the pre-addressed envelope provided? Sincerely yours, David H. Jenkins, Chief Research and Development Division Michigan Department of Conservation lThird follow-up, consisting of letter plus copy of questionnaire, mailed June 13, 1968. 140 Fourth Follow-upl Dear Salmon Fisherman: We can only speculate about your reasons for not replying to the salmon-trout fishing question- naires we have sent you. You may think that we do not want or need your information because you didn't fish much or catch anything, or because you didn't spend much money. Whatever your reason may be, let me assure you that for the purposes of this study, your infor- mation is just as important as any other individual selected. If you don't want to respond or don't think it is necessary, please let us know your reason. We would like to hear from all of you. Thank you. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 1Mailed June 27, 1968. 141 Fifth Follow-upl Dear Mr. Fisherman: Sometime last summer or fall, you were interviewed about your fishing success by a member of the Department of Conservation. We have had your name and address on file since that time and have used it to try and gather some information about fishing for salmon and trout in and around Great Lakes' waters. Information about Great Lakes' fishing is mighty im- portant to us at this time for this reason. We are trying to make the best possible use of Great Lakes' waters for sport fishing and we badly need information which we can use for planning to make your fishing trips--and every- body's--enjoyable. Great Lakes' sport fishing is rela- tively new to us, consequently our present information is very scanty. The only other thing we can tell you about this survey is something that is true of all surveys. The more people you hear from out of the total number of individuals selected, the better will be any background information from which important conclusions may be drawn. That is why we are still trying to convince you to return a com- pleted questionnaire. Sincerely yours, David H. Jenkins, Chief Research and Development Division 1Mailed July 12, 1968. 142 Form Used for Contacting Non-respondents by Telephone Respondent I.D. No. This is with the Conservation Depart- ment in Lansing. Recently we sent you a questionnaire re- questing information about your trout and salmon fishing success in 1967. Have you received the questionnaire? Yes No (Note: suggest to respondent that he send in the question- naire) Since our survey will be completed in a few days, I would like to ask a few questions at this time. Questions 1. Have you fished in Michigan before 1967? Yes No 2. (If yes) What kind of fish do you usually fish for? (If respondent has trouble, use the following list to help him: trout, panfish, walleye, bass, pike, or perch) 3. Did you fish for salmon or trout in 1967? Yes No (If no, thank respondent and terminate interview) 4. (If yes) a) How many fishing trips did you make? b) How many of the following kinds of fish did you catch? Lake trout Coho Rainbow (steelhead) c) Where did you fish? Give me the name of the river, lake, or nearest town. (Thank respondent for information) Note: If he requests information on coho fishing, suggest a telephone call to 373-0908, or writing to Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing. 143 Form Used for Contacting Non-respondents by Mail Recently we sent you a questionnaire requesting information about your trout and salmon fishing success in 1967. At this time we still have not received your questionnaire. Since our survey will be completed in a few days, your answers to the following questions will be appreciated. Please use the enclosed postpaid envelope to mail your reply. 1. Have you fished in Michigan before 1967? Yes No 2. What one kind of fish do you usually fish for? 3. Did you fish for salmon or trout in 1967? Yes No 4. If yes, a) How many fishing trips did you make? b) How many of the following kinds of fish did you catch? Lake trout Coho Rainbow (steelhead) c) Where did you fish? Name the river, lake, or nearest town. Very truly yours, David H. Jenkins, Chief Research and Development Division APPENDIX C CODE BOOK APPENDIX C CODE BOOK Individual Card No. 1 Column Question No. No. C°de Deck Identifier 1-3 C67 = Deck ID (Coder: Constant, all cards, "Coho Survey, 1967") Card Type Identifier 4 1 = Individual Card (Coder: Constant, all Individual Cards) Card Number 5 l = Number #1 State of Residence (Coder: Select applicable two- 1etter code below or from attached list) 6—7 24 = Michigan 37 = Ohio 16 = Indiana 55 = Ontario County of Residence (Coder: Select applicable numerical code from below) 144 145 Individual Card No. 1 Column Question No. No. code 8-9 01 = Alcona 43 = Lake 02 = Alger 44 = Lapeer 03 = Allegan 45 = Leelanau 04 = Alpena 46 = Lenawee 05 = Antrim 47 = Livingston 06 = Arenac 48 = Luce r1 07 = Baraga 49 = Mackinac .1 08 = Barry 50 = Macomb 09 = Bay 51 = Manistee 10 = Benzie 52 = Marquette 11 = Berrien 53 = Mason 12 = Branch 54 = Mecosta J 13 = Calhoun 55 = Menominee Q 14 = Cass 56 = Midland ? 15 = Charlevoix 57 = Missaukee 16 = Cheboygan 58 = Monroe 17 = Chippewa 59 = Montcalm 18 = Clare 60 = Montmorency 19 = Clinton 61 = Muskegon 20 = Crawford 62 = Newaygo 21 = Delta 63 = Oakland 22 = Dickenson 64 = Oceana 23 = Eaton 65 = Ogemaw 24 = Emmet 66 = Ontanagon 25 = Genesee 67 = Osceola 26 = Gladwin 68 = Oscoda 27 = Gogebic 69 = Otsego 28 = Grand Traverse 70 = Ottawa 29 = Gratiot 71 = Presque Isle 30 = Hillsdale 72 = Roscommon 31 = Houghton 73 = Saginaw 32 = Huron 74 = St. Clair 33 = Ingham 75 = St. Joseph 34 = Ionia 76 = Sanilac 35 = Iosco 77 = Schoolcraft 36 = Iron 78 = Shiawassee 37 = Isabella 79 = Tuscola 38 = Jackson 80 = Van Buren 39 = Kalamazoo 81 = Washtenaw 40 = Kalkaska 82 = Wayne 41 = Kent 83 = Wexford 42 = Keweenaw 84 = Non-Michigan 146 Individual Card No. l Column Question No. No. Code #2 City or Village 10 0 = Refused or Omitted l = Yes 2=NO n. #3 Sex in 11 O = Refused or Omitted 5 l = Male 2 = Female Age k? 12-13 (Coder: code number given; code “00" if no age given; if respondent less than 17 years of age, drop from sample) Marital Status 14 0 = Refused or Omitted l = Married 2 = Single #4 Occupational Classification 15-16 00 = Refused or omitted 01 = Professional, technical and kindred workers 02 = Farmers and farm managers 03 = Managers, officials, and pro- prietors 04 = Clerical and kindred workers 05 = Sales workers 06 = Craftsman, foreman and kindred workers 07 = Operatives and kindred workers 08 = Private household workers 09 = Service workers, except private household 10 = Farm laborers and farm foreman 11 = Laborers except farm and mine 12 = Student 13 = Housewife 14 = Retirees 15 = Military 16 = Unemployed 17 = Other 147 Individual Card No. 1 Column Question No. No. Code #5 Approximate Total Annual Family Income 17 0 = Refused or omitted l = Under 3,000 3 = 6,000 - 7,999 4 = 8,000 - 9,999 5 = 10,000 - 14,999 6 = 15,000 - 24,999 7 = 25,000 and Over #6 Number in Household 18-19 (Coder: code number given; if no number given, code "00") #7-8 Prior Michigan Fishing 20 (Coder: if answer to #7 is "no" code "0“ in column 20 and code "9" in columns 22 through 32; if answer to #7 is "yes" code total number of years checked in #8 in column 20; if no response given code "9" in column 20) #9 Reason for 1967 Fishing if No Fishing 1962-1966 21 Refused or Omitted News of the coho New resident of the state Friend induced to fish Spouse induced to fish Fishing for species other than coho Fishing incidental to other travel or vacation activities O‘U‘ltbLuNl-‘O II II II II II II ll \0 ll Legitimate skip (Coder: code "9" if answer to #7 was "yes") 148 Individual Card No. l Column Question No. No. C°de #10 Nature of Previous Michigan Fishing A. Location Great Lakes _ Item not checked | Item checked Legitimate skip 22 WHO II II II Inland Lake Not checked Checked A Legitimate skip l" 23 SDI-'0 II II II Streams Not checked Checked Legitimate skip 24 \OF‘O II II II B. Kind of Fish Trout Not checked Checked Legitimate skip 25 0 H II II II Pan fish Not checked Checked Legitimate skip 26 WHO II II II Walleye Not checked Checked Legitimate skip 27 \OFJO llllll Bass Not checked Checked Legitimate skip 28 WHO II II II Pike Not checked Checked Legitimate skip 29 \OF‘O llllll 149 Individual Card No. l Column Question No. No. Code 30 Perch 0 = Not checked 1 = Checked 9 = Legitimate skip Other 31 0 = Not checked 1 = Checked 9 = Legitimate skip #11 Fish Most Sought (Coder: code first response if multiple answer given) 32 0 = Refused or omitted 1 = Trout 2 = Pan fish 3 = Walleye 4 = Bass 5 = Pike 6 = Perch 7 = Other 9 = Legitimate skip #12 1968 Fishing Plans 33 0 = Refused or omitted 1 = Yes 2 = No (Coder: if answer to #12 is “yes“ code "9" in column 34) #13 Reason for No 1968 Fishing Plans 34 Refused or omitted Fishing conditions too crowded Coho fishing too expensive Lack of angling success in 1967 Prefer another type of fishing Creel limit too small \D UIIBWNl-‘O II II II II II II Legitimate skip 150 Individual Card No. l Column Question No. No. Code 35 36 37 #14 (Coder: code first response if two or more suggestions fall in one category) NI—‘O abut») \D bWND—‘O llllllllfl ll U1 bWNI—‘O Suggested Improvements in Great Lakes Fishing A. Public Fishing or_Launching Sites and Associated Facilities No response More boat launching sites , Improvement of existing launching 0 sites ? More launching ramps More toilets -- ‘12. 7 .m. 1“!”30‘9 IL. 1' Other g. Addition or Improvement of Facilities,_0ther than Boat Launching Facilities No response More parking Improved access to rivers or lakes More or improved State Parks Improved or increased campsites and camping areas Improved or increased eating and/or lodging places More facilities for mooring or dock— ing of boats More specialized services, such as cleaning and freezing of fish Other Ct. Regulation or Control No responde Reduce crowding of fishermen Reduce crowding of campers Reduce littering More laws or better law enforcement by Coast Guard or Conservation Department 151 Individual Card No. l Column Question No. No. Code 5 = Improve boating courtesy and sports- manship 6 = Improve Great Lakes water quality, or air or water pollution, or pesticide control 1 9 = Other 3 #14 D. Federal, State, Local or Con- é (cont.) servation Department ' Responsibilities 38 0 = No response 0 1 = Improve local weather reporting and V storm warnings 2 = More information on Great Lakes fishing, lodging, services, etc. 3 = Provide broader distribution of stocking or planting of coho or other species 4 = Stock more coho or other species 5 = Revise or abolish seasonal re- strictions or creel limits 6 = Improve the mouth of the Platte River for boating 9 = Other #15 Number of Fishing Trips Taken 39-40 (Coder: code number given; if over 99, code "99"; code “00“ if no information given) #17 Purchase of Durable Equipment (Coder: code "000“ or "0000" as applicable if total expenditure for any equipment class is 0; code "999" or "9999" as applicable if total expendi- ture is too large for columns alloted) 41-43 Code total dollars spent for fishing tackle ‘44-47 Code total dollars spent for boating equipment 152 Individual Card No. 1 Column Question No. No. Code 48-51 Code total dollars spent for camping equipment Days Use of Durable Equipment (Coder: code number given if consistent for all items within equipment class. If days use of items is not consistent, code first value given. If days use is greater than 99, code "99"; if no number given code "00") 52-53 Code total approximate days use for fishing tackle 54-55 Code total approximate days use for boating equipment 56-57 Code total approximate days use for camping equipment 58-59 Code total approximate days use of fishing tackle for coho fishing 60-61 Code total approximate days use of boating equipment for coho fishing 62-63 Code total approximate days use of camping equipment for coho fishing Equipment Purchase, Yes or No 64 O No purchase of any type of equipment indicated Equipment purchase indicated H II Questionnaire Identifier 77-80 Code serial number of questionnaire End of Individual Card No. l 153 Individual Card No. 2 Column Question No. No. Code Deck Identifier 1-3 067 = Deck ID (Coder: Constant, all cards, "Coho Survey, 1967“) Card Type Identifier 4 1 = Individual card (Coder: Constant, all individual cards) Card Number 5 2 = Card Number #18 Days of Participation in Recreational Activities (Coder: code the number of days of participation reported for each activity; code "99" if 99 days or over; if no re- sponse code "00") 6-7 Bicycling 8-9 Horseback riding lO-ll Golf 12-13 Tennis 14-15 Other outdoor games or sports 16-17 Fishing 18-19 Canoeing 20-21 Sailing 22-23 Other boating 24-25 Swimming 26-27 Water skiing 28-29 Hunting fi’vfif _.. 3“ - m? 1.1.; 1 -‘ ’ .- h-A 154 Individual Card No. 2 Column Question No. No. C°de 30-31 Camping 32-33 Walking and hiking 34-35 Bird watching 36-37 Other nature study 38-39 Wildlife and bird photography 40-41 Picnics 42-43 Automobile driving for pleasure 44-45 Watching outdoor sporting events 46-47 Attending outdoor concerts, plays, etc. 48-49 Ice skating 50-51 Snow skiing 52-53 Sledding and tobogganing 54-55 Snowmobiling 56-57 Other #0 Boat Use at Time of Creel Survey (Coder: refer to numerals in red, upper left, page one of questionnaire) A. Ownership of Boat (Coder: If no letter precedes the two numerals, code “1“; if letter R precedes the two numerals, code "2'; if both numerals are zero, code “0“) 58 O = No information given 1 = Respondent using own boat at time of creel survey 2 = Respondent using rented boat at time of creel survey U. 155 Individual Card No. 2 Column Question No. No. C°de B. Length of Boat 59-60 (Coder: code the two numerals given) #0 Date of Receipt of Questionnaire (Coder: find on back of page 7 of questionnaire) A. Month of Receipt 61 l = May 2 = June 3 = July 4 = August B. Date of Receipt 62-63 (Coder: code date of receipt) Questionnaire Identifier 77-80 Code serial number of questionnaire End of Individual Card No. 2 ~——..-. 156 Trip Card Column Question No. No. Code Deck Identifier 1-3 C67 = Deck ID (Coder: constant, all cards, "Coho Survey, 1967") Card Type Identifier 4 2 = Trip card (Coder: constant, all trip cards) #15 Trip Number 5-6 (Coder: code number in left column, page 3 of questionnaire) Date of Trip A. Month of First Day of Trip 7 0 = No information 5 = August 1 = April 6 = September 2 = May 7 = October 3 = June 8 = November 4 = July 9 = December B. Date of First Day of Trip 8-9 Code date given lO-ll Code number of days of trip length 12-13 Code number of immediate household in fishing party 14-15 Code number of others in fishing party 16-17 Code total number in fishing party 157 Trip Card Column Question No. No. Code Site of Fishing Activity (Coder: select county code from list of areas below or from page 1 of code book) Town 18-19 31 = Houghton Houghton-Hancock (Portage Entry) 07 = Baraga Baraga-L'Anse 52 = Marquette Marquette 02 = Alger MuniSing Grand Marias 45 = Leelanau Empire 10 = Benzie Honor Frankfort 51 = Manistee Arcadia Portage Lake Manistee 53 = Mason Ludington 64 = Oceana Pentwater Angling Success 20-21 Code number of lake trout caught by party 22-23 Code number of coho caught by party 24-25 Code Number of rainbow and steelhead caught by party 26-27 Code number of hours fished Type of Fishing 28 0 = Refused or omitted 1 = Shore or dock 2 a Boat (Coder: if “Shore or Dock" code columns 29 through 32 "9") l-LINL mm _ "Ii. hug". 158 Trip Card Column Question No. No. Code Launching Site 29-30 Code numerical code for county of launch 00 = Refused or omitted 99 = Legitimate skip 31-32 Code specific launch site, if given, from AAA listing 00 = Refused or omitted or not ascertained 99 = Legitimate skip Distance Traveled, One-Way 33-35 (Coder: code number of miles given; if more than three figures, code "999") Number Respondent Paid Trip Expenses For 36-37 Code number given Type of Overnight Lodging 38 1 = A 5 = E 2=B 6=F 3 = C 7 = G 4 = D 0 = Information not given Location of Lodging 39-40 (Coder: indicate county code for place of lodging, if other than home. If lodging type is "A" give code for county of residence. If information on lodging not given; code "00“) Trip Expenses of Respondent (Coder: for all trip expenses below, if dollar value given is too great for columns alloted, code "99"; if no re- Sponse indicated code “00") 159 Trip7Card Column Question No. No. Code 41-42 Code Lodging costs in dollars 43-44 Code food and beverage costs in dollars 45-46 Code gas and oil costs in dollars, own car 47-48 Code gas and oil costs in dollars, own boat 49-50 Code gas and oil costs in dollars, other car 51-52 Code gas and oil costs in dollars, other boat 53-54 Code cost in dollars for rental of boat and motor 55-56 Code cost in dollars for rental of tackle and gear 57-58 Code cost in dollars for other expenses Repeat Items from Qpestionnaire 59—60 #1 Indicate two-letter code for state of residence 61-62 Indicate numerical code for county of residence 63-64 #4 Indicate numerical code for occupational class 65 #5 Indicate numerical code for family income class 66-67 #6 Code number of people in household 68 #7-8 Code the number of years of Michigan fishing experience #17 (Coder: if any value given in #17 is too great for inclusion in the columns alloted, code "99" or "999" as appro- priate) 160 Trip Card Column Question No. No. Code 69-70 Code the tens of dollars spent for fishing tackle in 1967 71-73 Code the tens of dollars spent for boating equipment in 1967 74-76 Code the tens of dollars spent for camping equipment in 1967 Questionnaire Identifier 77-80 Code serial number of questionnaire T)1 ‘1'. hung—‘— 0,. “I I- MTllliflifilifllflllllfllfliflfllfilfllfllfllfllfilfl'ES