Workshop: Day 1 – January 29th, 2014
Welcome to the Workshop – Russ Dunn (8:45 - 9:00 am)
- Progress on 2010 Recreational Fishing Summit economic goals.
- Progress on NOAA Fisheries Recreational Fisheries Economic Data Collection Program goals
- 2011 National Marine Recreational expenditure Survey
- For-Hire surveys in 6 of 7 regions
- Progress on NOAA Fisheries Recreational Fisheries Models & Decision Support Tools
- Economic decision support tool (BLAST)
- Social indicators mapping tool
- UPCOMING IN FY14/15
- National Bait and Tackle Store Survey
- National Expenditure Survey – Durable Goods (Trip cost survey will be conducted as scheduled in FY16)
- Gulf of Maine Groundfish Stated Preference Survey
- California Central Valley Angler Expenditure & Valuation Survey
- For-Hire Cost-Earnings Surveys (Pacific Islands)
- California Groundfish Angler Stated Preference Survey
- Opening remarks (PDF) – Doug Lipton (9:00 - 10:15 am)
Angler Attitudes and Preferences
Results of Angler Attitudes and Preference Survey
- Purpose: provides broad perspective on how management is doing; baseline information on angler attitudes and perceptions
- Survey reviewed by NOAA Fisheries regional recreational fisheries coordinators, constituents, and focus group tested
- Presentation provides national results; regional results available soon
- Most preferred management strategies: protect and restore degraded habitat, provide artificial reefs, and minimum size limits for kept fish
- Least preferred management strategies were: a) shorter season length with less restrictive bag limits; and b) shorter seasons with greater variety of legal species that can be kept
- Only took NOAA Fisheries 30 years to ask anglers what they want!
- Since for-hire anglers are not required to purchase a license in many states, for-hire anglers’ attitudes were not well represented in survey
- For-hire anglers’ opinions differ from shore and private boat anglers; feedback one participant received from for-hire operator groups is that for-hire anglers are most interested in a) catching fish to eat and b) catching trophy fish (differs from survey results)
- Survey noted the pinniped issue on West Coast, a big issue regionally
- For management, need results broken down by fishery
- Results validate what was known – anglers care about fishing with family and friends, future generations, and conservation. High regional diversity/no one size fits all
- More stakeholder involvement needed
- Survey useful. Thanks!
- Results of Angler Attitudes and Preferences Survey (PDF) – Kristy Wallmo and Ayeisha Brinson (10:30 - 10:45 am)
- Discussant/Facilitator – Dave Monti (10:45 - 11:15 am)
Economic Impact Case Studies
Northwest For-Hire Economic Impacts: Survey and Results
- Purpose – economic contribution of fleet
- Builds upon 2006 survey for what works / is needed
- Salmon still linchpin of industry; groundfish is rising part of industry
- On average, fleet profitable; fuel largest cost
- Future outlook: Firms in operation longer have unfavorable outlook because they have bigger boats, higher costs. More recent entries have smaller boats and thus more cost-effective
- Demonstrates necessity of building impact model from survey data; impact model software default sector does not reflect charter fishing well.
- NW doing a better job at getting economic information to Council at beginning of process
- Study invaluable to charter industry.
- Information collected on taxes paid and generated extremely valuable. Wished Northeast collected this information. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Response: we collected this information for both state and federal boats in 2012 survey.
- Results provide myth busting - breaking down results by “old timers”/new entries provides clearer picture, not just a single (negative) account of fleet
- Question: At what point in Gulf of Mexico plan amendment process is this information used? Southeast Regional Office Response: used in public hearing stage and to support preferred alternative
- Northwest For-Hire Economic Impacts: Survey & Results (PDF) – Jerry Leonard (11:15 - 11:30 am)
- Discussant/Facilitator – Aaron Jenkins (11:30 am - 12:00 pm)
For-Hire Cost and Earnings Studies
Pacific Coast For-Hire Cost & Earnings Studies
- Purpose – assess profitability; economic contribution of fleet; gauge outlooks & attitudes
- CA issues: changes to fishery including MPAs in CA; changes in management policies and permit/visa costs of operating in Mexican waters; industry wanted efficiency analysis to establish baseline
- Outreach: fact sheets, in person interviews; pilot study, attended industry meetings.
- Attitudes section important to participants
- Encouraging that we are getting more of these (for-hire) surveys
- Likes economic data fact sheet that shows (Program’s) data collection rotation
- Question: Why weren’t other sources of income included in survey as was done in NE? Constituent #1: In NE, cannot operate year round, requires other income sources. Constituent #2: Business model on 6-pack boats in NE not profitable due to climate and regulation, requires other income sources
- Pacific Coast For-Hire Cost & Earnings Studies (PDF) – James Hilger and Jerry Leonard (1:00 - 1:15 pm)
- Discussant/Facilitator – Sherry Larkin (1:15 - 1:45 pm)
Valuation Case Studies
Stated Preferences for Size and Bag Limits of Alaska Charter Boat Anglers
- Outreach/survey development: Focus groups and cognitive interviews
- 2012 survey built upon 2007 surveys, modified to reflect “new” management tools (size limits for Pacific halibut)
- Choose between trip options that vary by species, trip length, area fished, bag and size limits, and cost
- Results show non-residents have high value to harvest one fish of any size but additional fish are valued considerably less
- Potential policy applications – may be used in annual assessment of management tools under new Catch Sharing Plan; can also use to estimate participation changes then estimate economic impacts.
- SP surveys are flexible tools – can get information on a suite of policy options not a single option provided options don’t change TOO much that cannot be captured within design of the model.
- Challenge – only get to survey periodically due to funding; workload: surveys and analysis takes time.
- Question: Were AK results used in any allocation decisions? Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) Response: Doesn’t think so because policy options shifted to size limits (only available in recent 2012 survey), which weren’t considered originally and thus weren’t included in the survey.
- Question: Can AK value estimates be used in OR? (this is known as benefits transfer) AFSC Response: No, AK fishing by non-residents can be viewed as a once in a lifetime opportunity so difficult to use in other states for valuing resident fishing.
- Question: Do you expect your results to be used in evaluation of allocation decisions? AFSC Response: No expectation; will try to educate Council staff on use of information.
- Question: How would results be used? AFSC Response: Annual review to be used for slight modifications in bag limits due to changes in allocation. Also used to predict participation - since willingness to pay (WTP) is less than cost of many charter fishing trips, this indicates average angler not willing to pay for trip where regulations are high. End result: for-hire firms would lose trips.
- Stated Preferences for Size & Bag Limits of Alaska Charter Boat Anglers (PDF) – Dan Lew (1:45 - 2:00 pm)
Massachusetts Angler Valuation Study
- Purpose – assess value anglers’ place on having access to fishing via value placed on annual fishing license
- Survey frame provided by MA DNR*
- Survey conducted in three parts: 1) 700 anglers received hypothetical offers (willingness to accept - WTA) for their license; 2) 700 anglers asked how much they would hypothetically have been willing to pay (WTP) for their license; 3) 500 anglers received cash offers (WTA) for their license
- This approach provides three separate values for a MA fishing license, which helps NOAA Fisheries understand “true” value as well as benchmark hypothetical responses used in other stated preference (SP) surveys (see BLAST presentation below for example of SP surveys)
- Average values ranged from $80 to $593 for hypothetical results; cash offer had an average value of $317
- Total value estimate based on actual behavior
- Study shows that investing in rec infrastructure is a good investment
- Economic literature indicates WTP is more appropriate when property rights are with the seller (of the license), not the angler. WTA would be better when there were no permits and the angler holds the right to fish. [This implies $80 value “true” value, which would lead to total value estimate that is ~$12-$13M versus $49M.] Constituent Response: in MA the right to fish is with the angler as per the state legislation that created the license.
- Question: this study values right to fish; Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) study values fishing trip. Which is preferred? Constituent Response: MA (3-survey approach) provides invaluable information. MA study gets value of access to an activity; AFSC study assessing changing in value to an incremental change in size and bag limits. You could use MA study and see how it changes in response to a change.
- We (several recreational fishing constituents) received questions on whether study was legitimate and we (once we found out more about it) supported it.
- Outreach could have been better.
- The study hurt compliance with license purchases in MA. Lots of government staff in MA put their reputation on the line for this study, and now MA is still 30% below compliance for licenses than what was projected.
- Politically believes this was the wrong time to conduct this study but glad NOAA Fisheries did it because the Councils needs this type of information
- Massachusetts Angler Valuation Study (PDF) – Scott Steinback (2:00 - 2:15 pm)
- Discussant/Facilitator – John Whitehead (2:15 - 2:45 pm)
Presentations by NOAA Fisheries Partners and Constituents
Economic Data Gaps & Associated Problems
- Examples of key information gaps:
- need changes in participation and (angler) expenditures due to changes in fish stocks;
- need to estimate benefits of rebuilding stocks
- Need to understand ‘portability’ among anglers. How many anglers shift to different fisheries vs quit altogether at different levels of closure or other restrictive regulations. Do they shift spending outside the regional economy, and by how much?
- need to know effects of regulations on fishing participation and recreational fishing-dependent businesses; for example, rec sector has value 16 times greater than commercial sector for Gulf red snapper; in South Atlantic, bottomfishing closure implemented with limited biological information, no economic information. When Rule went into effect, one firm laid off 72% of its long-time employees only to have SAFMC to later remove Rule.
- No knowledge on where anglers fish on the water, which makes it difficult to reliably assess area closures. Need high resolution spatial data regarding where they fish, especially for use in protected areas planning.
- lack of local and fishery-specific economic information
- lack of procedures for how to apply such information (in the Council process)
- lack economic information for making allocation decisions
- Reliable bioeconomic models are needed for many fisheries complexes.
- Economic Data Gaps & Associated Problems (PDF) – Mike Leonard and Rob Southwick (3:00 - 3:15 pm)
Valuing Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay
- Purpose: assess angler willingness to pay for improvements in water quality
- Currently developing model
- Modeling issues – non-random nature of intercept data means observations must be weighted; spatial information: only get access point (dock) information, not at-sea fishing site
- Valuing Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay – Matt Massey (3:15 - 3:30 pm)
Effect of Deepwater Horizon on Anglers
- Purpose: Determine whether DWH impacted sport fishers and, if so, how much did benefits change.
- Contribution – early study relied on benefit transfer; recent literature uses stated preference
- Approach: Used counterfactual: Oil spill happened; Oil spill didn’t happen because anglers paid to prevent it
- Result: MRIP data can be used to assess damages to public (anglers) from DWH
- Effect of Deepwater Horizon on Anglers (PDF) – Sherry Larkin (3:30 - 3:45 pm)
Comments and Questions on Constituent Presentations
- NOAA Fisheries has made progress on data gaps and shortcomings. Applications/models address some of these gaps. More information on marginal changes / marginal impacts needed. Need to better understand angler behavior (assuming zero substitution or total substitution is inappropriate)
- Allocation point – we are all interested in National SSC results
- Question: we need much more explicit information on fishing grounds; thoughts on how to address it? Discussion: Constituent #1: expensive solution; use of spatial management increasing but socioeconomic surveys are not getting this information. Believes there is trust issue with for-hire operators, who would worry that providing information threatens livelihood. Constituent #2: I-snapper and other data reporting platforms get this information; data is self-reported; agrees we need to get this information; Constituent #1: NOAA Fisheries needs to try something; run a pilot to evaluate self-reported data; Constituent #3: In RI, for-hire operators got tablets and use a tracking function (for spatial information); it also records catch information. Study plans to expand application from for-hire boats to a sample of anglers to report via smart phones. Constituent #2: could put VMS on for-hire; Constituent #1: want information on how effort changes due to policy change, other changes
- Question: With full implementation of MRIP, effort data is starting to change. We need a way to validate those results; Can we tie tackle sales to changes in effort? ASA / other marketing groups to use marketing science to validate those results. Constituent’s Response: Manufacturers sell to wholesalers (and retailers), which will make it difficult to say much in terms of validating the MRIP results. Also, retailers can be very locally focused and hard to get their trust.
- Discussant/Facilitator – Leif Anderson (3:45 - 4:15 pm)
Wrap up and Open Discussion
Comments & SuggestionsNOAA Fisheries perspective on Constituents' Feedback on Day 1 Sessions
- A lack of trust is impacting data collections; need to be providing more economic information to decision makers; historically, economic information only used at tail end of decision making, need to ensure that economic information is used to shape alternatives; need to communicate economic information and activities (surveys and studies) to public, industry groups, decision makers.
- NOAA Fisheries should not assume that Council members can read and understand everything (models, etc.) SAFMC is creating a decision document that summarizes key information.
- It is not always the case that managers are not getting the information; often they just don’t know how to use it.
- There was some progress today – some of the projects presented today suggest that there is a need to be more thoughtful on how data is used, delivered. There is also progress since last Summit – constituent knows who NE rec analyst is (Scott Steinback). Still seems to be a breakdown in getting information from shop that produced results (Science Center) to Council staff/Council member for decision. Seems to be a breakdown in communication – not making it through in MA or in the Northeast.
- Socioeconomic side does not have a programmatic implementation. Program lacks SEDAR process; lack of guidance on how managers use information
- General Discussion – (4:15 - 5:00 pm)