NOAA Fisheries Recreational Fisheries Constituents' Economics Workshop

Workshop: Day 1 – January 29th, 2014

Welcome to the Workshop – Russ Dunn (8:45 - 9:00 am)  

Opening Remarks

Key Points

  • 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
    • 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

Angler Attitudes and Preferences

Results of Angler Attitudes and Preference Survey

Key Points

  • 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

Key Comments/Questions

  • 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! 

Economic Impact Case Studies

Northwest For-Hire Economic Impacts: Survey and Results

Key Points

  • 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

Key Comments/Questions

  • 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

For-Hire Cost and Earnings Studies

Pacific Coast For-Hire Cost & Earnings Studies

Key Points

  • 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

Key Comments/Questions

  • 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

Valuation Case Studies

Stated Preferences for Size and Bag Limits of Alaska Charter Boat Anglers

Key Points

  • 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.

Key Comments/Questions

  • 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.

Massachusetts Angler Valuation Study

Key Points

  • 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

Key Comments/Questions

  • 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

Presentations by NOAA Fisheries Partners and Constituents

Economic Data Gaps & Associated Problems

Key Points

  • 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.

Valuing Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay

Key Points

  • 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

Key Points

  • 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

Comments and Questions on Constituent Presentations

Key Comments/Questions

  • 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)

Open Discussion

Wrap up and Open Discussion

Comments & Suggestions

NOAA 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.
Constituent Comments
  • 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)

Workshop: Day 2 – January 30th, 2014

Welcome – Russ Dunn (9:00 - 9:15 am)

Bioeconomic Modeling

Northeast Bioeconomic Modeling

Key Points

  • Purpose – Integrated modeling tool that assesses how management changes affect angler fishing effort, angler welfare (benefits), recreational fishing mortality and stock levels of key NE groundfish species
  • Model overview – behavior model predicts how angler welfare changes with changes in expected catch; biological model generates expectations on catch (encounters length/size of fish, fish kept); simulation predicts angler behavior under alternative stock structure and regulations;
  • 2013 Simulation Results – Assuming status quo regulations, simulation ran 100x; 65 times cod catch less than ACL but haddock only less than its ACL 11 times, which led to increasing minimum size of haddock in the final regulation
  • Ex-post, model underestimated cod catch a bit but significantly underestimated haddock.
  • In 2014, ongoing model development will seek to resolve why model under-estimated catch. Key assumptions exploring – no heterogeneity in catch rates across fishing modes, no highgrading or non-compliance
  • Non-compliance for haddock likely explains part of the problem - MRIP data indicate that over 30% of haddock mortality was under-sized in FY2013. Actual non-compliance was likely even larger because MRIP interviewers may not see all non-compliance.

Key Comments/Questions

  • Question: Bioeconomic models are great, as they get at marginal changes. Am I correct in assuming that we need more MRIP catch and release data to get at sub-fisheries? Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Response: Sample size was an issue so could not look at sub-fisheries
  • Question: Can model support how effort may shift before and after closure? Panelist Response: That’s a really good question; not sure how to model effect of closure on effort in other months.
  • There are a limited number of fisheries where a bioeconomic model is needed. Let’s prioritize so we can rapidly update these models, preferably using panel studies. Let’s investigate logbooks with anglers using mobile phones and such so that we can get revealed preference data as well. Panelist’s Response: Agrees that panel would provide a better response rate to economic portion of the survey than using MRIP intercepts as a sample frame and would enable look at heterogeneity across anglers.

Panel Discussion

Doug Lipton, Chief Economist, NOAA Fisheries
  • BLAST model is great because it changes role of economics in management process. In this case, BLAST used to set regulation. The two major advances of BLAST are: 1) it is embedded in fishery management process. Doesn’t leave it up to the Council members to figure out how to use the economic information; 2) Major advancement in economic approach using coupled biological–behavioral model, with feedback linkages
Captain Patrick Paquette, Basic Strategies, MA Striped Bass Assn.
  • Background to using BLAST for management in 2013: In 2012, cod stocks were in dire condition; Council and politicians largely focused on commercial fisheries, rec not being considered by Council. BLAST was something sent from Heaven – gave the Council and industry something to consider. Participated as a member of the public in the SSC’s review of BLAST; was able to see impacts from bag limits, size limits, etc., and decide which option was best. Biggest Miss: model does not distinguish between fleets, which operate in different locations and have different expectations on catch. Believes small charter boats have best data, which may be skewing results. Biggest Criticism: Need to communicate model ranges better so probabilities are understood. Future outlook: hopes model can be worked on to address shortcomings; it would be a step backward not to use this cutting edge tool.
Ted McConnell, University of Maryland
  • Terrific piece of research that can actually be applied to real life management. In the past, interaction between economics and biology spotty; this makes great strides and sets a foundation for improvements so that in the future, these models will be used routinely. Future work needed on non-compliance and expected catch / bag limits. Thinking broadly about the portfolio of projects NMFS has presented, this (BLAST) is what the program must do.
  • General discussion – (10:00 - 10:45 am)

Social Indicators

Social Indicator Toolbox for Assessing Community Dependence on Recreational Fishing

Key Points

  • Purpose – provide toolbox that provides social indicators of coastal community resiliency and vulnerability
  • Scope – uses 75 variables to assess 2900 communities from Maine through Texas
  • Applications – MSA National Standard 8, NEPA Social Impact Assessments, Environmental Justice; also used in Hurricane Sandy to identify key fishing communities (rec and commercial)
  • Enables comparisons across communities for recreational fishing reliance and recreational fishing engagement
  • Easier to implement recreational indices in toolbox on East Coast and Gulf because MRIP available for 18 of 19 states; will be more challenging in other regions.
  • (NOTE: Training on the Social Indicator Toolbox was provided to Council and NOAA Fisheries NEPA staff in February 2014*)

Key Comments/Questions

  • Question: You have 3 indicators for vulnerability – can you aggregate into single indicator? Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Response: A single composite index may not have much meaning; could lose what is going on in community. Follow up comment: Council’s want a single number because otherwise have to weight information (subjective)
  • Question: mapping tool shows dependence as a combination of reliance and engagement. Are they equally weighted? NEFSC Response: Yes, they are equally weighted.
  • Question: Larger communities with high population centers are likely to have lower levels of reliance. How do you think about that? NEFSC Response: Recreational fishing reliance enables smaller communities that might have otherwise been overlooked to be included. Recreational fishing engagement will capture large communities.
  • Question: have you looked at spatial correlation across communities? NEFSC Response: Map enables comparison among neighboring communities.
  • Map is very interesting. Rec constituents advocating by community and not just statewide.

Bait and Tackle

Bait and Tackle Business Survey

Key Points

  • Survey’s Purpose – understand economic contribution of bait & tackle shops to minimize economic impacts on coastal communities from changes in fishery regulations and be able to assess the effects of natural disasters and economic downturns.
  • Survey has received considerable input from stakeholders and is also informed by surveys conducted by other organizations (this is NOAA Fisheries’ first attempt to survey bait and tackle shops)
  • In this presentation, seeking additional input on survey instrument and survey methods.

Key Comments/Questions

  • Suggest using categories of revenue, not asking for absolute or rounded values because stores won’t want to reveal that information. NOAA Fisheries SF: Using revenue categories affects accuracy and precision. Constituent #2: ASA has effectively used categories in surveys; using categories improves response rates
  • Do outreach at I-CAST in July.
  • Try to shorten survey and use phone follow-up to improve response rates.
  • Reaching smaller independent stores in MA will be hard because they may not sell licenses. Offered to help identify these businesses (NOTE: constituent provided mailing list subsequent to workshop*)

Workshop Final Discussions

Panel Discussion on Management Needs, Future Directions

John Whitehead, Appalachian State University
  • South Atlantic Fishery Management Council SSC member for 10 years and researcher that has used NOAA Fisheries' rec data
  • Concerned that his random utility model (revealed preference study) conducted years ago using then recent data -2000 - is still being used to inform decisions without any updating of the data.
  • Concerned that when NMFS “leapt” to use stated preference surveys (rather than revealed preference) did not fully scrutinize potential biases, NOAA Fisheries should have been more rigorous
  • Major improvements can be made to MRIP surveys with just small improvements. For example, in Southeast economic add-on could ask a question that would indicate if the fishermen would opt out of fishing (e.g., could propose a trip cost increase or site closure and see if they would still go)
  • Preference & Attitudes Surveys – ask how many more trips angler would take / would not take based upon increase in stock size, change in bag limit (this is known as contingent behavior)
  • NOAA Fisheries should estimate both hypothetical values from stated preference surveys and values based on actual behavior using revealed preference models
Ken Haddad, American Sportfishing Association
  • Learned quite a few things
  • In terms of discussion on difficulty of using socioeconomics in Council process – this is not an issue at the SSC level; the problem is at the Council level. Appointed Council members don’t know how to integrate this information. They make decision based upon 3 minutes of input (on socioeconomics)
  • (Socioeconomics) rarely discussed at Council meetings. It is always off on the side; how do we bring this more center?
  • Socioeconomics does not seem to anticipate future; more reactive. I challenge all of us to do that (think about big issues) and maybe we need help from the P.R. and communication folks, rather than the economists (to help identify big issues).
  • Allocation – need good science or politics rule the day. Work by SEFSC staff needs more attention. Council’s SEP approved study but only data caveats and assumptions were highlighted rather than results
  • Sector separation – there is absolutely no understanding of what this means socially, economically. Private anglers feel that there is no information on them at Council meetings. Regions differ; difficult to get national umbrella
  • Trust is below break-even point.
  • Very difficult to compare recreational fishing to commercial fishing – far fewer of them, far more restrictions
Stephen Holiman, NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office
  • Background - end user of the products from the Science Centers and works closely with Council
  • There is a lot more economics that goes into the council process now compared to earlier. Data from the for-hire sector is being used and has been since the 1980s. SERO uses economic impact model from S&T regularly. There are far fewer amendments for which there is just a qualitative discussion compared to earlier.
  • How does the information get to the Council? It’s rare that any of the economists get to talk to the Council directly (either the NOAA Fisheries economists or the Council economists). The Gulf Council lacks a process to get the economic data to the Council, usually only the regulatory flexibility economic data makes it to the Council itself.
  • There is a perception that there is not much (socioeconomic information) available or that it is inadequate or wrong. No matter how much progress we make on data and models, unless given the opportunity to clear up mis-perceptions, still going to have problems.
  • SERO typically uses a worst-case scenario to analyze proposed regulations, e.g. 100% of directed trips are cancelled due to a regulation.
  • Loved Northeast’s BLAST bioeconomic model. Unless we have better behavioral models (in Southeast), we are pretty handcuffed. 
  • Discussants – John Whitehead, Ken Haddad, Stephen Holiman – (1:30 - 2:00 pm)

Closing Discussion

Key Comments/Questions

  • Trade industry did not pay attention to fisheries until a few years ago, when ACLs came on the scene. NOAA Fisheries is doing a good job on how regulation affects fisherman but not industry. For example, how does a change in trips affect bait and tackle sales?
  • How do we get through to the Councils? NOAA Fisheries has focused too much on pure science versus applied science – why aren’t we pushing on that? NOAA Fisheries does a good job of reacting to Council decisions or alternatives but we’re not proactive by helping to formulate alternatives.
  • I found the workshop extremely valuable. From the outside (of NOAA Fisheries) looking in, it still strikes me as a piecemeal approach versus overarching goals across NOAA Fisheries and Councils. Need to see a roadmap. Do we have a national set of economic priorities? Also need to formalize process for including information into management process. Follow up Comment - Part of the problem is the short time frame to the analysis on management options. Analysts require standing data sets for quick turnaround analysis such as a permanent MRIP economic add-on or a recreational logbook.
  • NOAA Fisheries management should set economic priorities. How can we prioritize stock assessment improvements but not economic studies? Prioritization must be done.

Suggested Areas for Improvement

  • Develop a prioritized plan for recreational socio-economic research
  • Improve communication across the board (stakeholders, partners, etc.). Opportunities to provide feedback early in development of new surveys and studies are needed.
  • Improve use of socioeconomic information in management process: training, new approaches, and decision support tools are needed to help Council staff and Council members
  • General Discussion – (2:15 - 3:45 pm)

Workshop Participants

Richard AikenUS Fish and Wildlife Service
Leif AndersonNorthwest Fisheries Science Center
Ayeisha BrinsonOffice of Science & Technology
Brian CheuvrontSouth Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Lisa ColburnNortheast Fisheries Science Center
Rita CurtisOffice of Science & Technology
Forbes DarbyOffice of Communications
Russell DunnOffice of Sustainable Fisheries
Matt FullerUS Fish and Wildlife Service
Jeff GabrielNational Marine Manufacturers Association
Brad GentnerGentner Consulting Group, Inc.
Ken HaddadAmerican Sportfishing Association
James HilgerSouthwest Fisheries Science Center
Stephen HolimanSoutheast Regional Office
Jorge HolzerUniversity of Maryland
Cliff HuttOffice of Science & Technology
W. Aaron JenkinsOregon Dept of Fish & Wildlife
Sherry LarkinUniversity of Florida
Jerry LeonardNorthwest Fisheries Science Center
Mike LeonardAmerican Sportfishing Association
Dan LewAlaska Fisheries Science Center
Doug LiptonOffice of Science & Technology
Sabrina LovellOffice of Science & Technology
Shanna MadsenAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Sarah MalloyPacific Islands Regional Office
Matt MasseyUS Environmental Protection Agency
Ted McConnellUniversity of Maryland
Capt. Dave MontiCharter Boat Captain
Capt. Patrick PaquetteBasic Strategies, MA Striped Bass Association
Danielle RiouxOffice of Sustainable Fisheries
Rob SouthwickSouthwick Associates
Scott SteinbackNortheast Fisheries Science Center
Mike Travis Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Kristy WallmoOffice of Science & Technology
John WhiteheadAppalachian State University

Workshop Overview

What We Heard

  • Our socioeconomic research priorities and goals are not well understood. Constituents would like to be involved in setting this research agenda.
  • Socioeconomic information could be better utilized in fishery management decisions.
  • Constituents want to be more informed and engaged in our socioeconomic work.
  • Socioeconomic information needs to be improved.
The Recreational Fisheries Constituents Economics Workshop (Workshop) was an activity identified by constituents in the 2010 National Recreational Fishing Action Agenda as an important step toward enhancing the relationship between the recreational saltwater fishing community and NOAA. To ensure a productive dialogue, NOAA Fisheries balanced the agenda between presentations on the Agency’s the recreational fishing economics program and participant discussion.
To facilitate the information exchange, Workshop participants were provided fact sheets on NOAA Fisheries’ Recreational Economic Data Holdings as well as the Agency’s Recreational Economic Models.
Based upon the lively exchange of information over the course of the 2-day Workshop, four themes emerged (highlighted in box). The presentations as well as detailed notes on the discussion associated with each presentation are captured on this website (see Agenda: Day 1 and Agenda: Day 2). The Workshop Participants List is also provided here.
The Workshop report summarizes this discussion and also provides next steps for addressing the four key themes identified at the Workshop.

Additional Resources