SICKO-GOAD, L., AND E. F. STOERMER. 1984. The weed for uniform temi- nology concerning phytoplankton cell size fractions and examples of picoplankton from the Laurentian Great Lakes. J . Great Lakes Res. 10: 90-93.

SMITH, R. E. H . , W. 1. GEII>F.R. AN[> T. PLA'R. 1984. Microplankton pro- ductivity in the oligotrophic ocean. Nature (Land.) 31 1: 252-254.

VANDERPLOEG. H. A . 1981. Seasonal particle-size selection by Diuptornles sicilis in offshore Lake Michigan. Can. J . Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 584-5 17.

VOLLENWEHDER, R. A. 1974. A manual on methods for measuring pri~liary production in aquatic environments. 2nd ed. IBP Handb. No. 12. Black- well Scientific Publications. Oxford. 225 p.

WATERBURY, J . R . , S . W. WATSON, W. W. L. GUIB.I.ARD, AND L. E. BRAND. 8979. Widespread occurrence of a unicellular, marine, planktonic, cyanobacteriunm. Nature (Eond.) 277: 293-294.

WATSON, M. L. 1958. Staining tissue sections for electron microscopy with heavy metals. J . Biophys. Biwhem. Cytol. 4: 475-478.

WATSON, N. H. F. . AND J . B. WILSON. 8978. Crustacean zooplankton of Lake Superior. J . Great Lakes Res. 4: 481 -496.

WATSON. S . W. , T. J . NOVITSKY, H. L. QUINBY, AND F. W. VALOIS. 8977. Determination of bacterial number and biomass in the marine environ- ment. Appl. Environ. Microbial. 33: 940-954.

Sports Angler Preferences for Alternative Regulatory Methods

T. S. Renyard School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbid, Vancouver, B.C. V6T I W5

and Ray Hilborn institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 5.C. V6T 1 W5

Renyard, T. S., and R. Hilborn. 1986. Sports angler preferences for alternative regulatory methods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43: 240-242.

Successful implementation of fisheries regulations is difficult when user groups strongly oppose the regulations. We show that some types of sports fishing regulations (seasonal closure, daily bag limits) are not generally acceptable to British Columbia salmon sports anglers and that preference for other regulations depends upon the frequency of fishing. Infrequent anglers prefer low annual bag limits, while frequent anglers prefer larger size limits and gear restrictions.

Il est difficile de rnettre efficacement en application Ies reglements sur les p@ches quand des groupes d'utilisateurs s'y opposent energiquement. Nous faisons ressortir que les pecheurs sportifs de saumon de la Colornbie- Britannique n'acceptent pas, de f a ~ o n generale, certains types de rPglements (periode d'interdiction saisonni&re, limites des prises journali6res) et que la prkference d6msntr6e pour d'autres rPglements depend de la frequence avec laquelle on Nche. hes p8cheurs occasionnels preferent des limites de prises annuelles reduites tandis que ceux qksi pechent souvent preferent qu'on impose des limites de taille plus 6levees et des restrictions sur les engins de $the.

Received November 7 4, 1984 Accepted September 7 9, 6 985 (J8013)

ueh research has been conducted on the motiva- tions, needs, and preferences of anglers in regard to the fishing experience (Carl 1982; Hudgens 1984; Knspf et al. 1973; Mwller and Engelken 1972;

Smith 1980; Leedy et al. 1981). Evaluation of the needs, preferences, and motivations of the angler have been thought necessary for responsible agencies in shaping a management plan that is sensitive to the people it affects (Duttweiler 1976; Smith 1980). Thus, motivations for fishing that contribute to an increase or decrease in catch and effort have been consid- ered important to assess the impact of various regulatory options (Smith 1980). This requires, however, considerable social research. An alternative is to ignore motivations and look directly at regulatory preferences in relation to fishing behavior.

A recent trend in Pacific salmon sport fisheries management is to give anglers a larger voice in regulatory decision-making. In the United States, this takes the form s f representatives on regional management councils and similar state bodies such as the Board of Fisheries in Alaska. In Canada, it is less formal but does occur through Ministerial advisory boards.

Councils and advisory boards have given anglers a voice, but this has led to other problems. First, these formal decision- making processes have been hampered by endless public meet- ings and political lobbying. Hilborn et al. (1984), for instance, described a set of sports fishing regulations that were intro- duced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to manage the salmon sport fishery and were stopped by strong political lobbying by the Spr t s Fishery Advisory Board. This process usually does not make it clear to, managers whether a

Can

. J. F

ish.

Aqu

at. S

ci. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

ICH

IGA

N o

n 11

/17/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

TABLE 1 . Comparison of infrequent and frequent fishermen responses of the (a) most preferred and (b) Beast preferred regulation using the number of trips made per year as the effort variable. Expected values (in parentheses) were calculated on the assumption that there are no differences between groups ( N = 144; df = 6).

(a) Most preferred (b) h a s t preferred (C = 25.947, cx = 0.0002) (G = 8,877, a = 0.1806)

Regulation Count 5 2 0 trips >20 trips Count 1286 trips >20 trips

Winter closure Summer closure Yearly bag Size limits Daily bag Gear restriction Annual harvest Missing Total

more acceptable regulation package could be found that would achieve the same management objective. Second, it is not clear whether opinions expressed by the individuals in councils and advisory boards represent all anglers. Government advisory bodies are typically composed of a nonrandom sample of the interest group; according to political theory (Olson 1975; Moe 1980), only those individuals or firms who are large will reap significant benefits from their own involvement. Thus, com- mercial resort owners, club arad organization officers, and very active sport anglers can expect to participate in advisory groups. How do fishery managers get advice that represents the opinion of the majority of anglers?

We propose that a survey of anglers is a more direct tool for managers to get angler preferences for regulation. Our propc~sal follows the rationale of other authors who have found, in other circumstances, that the questionnaire is a reliable and system- atic method (Babbie, 1973; Duttweiler 1976).

Our general hypothesis is that anglers will prefer regulations that least affect their fishing behavior. Specifically, we hypoth- esize that frequent or efficient anglers would not prefer an annual or daily bag limit because they will oken exceed these limitations if left unrestricted. The frequentlefficient angler would prefer increased size limits and gear restrictions, since his catch would not be substantially reduced because of his superior abilities. We hypothesize that the infrequent or ineffi- cient angler, on the other hand, would prefer bag limits because he often does not achieve the maximum allowable catch. In addition, an infrequentlinefficient angler would not prefer gear restrictions or increased size limits because restrictions on the few fish he catches and the few techniques he uses will disrupt his fishing experience.

Materiaks and Methods

We surveyed 157 British Columbia sport anglers between December 6, 1983, and January 15, 1984, at the Burrard Civic and Horseshoe Bay marinas (Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay, British Columbia) for their trip frequency, annual success, and regulation preferences. About 95% of the anglers were inter- viewed on weekend days and 5% on weekdays. We inter- viewed between 10:30 a.m. and 300 p.m. when marinas were most crowded with anglers. We considered anyone with a current B.C. Tidalwater Sport Fishing License as an eligible

Can. 9. Fish. Aquar. Sci., Vak. 43 , 1986

interviewee. About 90% of the anglers had just finished fish- ing, 5% were just starting to fish, and 5% were just observing incoming catches. Six anglers interviewed did not complete the survey and seven refused to answer any questions.

We asked each angler four questions. The first two questions established the number of trips taken and the number of salmon caught in 12 mo. The remaining two questions required that each respondent select his most preferred and least preferred regulations from a list of seven.

The seven alternative regulations that are assumed to have the same conservation effect on the chinook and coho stocks in the Strait of Georgia are (1) a winter closure from October through June every year, (2) a summer closure fmm June through July every year, (3) an annual bag limit of 20 salmon per year, 64) an increase in the legal size limits for coho (12 to 20 in. (385 to 508 mm)) and chinook ( 18 to 24 in. (457 to 610 mm)), (5) a decrease in the daily bag limit from four to one, (6) gear restrictions including the banning of downriggers, barbed hooks, and multiple hooks, and (7) an annual harvest restriction of 150 000 chinook and 500 000 coho for the sport anglers as a collective group (Argue et aI. 1983; T. Shardlow, DFO, 60 Front Street, Nanaimo, B . C., pers. comm.).

The original questionnaire was pretested on 18 anglers after some initial revision. The pretest was used to determine the clarity of the questions and whether or not it produced the desired responses. The pretest identified three problems. First, the survey took too long to complete because anglers were often cold and anxious to pack up for home. We felt that shortening the survey to four questions (from nine) and by requiring the anglers to rank only two of seven choices ensured the completion of more surveys. Second, the first two questions required the angler to estimate the fishing trips taken and salmon caught over the last 12 mo. However, whether we used "over the last 12 mo" or "last year9' as the wording to the questions, there was confusion. We chose to explain, during each interview, that each angler consider the 12-mo period prior to the survey day. Third, most anglers expressed confusion about the "annual harvest" regulation. This option required further explanation during the interview. This option was retained because once each angler was in- formed as to the overall estimated reduction in catch (from 180 000 to 80 800 for chinook and fmm 400 000 to 320 000 for coho), they were able to make an informed judgement about the regulation.

We defined a frequent angler as one who fished more than

Can

. J. F

ish.

Aqu

at. S

ci. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

ICH

IGA

N o

n 11

/17/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

28 times per year and infrequent as less than 20 times. Simi- larly, we defined an efficient angler as one who caught more than 20 salmon per year and inefficient as less than 20. This split our sample by putting approximately half of the anglers in each category. Thus. we stratified our sample into groups based on frequency of fishing (520 times per year or >20 times per year), total catch (520 fish per year or >20 fish per year), and daily success rate (5 1 fish per day or > I fish per day). Hilb01-w (1985) has shown that the major determinant of sport fishing annual catch is the amount of time spent fishing and not indi- vidual efficiencies; this strong correlation between trip fre- quency and annual catch, both in Hilbom's (1985) and in our sample, led us to restrict our analysis to trip frequency.

Results and Discussion

The most preferred regulation by all anglers was the annual bag limit of 28 salmon (Table I). Although infrequent anglers preferred this regulation more than expected and frequent anglers less than expected, it is possible that some of the pref- erence for this regulation is due to similarity of this choice to the present regulation. The current regulation is 30 chinook salmon per year with no annual bag limit on coho salmon. Some interest was shown by frequent anglers on the summer closure, size limits, and gear restrictions; little preference was shown by infrequent anglers regarding regulations other than annual bag limit (Table la). All anglers sampled least preferred winter or summer closure and the daily bag limit (Table 1 b). Yearly bag limits, size limits, and gear restrictions were rarely selected as the least preferred regulation (Table lb). The data show, therefore, that all anglers have similar "least preferred" regulations but have different "'most preferred" regulations.

Time closures were generally found unpopular. However, frequent anglers selected the summer closure more often than infrequent anglers as a preferred regulation. This seems con- trary to the logic that restricted time would affect the frequent! angler more. T. Shardlow (DFO, 60 Front Street, Nanaimo, B.C., pers. csmm.) found in a similar survey during the sum- mer C P ~ 1983 that there was a high preference for the winter clcxure. This suggests that there may be two major subgroups within the sport fishing community, one that prefers winter fishing and another that prefers summer fishing. Our data sug- gest that frequent anglers fish more in winter.

Our sample is not likely to represent the proportion of anglers in each frequency category because it was a small survey, restricted to a few marinas and limited to a short period. We feel, however, that it is important to decision- makers to know the wide distribution of the opinions expressed in our sample. To determine more reliable province-wide esti- mates, we derived proportions from the data recently collected in the DFO logbook program (Bijsterveld 1983). The logbook program randomly selected about 2088 anglers from sport license records and is more likely representative of the pro- portion of British Columbia sport anglers in the frequency categories. The logbook data show that 82% (or 213 900 province-wide) are infrequent anglers and 18% (or 48 300) are frequent anglers. Therefore, the opinions expressed by the infrequent anglers in our sample represent a large majority of the sport anglers of British Columbia.

One would expect, then, that if the Sport Fishery Advisory Board and BFO had all sport angler interests in mind, they would choose regulations that affect fewer anglers. For exam- ple. a regulation package in the interest of many anglers would include (1 B a smaller annual bag limit, (2) no change in gear restrictions or size limits, (3) no time closures, and (4) no reduction in daily bag limits.

The current decision-making process is susceptible to the biases, whether intentional or not, of frequent anglers. The Sport Fishery Advisory Board members and fishery managers are likely avid. frequent anglers who have much at stake in the sport fishery. Surveys such as the one we have considered are one method to safeguard against the biases of decision-makers. Our hypothesis, for instance, provides a good example of man- ager bias. Our original hypothesis stated that frequent anglers prefer one type of regulation, while infrequent anglers prefer others. Our survey, instead, found some regulations that were disliked by all anglers, while some preference variation oc- curred for "'most preferred" regulations. User preference sur- veys clarify the position of all anglers regarding the accept- ability of alternative policies, and may become a major tool in fisheries management.

We thank Tom Shardlow of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for his valuable contributions during many consultative meetings and assistance with the derivation of the list of regulations and for the original idea of measuring fisherman preferences to different regu- lations. We would also like to thank Dr. Richard Johnston for his assistance with the design of the survey questionnaire and discussion on the theory of interest groups.

ARGUE, A. W. , W . HILBORN, R. M. PETERMAN, M. J . STALEY, AND C. y . WALTEWS. 1983. Strait of Georgia chimoc~k and coho fishery. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 21 1 : 91 p.

BABRIE, E. 1973. Survey research methods. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmomt, CA. 384 p.

BIJSTERVELD, L. 1983. The B.C. tidal water sportfishing diary program - 1981. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1717: 43 p.

CARL, t. 1982. Social impacts of a stream reclamation project on urban anglers. North Am. J . Fish. Manage. 2: 1434- 170.

D U ~ E I L E R , M. 1976. Use of questionnaire surveys in fomaing fishery man- agement policy. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105: 232-239.

MILBORN, 8. 1985. Fleet dynamics and individual variation: why some people catch more fish than others. Can. J . Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 2-13.

HILBORW, R . , C. J . WALTERS, R. PETEWMAN, AND M. J . STAIEY. 1984. Models and fisheries: a case study in implementation. North Am. J . Fish. Manage. 4: 9- 14.

HUDGENS, Ekl. 1984. Structure of' the angling experience. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1 13: 750-759.

KNOPF, R . , B . DRIVER, AND J . BASSETT. 1973. blotivations for fishing. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Wes. Conf. 38: 191-219.

LEEDY, D. , T. FRANKLIN, AND R . MAESTRC). 198 1 . Planning for urban fishing and waterfront recreation. Biological Services Program. Tech. Rep. WS/PBS-80/35. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington K.

Mos, T. 1980. The organization of interest incentive and the internal dynamics of political interest groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 282 p.

MOELEER, G . , AND J . ENGEEKEN. 1972. What fishermen look for in a fishing experience. J . Wildt. Manage. 36(4): 1253- 1257.

OHSON, M. 1975. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory s f groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 186 p.

SMITH, C. 1980. Attitudes about the value of steelhed and salmon angling. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109: 272-381.

Can. J . Fish. Aquar. Sci., Vol. 43, 1986

Can

. J. F

ish.

Aqu

at. S

ci. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.nrc

rese

arch

pres

s.co

m b

y U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

ICH

IGA

N o

n 11

/17/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.