Saltwater Anglers' Attitudes towards Marine Protected Areas

This article was downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University]On 17 November 2014 At 2146Publisher Taylor amp FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registered office MortimerHouse 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

FisheriesPublication details including instructions for authors and subscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloiufsh20

Saltwater Anglers Attitudes towards MarineProtected AreasRonald J Salz a amp David K Loomis ba Natural Resources Management and Engineering Department University ofConnecticut-Avery Point Campus Groton USAb Human Dimensions Research Unit Department of Natural Resources Conservation University of Massachusetts-Amherst USAPublished online 09 Jan 2011

To cite this article Ronald J Salz amp David K Loomis (2004) Saltwater Anglers Attitudes towards Marine Protected AreasFisheries 296 10-17 DOI 1015771548-8446(2004)29[10SAATMP]20CO2

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg1015771548-8446(2004)29[10SAATMP]20CO2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the ldquoContentrdquo) containedin the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francis our agents and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses actions claims proceedings demands costs expenses damages and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Any substantial or systematicreproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensing systematic supply or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms amp Conditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Saltwater Anglers Attitudes Towards Marine Protected Areas

Attempts to establish no-take marine reserves in the United States have engendered strong opposition from sportfishing interest groups This study investigated northeastern saltwater anglers attitudes towards several hypothetical marine protected area (MPA) alternatives Support for MPAs decreased with increasing level of restrictiveness Anglers attitudes towards the establishment of catch-and-release MPAs were somewhat divided The majority of those surveyed were opposed to no-take reserves If no-take reserves are to be accepted by anglers managers need to convince them of the advantages of incorporating this innovative management tool over more traditional fishery regulations alone Anglers were more opposed to MPAs that restrict recreational fishing within state waters as compared to similar MPAs sited in federal waters In general anglers from New York and New Jersey held more favorable MPA attitudes than did anglers from Rhode Island New Hampshire and Massachusetts Anglers who were members of a fishing organization were more opposed to MPAs than were non-members Anglers whose most preferred species was striped bass were more opposed to no-take reserves than were anglers whose most preferred species was summer flounder Attitudinal data on MPAs collected early in the planning process can help highlight important differences in management preferences among stakeholder subgroups identify management alternatives justify preferred management actions and reduce the likelihood of alienating important stakeholder groups

Ronald J Salz

David K Loomis

Salz is an assistant

professor in the Natural Resources Management and Engineering Department University of Connecticut-Avery Point Campus Groton He can be contacted at

ronsalzuconnedu

Loomis is an associate

professor in the Human Dimensions Research

Unit Department of Natural Resources

Conservation University of Massachusetts- Amherst He can be contacted at

Loomisforwildumass edu

10

Marine Protected Areas A Hot Issue

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are arguably the hottest current issue among marine resource managers scientists and stakeholders alike A growing interest in MPAs can be attributed to a variety of factors including recent fisheries stock declines greater public awareness of the need for marine resource protection increased recreational and eco- tourism use of the marine environment (Jamieson and Levings 2001) and increased activity by non- governmental organizations in the area of marine conservation Marine protected area is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of ocean management systems involving some level of excludability from the use of ocean resources Various combinations of activities allowed and dis-

allowed within an MPA can be viewed along a continuum of policy alternatives ranging from least restrictive to most restrictive On the least restric-

tive end of this continuum are MPAs that allow a

wide range of commercial recreational consumptive and non-consumptive activities On the more restrictive end of this continuum are no-take

marine reserves within which it is illegal to either temporarily or permanently remove or disturb any marine resource except for monitoring or research purposes

However despite their potential benefits MPA designations often raise contentious distributional issues among the different interests involved (Holland 2000) Attempts by government to limit the publics freedom to use ocean areas even for the proposed benefit of users have met with hostile opposition (NRC 2000) Organized stakeholder

groups often try to shape the publics values beliefs and attitudes to match their own interests They may also seek to directly influence policy through political lobbying drafting legislation and ballot initiatives

The relative success of MPAs as an alternative

fishery management approach will depend to a large extent on how well they are accepted by affected stakeholders Saltwater anglers represent a large economically important and politically connected stakeholder group There are approximately 34 million anglers in the United States of whom nearly 12 million fish in saltwater (USDSI and USDC 2003 NMFS 2003) Recreational saltwater fishing also represents a dominant economic sector for many coastal regions especially tourist destinations For 2001 US saltwater angler expenditures were estimated at $84 billion with a resulting economic output (after economic multipliers) of about $25 billion Recreational saltwater fishing creates over $66 billion in wages and salaries and approximately 288000 jobs annually (USDI and USDC 1997)

In recent years saltwater angler interest groups have displayed their growing influence over marine resource allocation issues particularly aimed at reducing commercial fishing effort Sportfishing interest groups also represent a major obstacle in establishing no-take marine reserves viewed by many anglers as a threat to their traditional open- access ocean rights With few exceptions US saltwater anglers can still fish wherever they desire and having to fish within specified bag and size limits can be seen as a relatively minor infringement upon their access rights when compared to no-take areas Recent efforts to establish no-take reserves

off Hawaii California and the Florida Keys have

Fisheries I wwwfisheriesorg I vol 29 no 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

met with strong opposition from fishing interests On this particular issue recreational fishing groups have found themselves in the strange and unaccus- tomed position of aligning with commercial fishing interests and against environmental organizations

In response to the growing interest in no-take reserves among environmentalists and some marine resource managers sportfishing interests have engaged in a well-organized public campaign that emphasizes the importance of maintaining open access to marine resources They proposed the Freedom to Fish Act (2000) that would make it more difficult to prohibit recreational fishing within MPAs in federal waters This bill is supported by a coalition called Freedom To Fish that includes sev-

eral high-profile sportfishing interest groups While the proposed federal Freedom to Fish bill still awaits Congressional action Rhode Islands legislature recently passed a similar law (Rhode Island Freedom to Fish and Marine Conservation Act) establishing standards that must be met before no-take MPAs

are designated Similar legislation is now being considered in several other coastal states Further

attempts to establish no-take zones under heavy opposition may only add fuel to a burgeoning open access movement among recreational anglers

In addition to opposing no-take reserves on the grounds that they violate the open-access principle sportfishing interests question the scientific rationale and management justification for banning recreational fishing The Freedom to Fish web site states that it is inappropriate to implement ill-con- ceived no-fishing zones when other less drastic yet equally effective options are available (Freedom to Fish web site 2003) Recreational fishing groups also emphasize the economic losses in terms of angler expenditures and multiplier effects that could result from no-take marine reserves (American Sportfishing Association 2000 Southwick 2002) Competing claims between stakeholder groups and managers over potential impacts and benefits can produce an impasse for MPA designations

Despite well-publicized opposition by leading recreational fishing interest groups not all saltwater anglers necessarily oppose establishment of no- take reserves For example many local anglers supported the Hawaiian Islands marine reserve despite heavily publicized opposition from national sportfishing organizations (S Fried Environmental Defense pers comm) Flood and Cocklin (1992) found that anglers and commercial fishermen in New Zealand originally opposed to the establishment of a marine reserve within their fishing grounds over time became strong supporters of the reserve Anglers who believe that as some studies indicate no-take marine reserves increase the size and number of fish both inside and outside the

reserve area (ie the replenishment reserve theory) may be willing to trade-off the cost of reduced spatial access for the benefits of better fishing

June 2004 I www fisheriesorg I Fbullshenes

Attitudes towards MPAs may also be shifting in a positive direction as more scientific evidence of their benefits is presented Some sportfishing advo- cates have indicated they would yield on the open-access principle and support the establishment of no-take reserves if they were convinced of the need for such restrictive measures (Fletcher 2001 Recreational Fishing Alliance 2002)

In addition to the potential catch-related benefits MPAs provide anglers may support such areas for other conservation-related reasons Sportsmen have a long history of aligning with conservation and environmental organizations on natural resource management issues Anglers indicate a variety of motives for fishing that are not directly related to catching fish including being outdoors enjoying nature and relaxation (Salz et al 2001a 200lb) Saltwater anglers assign numerous non- consumptive and non-use values to marine resources besides just the thrill of catching fish (Salz 2002) Many saltwater anglers exhibit a conservation-minded ethic as evidenced through voluntary catch and release participa- tion in fish tagging and cooperative angler data collection programs and memberships in environmental organizations Some saltwater anglers may therefore be willing to sacrifice access to protected fishing grounds if such restrictions support other importantly held values such as ecological integrity biodiversity and nature viewing

The purpose of this study was to -- examine the extent to which saltwater

anglers favor or oppose MPA alternatives with varying levels of access or use restrictions and situated in differ-

ent ocean locations We were also interested in

exploring if and how these MPA attitudes vary according to state of residence species preference and membership in a fishing club or organization

Survey Approach Saltwater anglers are a diverse stakeholder group

displaying wide variation in their experiences avidity species preference expertise commitment fishing related expenditures and social interactions related to fishing (Ditton et al 1992 Salz et al 2001b) Connected to this variation are important sociological and psychological differences in anglers attitudes beliefs values social norms and motiva- tions In order to design and implement effective policies marine resource managers must develop an understanding of this diversity (Fiske 1992) While the positions of politically active sportfishing interest groups are important to the overall policy-making process they may not adequately represent the diversity of all saltwater anglers Similarly opportunities for public input such as pub-

Ronald J Salz

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

lic hearings and written comments are seldom representative of all stakeholders interests Survey research if designed properly can be an effective method for collecting social impact data that are reasonably representative of an identified stakeholder population According to Cocklin et al (1998) effective planning for MPAs should include social impact assessments opportunities for public involvement in decisions as bullvell as surveys of public attitudes Survey research can be used to gauge stakeholder reactions to a variety of hypothetical management scenarios at a much earlier and perhaps less contentious stage in the overall process Failure to canvass and interpret public opinion accurately can lead to delays in decision making poor public relations (Wolfenden et al 1994) less bullvidely accepted decisions lobullver levels of compliance and less stable outcomes Surveys results can illuminate differences among subgroups of a stakeholder population and detect subtleties in attitudes and management preferences that may othersvise go unnoticed Surveys also provide managers bullvith

baseline attitudinal data that can be

compared bullvith future studies to ana- lyze trends in societal attitudes over time

An angler fishes for striped bass one of the most popular species in the Northeast

Methods

Population of Interest bull Northeast Private Boat

Saltwater Anglers

Private boat anglers are more directly affected by MPAs than are shore anglers due to their ability to access offshore fishing areas They also have more autonomy over bullvhere they fish compared to anglers in the for-hire modes (ie partyboats and charter-

boats) bullvho generally fish bullvhere the captain decides Private boat anglers are therefore more likely to feel that MPAs threaten their access to fish bullvhere

they bullvant as compared to anglers fishing from shore partyboats or charterboats Thus for the purposes of investigating angler attitudes tobullvards MPAs private boat anglers bullvere chosen as the population of interest in this study

This research focuses on resident saltwater private boat anglers from five northeastern states Nebullv Jersey Nebullv York Rhode Island Massachusetts and Nebullv Hampshire While no-take marine reserves are virtually non-existent in the Northeast at present scientists have proposed establishing a system of such reserves in this region in an effort to rebuild

over-exploited fish stocks preserve bio-diversity and protect unique marine habitats (Jegalian 1999) The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) hosted a recent bullvorkshop bullvhere leading marine scientists identified priority ocean areas for protection in the Mid-Atlantic from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras (NRDC 2002) Similarly in 2001 the Nebullv England Aquarium and MIT Sea Grant Program facilitated a dialogue bullvith stakeholders aimed at clarifying the role of and need for MPAs in the Gulf of Maine It is therefore important to study the attitudes of stakeholders such as northeastern saltwater anglers bullvho are not directly affected by marine reserves at the present time but may be in the near future

Sampling

Private boat saltbullvater anglers names and addresses bullvere collected by Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) intercept inter- viebullvers from July through October 2001 The MRFSS an annual survey conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is designed to sample fishing trips relatively propor- tional to fishing activity across all locations within a given state bullvave (ie 2-month sampling period) and mode (Gray et al 1994) Due to on-site sample frame development more avid anglers had a higher probability of being included in our sample than did less avid anglers For the purposes of this study avidity bias bullvould be considered a problem (and need to be corrected) only if MPA attitudes bullvere significantly correlated bullvith avidity

Survey Instrument

Data were collected by bullvay of a mail survey developed using accepted survey instrument design layout and question development techniques (Salant and Dillman 1994 Fobullvler 1993 Frankfort- Nachmias and Nachmias 1992) Attitudes tobullvards four hypothetical MPAs ranging from least restrictive (Type A) to most restrictive (Type D) on saltwater anglers bullvere measured (Table 1) Anglers bullvere informed that for all four MPA types all commercial activities (including commercial fishing) are prohibited bullvhile scientific research and monitoring are allobullved bullvithin the protected boundaries Anglers bullvere asked to read the follobullving before responding For the purposes of this study assume that MPA Type (insert A B C or D) covers an area equivalent to 20 of the ocean locations that you typically fisb in most often including some of your favorite fishing spots

Table 1 Presentation of

marine protected area types on survey instrument

Activity TypeA TypeB TypeC TypeD Commercial fishinbull Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed Recreational harvest or removal of fish Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed

Recreational catch and release fishinbull Allowed Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Motorized boating Allowed Allowed Allowed Not allowed

12 Fisheries I wwwfisheriesorg I vol 29 no 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Anglers were asked to indicate their attitude towards the establishment of a network of each

MPA type in three different ocean areas beyond three miles from shore (US federal waters) within three miles from shore (state waters) and within enclosed marine waters (eg estuaries bays and sounds) Responses were coded on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly oppose (1) to strongly favor (7) The questionnaire instructions dearly stated that anglers were not to make direct comparisons among the four MPA types but rather to consider each MPA scenario individually and weigh it only against the status quo or no MPA alternative Other variables collected included avidity (days saltwater fished in previous 12 months) membership in a fishing organization or club (local state or national) species preference and state of residence

Data Collection

The survey was administered to the sample of anglers following a well-accepted procedure com- monly known as the modified Dillman method (Dillman 1978) This method used to maximize response rate typically requires a total of four mailings The first mailing contained the survey instrument a postage-paid business reply envelope and a cover letter introducing the survey ibullorming the angler of its purpose and importance and asking for their help The letter also assured the angler of complete confidentiality The envelope was hand addressed in blue ink and all cover letters were hand signed in blue ink The purpose of these efforts was to personalize the survey as much as possible The surveys were coded with a survey number in order to track the returns and thus avoid sending future mailings to those who had already responded One week after the first mailing of survey materials a postcard thank-youreminder was sent to all par- ticipants in the study The postcard hbullcluded a paragraph about the survey and a thank-you for those who had already returned their survey It urged those anglers who had not returned their survey to please do so Three weeks after the first mailing a second complete set of survey materials was mailed to those anglers who had not yet responded This set of materials was identical to the first except that the cover letter further emphasized the importance of returning the survey Finally six weeks after the first mailing a third complete set of survey materials was mailed to those anglers who had still not completed and returned their survey

Results

Response Rate

Out of 697 anglers who were sent a survey a total of 419 usable surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 623 (24 surveys were considered non-deliverable or non-usable upon return) Of the usable surveys 334 were from residents of the five northeastern states sampled New Jersey (78) New York (68 Rhode Island (22) Massachusetts (143) and New Hampshire (23) The remaining 85 surveys were from residents of other states who had been fishing in one of the states surveyed Since sample sizes for these other states were too small to be included in our analyses these results only represent the attitudes of anglers residing hbull the five states sampled

Preliminary Data Analysis

Prior to our full analysis it was necessary to determine the representativeness of our sample and if there was any avidity bias The sample distribution across states was compared to the distribution of MRFSS estimated trips during the survey period (MRFSS trips was used as a surrogate for number of anglers since MRFSS does not calculate number of anglers by fishing mode) For the overall assessment of MPA attitudes data were weighted according to state of residence in order to make the results more

representative of private boat saltwater anglers attitudes in the region surveyed Weighting was not done for comparisons between subgroups of anglers (eg fishing organization members versus non- members) since the purpose of these analyses was to hbullvestigate differences between groups No significant differences in anglers MPA attitudes were detected across avidity levels Therefore for the purposes of this study correcting for avidity bias was not considered necessary

Attitudes According to MPA Type and Ocean Location

Angler support for MPAs decreased with increasing level of restrictiveness (Table 2) This trend held for all three ocean locations and significant differences between MPA types were found for all paired comparisons t-tests at the 005 level with only one exception (MPA Types C and D ubull enclosed waters) The majority of anglers surveyed supported MPAs that prohibit all commercial activities but

Table 2 Saltwater angler attitudes towards the

establishment of a

network of hypothetical marine protected areas according to MPA type and ocean location Attitudes measured as the mean

response weighted to correct for sample

MPA Type Less restrictive More restrictive

Ocean location Type A Type B Type C Type D Overall mean (3 locations combined) 534 378 262 244

Be-bullc9nd 3 miles (EEZ) 492 406 289 269 Within 3 miles (state waters) 551 380 264 236 Enclosed waters (bayssounds etc) 565 349 239 228

distribution by state based on a 7-point scale 1 = strongly oppose 2 = moderately oppose 3 = oppose slightly 4 = not sure uncertain 5 = favor slightly 6 = moderately favor 7 = strongly favor

June 2004 I wwwfisheriesorg I Fisheries 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

allow recreational fishing (Type A) in all three ocean locations Anglers displayed significantly greater support for Type A MPAs located in near- shore waters as compared to off-shore waters Nearly 35 of anglers were either opposed or held neutral attitudes towards Type A MPAs in federal waters Anglers were most divided in their attitudes towards MPAs that prohibit recreational harvest but still allow catch-and-release fishing (Type B) For all three locations mean attitudes towards this MPA type were between oppose slightly and not sure uncertain A large drop-off in support was found between catch-and-release MPAs and areas that

prohibit all forms of recreational fishing (ie Types C and D) The majority of anglers surveyed opposed establishment of MPA Types C and D for all ocean locations In general anglers were significantly more opposed to MPAs that restrict recreational fishing within state or endosed waters as compared to similar MPAs sited in federal waters This is perhaps not surprising since nearly 90 of the private boat recreational saltwater fishing trips in the states surveyed occur within state waters (NMFS 2003)

MPA Attitudes and State of Residence

Attitudes towards MPAs were compared across state of residence for the five northeastern states

surveyed Overall New York and New Jersey residents held significantly more favorable attitudes towards MPAs than did New England residents (R| MA NH) for all four MPA types (Table 3) This geographic difference was most evident for MPAs located in federal waters (beyond 3 miles) or in state waters (not enclosed) However this trend in regional MPA attitude differences did not hold for areas that restrict recreational fishing (ie Types B C and D) in enclosed waters (eg bays sounds etc)

Further investigation suggested that this geographic difference in MPA attitudes was at least partially related to species preference The large majority of New England resident anglers selected striped bass (Morone saxatilis) as their most preferred species to catch (79) while only 9 selected summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) By comparison New York and New Jersey residents (combined) were more evenly split between striped bass (38) and summer flounder (36) as their most preferred species Comparison of attitudes by species preference alone suggested that anglers who prefer to catch summer flounder were less opposed to no- take MPAs (Types C and D) than were anglers who preferred to catch striped bass However when species preference and residence are considered at the same time it is apparent that species preference does not by itself entirely explain the differences in MPA attitudes found between New York New Jersey residents and New England residents This is particularly true for differences in attitudes towards MPA Types A and B

MPA Attitudes and Fishing Organization Membership

MPA attitudes were also investigated according to angler membership in fishing organizations or dubs Overall about one-fourth of anglers surveyed were members of a fishing organization or dub Eighteen percent belonged to a local fishing club 14 to a state or national organization and 7 indicated they were members of both a local club and state or national organization In general anglers who were members of a fishing organization or dub held less favorable attitudes towards MPAs

than did non-members (Table 4) Significant differences between members and non-members attitudes

were found for all MPA types and ocean locations with only one exception (ie Type B in enclosed waters) No significant differences in MPA attitudes

Table 3 Comparison between New YorkNew

Jersey resident anglers and New England resident anglers attitudes towards the establishment of

hypothetical manne protected areas according to MPA type and ocean location Attitudes

measured as the mean

response based on a 7-point scale 1 = strongly oppose 2 = moderately oppose 3 = oppose slightly 4 = not sure uncertain 5 = favor slightly 6 = moderately favor 7 = strongly favor

MPA type ocean location

Region of Residence New York and New England T-test value

New Jersey (RI MA or NH) prob gt I t I

T_bulle A (3 locations combined) 561 499 lt 0001

Beyond 3 miles (EEZ) 534 473 0004 Within 3 miles (state waters) 570 514 0011

Enclosed waters (ba s Ebulltc) bull572bull513 Type B (3 locations combined) 37B 333

000 0051

Beyond 3 miles (EEZ) 415 342 0003 Within 3 miles (state waters) 375 333 0103 Enclosed waters (ba s sounds etc) 345 323 0375

Tbulle C (3 locations combined) 277 234 0032 ___bullond 3 miles (EEZ) 319 252 0005

Within 3 miles (state waters) 276 230 0037 Enclosed waters (ba s sounds etc) 239 219 0329

Tbullybullpe D (3 locations combined) 252 203 0014 ___bullond 3 miles (EEZ) 282 212 0003

Within 3 miles (state waters) 246 196 0015 Enclosed waters (bays sounds etc) 227 203 0238

14 Fisheries I www fisheriesorg I vol 29 no 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(across all four types) were found between members of local fishing clubs and members of state or national fishing organizations

Discussion and Management Implications

Support for MPAs that ban commercial fishing but allow recreational fishing (Type A) suggests that the open access principle as interpreted by many anglers does not apply to commercial fishermen Interestingly though between 25-35 of anglers (depending on MPA location) did not favor Type A MPAs (ie were either opposed or uncertain) Therefore this minority of anglers may believe that open access should apply to commercial fishermen as well Another possible explanation is that some anglers are opposed to all MPA designations on the grounds that they set a precedent for future and more draconian limitations on access to

ocean resources

A majority of saltwater anglers surveyed expressed negative attitudes towards no-take (Types C and D) protected areas While many anglers may support recreational catch reductions they may not accept the argument that no-take reserves are the best way to achieve such reductions These results would suggest that in general anglers still view the establishment of no-take MPAs as a

more fundamental shift in their access rights to marine fish populations as compared to traditional recreational size and bag limits If no-take reserves are to be accepted by anglers managers need to convince them of the advantages of incorporating this management tool over traditional fishery regulations alone Data showing that no-take marine reserves can actually improve recreational fishing opportunities outside reserve boundaries (Roberts et al 2001) may be an effective means of shifting anglers attitudes in favor of such areas As recent designations in other parts of the country have

demonstrated efforts to establish no-take reserves in the northeastern United States without angler support will likely further alienate this powerful stakeholder group from marine resource managers and environmental organizations (Williams 2002)

While overall these results suggest that most Northeast anglers are not ready to accept no-take reserves at present there may still be some positive signs for no-take reserve proponents On average anglers only slightly opposed establishment of no-take reserves in federal waters while over one-third either favored such areas or were uncer-

tain Also anglers who opposed no-take reserves under the hypothetical scenarios described in this study (ie 20 of the ocean locations they fish in most often) may not actually oppose no-take reserves outright For example anglers are likely to display more support for no-take reserves in locations they seldom (or never) fish in or if only 10 5 or 1 of their fishing grounds were off-limits More detailed investigation of anglers attitudes towards a broader range of alternatives is needed to address these quesnons

However considering the general opposition to no-take reserves found in this

study managers interested in promoting MPAs may initially be better off focusing their efforts on areas that allow recreational

catch-and-release fishing These results show that there already exists a base of support for catch-and-release MPAs among saltwater anglers Support for catch-and- release MPAs may be on the rise in the Northeast with the increasing trend in striped bass catch-and-release fishing Many anglers who support catch-and- release MPAs seem to question the potential benefits to be provided by more restrictive no-take reserves If catch-and-

release fishing interferes with the

Summer flounder anglers have different at[itudes towards MPAS

than striped bass anglers_

Fishing organization Non-member T-test value MPA type ocean location or club member prob gt I t I

Type A (3 locations combined) 481 540 0011 Beyond 3 miles (EEZ) 456 513 0020 Within 3 miles (state waters) 496 552 0028

Enclosed waters (bays sounds etc) 495 553 0028 Type B (3 locations combined) 315 365 0060

B_bullvond 3 miles (EEZ) 319 393 0009 Within 3 miles (state waters) 308 366 0045

Enclosed waters (ba sbullunds etc) 322 __ 336 0642 Type C (3 locations combined) 205 268 0002 Beyond 3 miles (EEZ) 237 295 0033 Within 3 miles (state waters) 193 269 0002

Enclosed waters (bays sounds etc) Type D (3 locations combined)

183 242 0006

188 237 0017


Enclosed waters (bays sounds etc) 180 224 0039

Table 4 Comparison between fishing organizationclub members and non-members attitudes

towards the establishment

of hypothetical marine protected areas according to MPA type and ocean location Attitudes


response based on a 7-point scale 1 = strongly oppose 2 = moderately oppose 3 = oppose slightly 4 = not sure uncertain

5 = favor slightly 6 = moderately favor 7 = strongly favor


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ecological objectives of a particular MPA then managers need to better inform anglers as to why this is so However if these activities result in little or no impact managers should consider allowing them (and other low impact activities) within the protected area Detailed estimates of the total number of fish released and catch-and-release mortality rates specific to particular species fishing areas and fishing methods may be needed to make such deter- minations

Differences in MPA attitudes between New York

New Jersey anglers and New England anglers were likely related at least in part to the relative importance of summer flounder versus striped bass in these two subregions Anglers who directly indicated striped bass as their most preferred species were more opposed to no-take reserves than were anglers who directly chose summer flounder as their most preferred species This may reflect angler awareness of the scientific notion that fishery- related benefits resulting from MPAs particularly spillover effects are less likely for more highly mobile and migratory species such as striped bass than for more sedentary demersal species such as summer flounder These results suggest that no- take reserves that are species specific (eg summer flounder prohibited striped bass allowed) or fishing method specific while more difficult to monitor and enforce may yield higher levels of angler accep- tance and compliance

Other geographic differences in MPA attitudes could not be explained by species preference Since New England anglers place more importance on striped bass relative to summer flounder than do New York New Jersey anglers and striped bass is more of a catch-and-release fishery than summer flounder one might have expected more support for catch-and-release MPAs from New England anglers However our results showed that New York New Jersey anglers were more supportive ofcatch- and-release MPAs than were New England anglers New York New Jersey anglers were also more supportive of MPAs banning only commercial activities than were New England anglers Thus important geographic differences in stakeholders attitudes should be carefully considered in the planning and design of MPAs

In general anglers who were members of a fishing club or organization held less favorable attitudes towards no-take MPAs than did non-members

This suggests that well-organized open access and freedom to fish campaigns by sportfishing interest groups have been somewhat effective Proponents of no-take reserves need to assure anglers that their access will only be restricted in a small proportion of the waters where they actually fish Interestingly non-members also held significantly more favorable attitudes toward Type A MPAs which only restrict commercial fishing and place no further restrictions on anglers than did fishing organization members From a management perspective it is typically the more dedicated anglers who join fishing organizations are more directly affected by management regulations attend fisheries management public hearings and have a vested long-term interest in marine resource allocation decisions

Therefore marine resource managers may want to pay particular attention to the attitudes of this influential stakeholder subgroup

Marine resource managers and policymakers are faced with the complex task of balancing competing and dynamic social values among a growing number and diversity of stakeholders Attitudinal data collected early in the decision-making process can help identify management alternatives justify preferred management actions and reduce the probability of alienating important stakeholder groups throughout the process Studies like this one can also draw attention to important differences in management preferences among stakeholder subgroups While the attitudes measured here can give us a general sense of how anglers feel about hypothetical MPAs they are no substitute for measuring attitudes towards proposed (or designated) protected areas with specific objectives regulations time frames and boundary lines (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) It is therefore recommended that socio-economic surveys be conducted at all stages throughout the MPA planning and implementation process and for all stakeholder groups (not just anglers) Such survey research will assist decision-makers in understand-

ing predicting and perhaps altering stakeholders attitudes and may ultimately improve marine resource stewardship into the future bull

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

(NOAA National Ocean Service) and in particular Gary Matlock for his role in administrating this research contract We also want to recognize the efforts of the following individuals who contributed to this research project Craig Thomas Michael Ross and Icek Ajzen--University of Massachusetts Dave Van Voorhees--National Marine Fisheries Service Selma Lie and 2 Greg Mahnke--Macro International and Doug Grout--New Hampshire bull Fish and Game 16 Fisheries I www fisheriesorg I vol 29 no 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References

American Sportfishing Association 2000 Clinton bans recreational fishing in Hawaiian reserve Press Release Alexandria VA

Cocklin C M Craw and I McAuley 1998 Marine reserves in New Zealand use rights pubic attitudes and social impacts Coastal Management 26213-231

Dillman D A 1978 Mail and telephone surveys the total design method John Wiley New York

Ditton R B D K Loomis and $ Choi 1992 Recreation specialization reconceptualization from a social worlds perspective Journal of Eelsure Research 24(1 ) 35-51

Fishbein M and I Ajzen 1975 Belief attitude intention and behavior an introduction to theory and research Addison-Wesley Publishing Co Reading Massachusetts

Fiske S J 1992 Sociocukural aspects of establishing marine protected areas Ocean and Coastal Management 1825-46

Fletcher B 2001 Can marine reserves be used in balance with other

traditional marine fisheries management tools National Fisheries Conservation Center Retrieved from www nfcc-

fisheriesorgmr_pov_2f hunl Flood S and C Coddin 1992 The socio-economic implications of

establishing marine reserves Department of Conservation Wellington New Zealand

Fowler F J (1993) Survey research methods (2nd ed) Sage Publications Newbury Park California

Frankfort-Nachmias C and D Nachmias (1992) Research methods in the social sciences (4th ed) St Martins Press New York

Freedom to Fish 2003 Retrieved from www freedomtofishorgf2f] May 2003

Freedom to Fish Act 2000 In the Senate of the United States 106th Congress 2d Session S3234 October 25

Gray G W L L Kline M F Osborn R S Salz D A Van Voorhees and JE Witzig 1994 Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey users manual Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Special Report 37 Washington DC

Holland D S 2000 A bioeconomic model of marine sanctuaries on Georges Bank Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 571307-1319

Jamieson G S and CO Levings 2001 Marine protected areas in Canada--implications for both conservation and fisheries management Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58138-156

Jegalian K 1999 Plan would protect New England coast Science 284(5412) 237

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2003 Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce Retrieved from www stnmfsgovstlrecreational

NRC (National Research Council) 2000 Marine protected areas tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems Committee on the Evaluation Design and Monitoring of Marine Reserves and Protected Areas in the United States Ocean Studies Board Commission on Geosciences Environment and Resources National Academy Press Washington DC

NRDC National Resources Defense Council) 2002 Priority ocean areas for protection in the Mid-Adantic findings of NRDOs marine habitat workshop Retrieved from www nrdcorgwateroceansprioritypartlasp 11 March 2002

Recreational Fishing Alliance 2002 RFA position paper draft Marine protected areas RFA letter to saltwater anglers no-take marine protected areas Retrieved from www savefishcom April 2002

June 2004 I wwwfisheriesorotilde I Fisheries

Roberts C M J A Bohnsack F Gell JP Hawkins and R Goodridge 2001 Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries Science 2941920-1923

Salant P and D A Dillman 1994 How to conduct your own survey John Wiley amp Sons New York

Salz R J D K Loomis M R Ross and S R Steinback 2001a A baseline socioeconomic study of Massachusetts marine recreational fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE- 165

Salz R J D K Loomis and K L Finn 2001b Develepment and validation of a specialization index and testing of specialization theory Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6(3)239-258

Salz R J 2002 Investigating saltwater anglers value orientations beliefs and attitudes related to marine protected areas Doctoral dissertation University of Massachusetts Amherst

Southwick R 2002 The economic effects of sportfishing ck)sures in marine protected areas the Channel Islands example A study commissioned by the American Sportfishing Association Alexandria VA Retrieved from www asafishingorg April 2002

USDI and USDC (US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and US Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census) 1997 1996 National Survey of Fishing Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation US Government Printing Office Washington DC

szlig 2003 2001 National Survey of Fishing Hunting and Wildlife- Associated Recreation US Government Printing Office Washington DC

Williams T 2002 Marketing MPAs enviros alienate anglers over marine protected areas Fly Rod amp Reel Magazine November 2002

Wolfenden J F Cram and B Kirkwood 1994 Marine reserves in New Zealand a survey of community reactions Ocean and Coastal Management 2531-51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Saltwater Anglers Attitudes Towards Marine Protected Areas

Attempts to establish no-take marine reserves in the United States have engendered strong opposition from sportfishing interest groups This study investigated northeastern saltwater anglers attitudes towards several hypothetical marine protected area (MPA) alternatives Support for MPAs decreased with increasing level of restrictiveness Anglers attitudes towards the establishment of catch-and-release MPAs were somewhat divided The majority of those surveyed were opposed to no-take reserves If no-take reserves are to be accepted by anglers managers need to convince them of the advantages of incorporating this innovative management tool over more traditional fishery regulations alone Anglers were more opposed to MPAs that restrict recreational fishing within state waters as compared to similar MPAs sited in federal waters In general anglers from New York and New Jersey held more favorable MPA attitudes than did anglers from Rhode Island New Hampshire and Massachusetts Anglers who were members of a fishing organization were more opposed to MPAs than were non-members Anglers whose most preferred species was striped bass were more opposed to no-take reserves than were anglers whose most preferred species was summer flounder Attitudinal data on MPAs collected early in the planning process can help highlight important differences in management preferences among stakeholder subgroups identify management alternatives justify preferred management actions and reduce the likelihood of alienating important stakeholder groups

Ronald J Salz

David K Loomis

Salz is an assistant

professor in the Natural Resources Management and Engineering Department University of Connecticut-Avery Point Campus Groton He can be contacted at

ronsalzuconnedu

Loomis is an associate

professor in the Human Dimensions Research

Unit Department of Natural Resources

Conservation University of Massachusetts- Amherst He can be contacted at

Loomisforwildumass edu

10

Marine Protected Areas A Hot Issue

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are arguably the hottest current issue among marine resource managers scientists and stakeholders alike A growing interest in MPAs can be attributed to a variety of factors including recent fisheries stock declines greater public awareness of the need for marine resource protection increased recreational and eco- tourism use of the marine environment (Jamieson and Levings 2001) and increased activity by non- governmental organizations in the area of marine conservation Marine protected area is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of ocean management systems involving some level of excludability from the use of ocean resources Various combinations of activities allowed and dis-

allowed within an MPA can be viewed along a continuum of policy alternatives ranging from least restrictive to most restrictive On the least restric-

tive end of this continuum are MPAs that allow a

wide range of commercial recreational consumptive and non-consumptive activities On the more restrictive end of this continuum are no-take

marine reserves within which it is illegal to either temporarily or permanently remove or disturb any marine resource except for monitoring or research purposes

However despite their potential benefits MPA designations often raise contentious distributional issues among the different interests involved (Holland 2000) Attempts by government to limit the publics freedom to use ocean areas even for the proposed benefit of users have met with hostile opposition (NRC 2000) Organized stakeholder

groups often try to shape the publics values beliefs and attitudes to match their own interests They may also seek to directly influence policy through political lobbying drafting legislation and ballot initiatives

The relative success of MPAs as an alternative

fishery management approach will depend to a large extent on how well they are accepted by affected stakeholders Saltwater anglers represent a large economically important and politically connected stakeholder group There are approximately 34 million anglers in the United States of whom nearly 12 million fish in saltwater (USDSI and USDC 2003 NMFS 2003) Recreational saltwater fishing also represents a dominant economic sector for many coastal regions especially tourist destinations For 2001 US saltwater angler expenditures were estimated at $84 billion with a resulting economic output (after economic multipliers) of about $25 billion Recreational saltwater fishing creates over $66 billion in wages and salaries and approximately 288000 jobs annually (USDI and USDC 1997)

In recent years saltwater angler interest groups have displayed their growing influence over marine resource allocation issues particularly aimed at reducing commercial fishing effort Sportfishing interest groups also represent a major obstacle in establishing no-take marine reserves viewed by many anglers as a threat to their traditional open- access ocean rights With few exceptions US saltwater anglers can still fish wherever they desire and having to fish within specified bag and size limits can be seen as a relatively minor infringement upon their access rights when compared to no-take areas Recent efforts to establish no-take reserves

off Hawaii California and the Florida Keys have

Fisheries I wwwfisheriesorg I vol 29 no 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


















Ronald J Salz

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Methods


Saltwater Anglers






Sampling


Survey Instrument







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Data Collection


Results

Response Rate








establishment of a








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14






















000 0051







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14




ocean resources


















183 242 0006

188 237 0017










Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14










Acknowledgements



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14


















Ronald J Salz

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Methods


Saltwater Anglers






Sampling


Survey Instrument







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Data Collection


Results

Response Rate








establishment of a








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14






















000 0051







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14




ocean resources


















183 242 0006

188 237 0017










Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14










Acknowledgements



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Methods


Saltwater Anglers






Sampling


Survey Instrument







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Data Collection


Results

Response Rate








establishment of a








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14






















000 0051







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14




ocean resources


















183 242 0006

188 237 0017










Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14










Acknowledgements



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Data Collection


Results

Response Rate








establishment of a








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14






















000 0051







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14




ocean resources


















183 242 0006

188 237 0017










Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14










Acknowledgements



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14






















000 0051







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14




ocean resources


















183 242 0006

188 237 0017










Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14










Acknowledgements



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14




ocean resources


















183 242 0006

188 237 0017










Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14










Acknowledgements



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14










Acknowledgements



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References


































Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

146

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Saltwater Anglers' Attitudes towards Marine Protected Areas