Goliath Grouper Study A Survey Analysis of Dive Shop and
46
Transcript of Goliath Grouper Study A Survey Analysis of Dive Shop and
CEFA Mission
The FSU Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis (CEFA) specializes in
conducting economic research and performing economic analyses to examine
public policy issues across a spectrum of research areas. CEFA provides advanced
research and training in the areas of energy, aerospace, and environmental
economics, and economic development, among other areas. FSU CEFA also serves
as a foundation for training students on applied economics, using modeling
software and other econometric and statistical tools.
Key Areas of Expertise: Sustainable Energy
High Tech Economic Research
Environmental/Natural Resources
Economic Development
Economics
Economic Impact Analysis
Econometrics
Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis
10/06/2009 2
The FSU Coastal & Marine Laboratory (FSUCML)
The FSUCML Mission
Conducting innovative, interdisciplinary researchfocused on the coastal and marine ecosystems ofthe northeastern Gulf of Mexico, with a focus onsolving the ecological problems faced by the regionby providing the scientific underpinnings forinformed policy decisions.
The FSUCML is a member of The SouthernAssociation of Marine Laboratories (SAML)and TheNational Association of Marine Laboratories(NAML). It has developing research partnershipswith a number of state and federal agencies.
The laboratory is also available to investigators andeducational groups from outside the university .
10/06/2009 3
Goals Background Problems and Objectives The Survey Demographics and General Information Fishing Techniques Goliath Grouper Encounter Income, Cost and Expenses Fisheries Management Ecological Considerations Spatial Information Conclusions
10/06/2009 4
Background Goliath grouper populations began declining in the 1950s
and 1960s in the SE U.S.
A fishing ban was put into effect in 1990.
National Marine Fisheries Service still consider itoverfished.
Signs of recovery in Florida.
Full recovery based on the Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act standards is unlikelyuntil at least 2020 (SEDAR 2004).
10/06/2009 5
Problem and Objective
10/06/2009 6
Ecological issues, including:
The increasing abundance ofgoliath grouper
The distribution of goliathgrouper
Overall ecosystem health;
Socio-economic issues related to:
The economic status of thesebusiness sectors
Conflicts among user groups
Fisheries management.
No. No. Of Responses
ResponseRate
Fishing 345 95 27.5%
Diving 215 35 16.2%
Both 27
Returned 33
Total 560 157
The Survey
10/06/2009 7
The Survey
10/06/2009 8
The Survey
10/06/2009 9
Demographics Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 86 years old.
Most of the business owners were older than 50, male(98%), and had at least some college education, with atleast 25% of each sector (divers and fishers) having acollege degree.
75% were married, 15% single, and 8% divorced.
95% were Caucasian.
Other 5% made up of American Indian/Native Alaskan,Spanish/Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Other PacificIslander, and Asian races.
10/06/2009 10
General InformationIndustries:
Diving: 24.6%.
Fishing: 58.7%
Both: 16.7%.
Diving:
29.3% sightseeing
70.7% sightseeing and
spearfishing
Both
14.3% sightseeing
17.9% spearfishing
67.8% both sightseeing and
spearfishing
10/06/2009 11
General Information – Cont’d
58% of the fishing charter boat operators have six-
passenger captain’s licenses - the easiest and most
common license to obtain.
The most prevalent fishing method employed was bottom
fishing, followed by inshore casting, and trolling.
10/06/2009 12
General Information – Cont’d 50% of the customers
came from out-of-state.
32% locals.
18% were in-statetourists.
Most of the fishingbusinesses anddive/fish businesseshad out-of-statecustomers while mostof the divingbusinesses had localcustomers.
10/06/2009 13
50
32
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Out-of-State Locals In-State Tourists
Fishing Techniques
10/06/2009 14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Fly
fish
ing
Bo
tto
m fi
shin
g
Tro
llin
g/D
rift
ing
Insh
ore
cas
tin
g
Spea
rfis
hin
g
Oth
er
(%)
Goliath Grouper Encounter• Most of the survey respondents (84%) had either seen or caught goliath
grouper, primarily in businesses operating in coastal counties • 45% of the respondents encountered few (1-5) goliath grouper on a typical
trip.
10/06/2009 15
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1-5 6-10 10+
(%)
Fishing (N=90) Diving (N=40) Both (N=24)
Economic Aspects - Income
10/06/2009 16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
<$15,000 $15,000-$24,999
$25,000-$34,999
$35,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000+
(%)
Fishing (N=87) Diving (N=38) Both (N=27)
Economic Aspects – Vessel Cost ($)
10/06/2009 17
-
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Fishing Vessel Price Diving Vessel Price Both Vessel Price
Economic Aspects – Other Cost ($)
10/06/2009 18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Electrical Equipement Fish Rods Or Spear Guns Scuba Or Snorkeling Equip Tackle
Fishing Diving Both
Economic Aspects – Expenses ($)
10/06/2009 19
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Docking Fees Vessel Interest Payments
P&I Insurance Vessel Maintenance
Gear Maintenance Bait Ice Fuel
Fishing Diving Both
Economic Impact–Harvest? 53% of the survey participants have customers interested in
goliath grouper encounters.
Regarding the effect of goliath grouper on businesses, 39%respondents found no effect while 26% said they werebeneficial, 24% said they were detrimental, and 11% were notsure.
The impact of allowed harvest on the businesses:
Beneficial: 45%.
Detrimental: 18%.
No effect:27%.
10/06/2009 20
Economic Impact–Harvest - Cont’d By sector: Fishing: 47%, Both:71% and Diving: 41%.
Overall, 46% of the survey participants believe that goliathgroupers should be open to harvest while 23% believe thatthey should remain fully protected.
10/06/2009 21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fully Protected Open to Harvest Limited Harvest No Opinion
(%)
Fishing (N=97) Diving (N=41) Both (N=28)
Fisheries Management Information restrictive, enforcement-based management involving higher
penalties, more patrols, and monitoring;
innovative management using separation via zoning and marine protected areas;
interpretive management with more outreach and education;
less management;
rights-based management including limited entry, trap certificates, and property rights; and
seasons and bag limits (status quo)
10/06/2009 22
Fisheries Management Information – Cont’d
10/06/2009 23
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Restrictive, Enforcement-Based
Management
Zoning*** Education Less Management** Rights-Based Management
Status Quo
Ave
rage
Ran
kin
g
Fishing Diving Both
Fisheries Management Information – Cont’d: The most effective management practice
10/06/2009 24
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Restrict No. of Fishing
Marine Reserves***
Seasonal Closures* Individual Fishing Quotas
Size Limits On Fish**
Fishing Gear Restrictions**
Other**
Ave
rage
Ran
kin
g
Fishing Diving Both
Fisheries Management Information – Cont’d: Obstacles to Producing Sustainable Fisheries
10/06/2009 25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Too Many Fishing Gear Too Efficient Too Much Bycatch* Catching Too Much Existing Fisheries Management Does
Not Work*
Habitat Loss Other*
Ave
rage
Ran
kin
g
Fishing Diving Both
Fisheries Management Information – Cont’d: Support of Catch and Release Mgt. Strategy
10/06/2009 26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Yes No No Opinion
(%)
Fishing (N=96) Diving (N=41) Both (N=28)
Fisheries Management Information – Cont’d: Effect of Catch and Release Angling Method on the GG Population
10/06/2009 27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Beneficial Detrimental No Effect Don't Know
(%)
Fishing (N=96) Diving (N=40) Both (N=28)
Fisheries Management Information – Cont’d: How The State Of Florida Should Manage Goliath Grouper
10/06/2009 28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Continue The Current Ban On Harvest
Prohibit The Catch And Release Of Goliath
Groupers In State Waters
Allow Limited Harvest Using Tag, Lottery, Or
Permit System
Allow Harvest With Bag And Season Limits
Allow Unrestricted Harvest
No Opinion
(%)
Fishing (N=87) Diving (N=40) Both (N=30)
Ecological ConsiderationsThe effect that recovered goliath grouper populations have
on the areas where they dive or fish
45% : detrimental
24% : positive
The remaining ~30%: no opinion or no impact.
By Sector:
Fishermen: detrimental (46%)
Divers: positive (37%)
Spear fishermen: no opinion.
10/06/2009 29
Ecological Considerations – Cont’d
10/06/2009 30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Positive Negative No opinion No effect
(%)
Fishing (N=95) Diving (N=41) Both (N=27)
Ecological Considerations – Cont’d 68% of the respondents thought that the marine
areas they typically visit are in fair or good condition:
55% perceiving the health of these sites as declining
16% finding them unchanged
29% viewing them as improving.
Opinions differed little among sectors either about the current status of the habitat or the relative state of decline or improvement.
10/06/2009 31
Ecological Considerations – Cont’d-Changes in the Status of Fishing/Diving Grounds in the Last 20 Yrs
10/06/2009 32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Declining Substantially Declining Somewhat Staying The Same Improving Somewhat Improving Substantially
(%)
Fishing (N=94) Diving (N=39) Both (N=27)
Ecological Considerations – Cont’d 78% percent of the survey participants felt that nearshore
habitats that support juvenile fishes had declined in both quantity and quality over the past 20 years; 91% believe that this has reduced overall fish abundance.
The primary perceived causes for these declines were fairly consistent among sectors with water pollution, commercial fishing, climate change, and hurricanes all having a negative effect on ecosystem health. Biodiversity as positive.
10/06/2009 33
Ecological Considerations – Cont’d -Cause of Decline
10/06/2009 34
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Water Pollution Commercial Fishing Hurricanes Recreational Fishing **
Climate Change ** Biodiversity Scuba Diving And Snorkeling ***
Ave
rage
Ran
kin
g
Fishing Diving Both
Ecological Considerations – Cont’d The only differences between sectors was that the divers
suggested that recreational fishing has a slight negative effect and the fishermen think the divers have a slight negative effect.
All the sectors identified biodiversity as having a slightly positive effect on ecosystem health.
Overall, the sectors had similar opinions about user groups, with all considering commercial fishermen to have the greatest impact and recreational divers to have the least.
10/06/2009 35
Ecological Considerations – Cont’d: The level of impact of different user groups to marine resources
10/06/2009 36
0
1
2
3
4
5
Recreational Anglers Sport Spearfishermen* Lobster Divers Recreational Divers** Recreational Boaters Commercial Fishermen
Ave
rage
Ran
kin
g
Fishing Diving Both
Spatial Information In northwest Florida and central west Florida, all user
groups averaged between 89 and 114 days on the water.
In southwest Florida, including Florida Bay: Fishermen : 87 days. Diving/fishing : 82 days. Divers: 6 days
Divers spent the most days on the water in the area between Jupiter and Biscayne Bay and in the Florida Keys.
There were no reports of businesses that cater to both fishermen and divers spending time in the area between Cape Canaveral and Jupiter.
10/06/2009 37
Spatial Information – Cont’d
10/06/2009 38
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Northwest Florida Central West Florida
Southwest Florida (With Florida Bay)
Northeast Florida (To Cape
Canaveral)
Cape Canaveral To Jupiter
Jupiter To Biscayne Bay
The Florida Keys
Ave
rage
Nu
mb
er o
f D
ays
Fishing Diving Both
Spatial Information – Cont’d Reason for place selection ranking: proximity to port,
abundance of fish, water conditions, lack of competitionor conflict with other user groups.
10/06/2009 39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Proximity To Port Abundance Of Fish/Correct Bottom Or Water Conditions
Lack Of Competition/Conflicts From Other Users
Other
Fishing Diving Both
Conclusions The goliath grouper remains critically endangered
throughout their range, despite the bright spot ofrecovery in southwest Florida.
Most of the survey participants encountered goliathgroupers during normal operations, seeing orcatching fewer than five goliath groupers on atypical trip. These low numbers sighted suggest arelatively small population of fish in which the sameindividual is encountered repeatedly.
10/06/2009 40
Conclusions – Cont’dThe general trend in the goliath grouper
population is SLIGHT RECOVERY since 1990when a fishing ban was put into effect.
Adult goliath grouper population aredistributed throughout the state and occur inhabitats frequently visited by fishermen anddivers, e.g. wrecks and rocky ledges.
10/06/2009 41
Conclusions – Cont’d There are significant differences between the diving
charter industry and the fishing charter industry in anumber of areas relating to fishery impacts on theenvironment and the impacts of goliath grouper ontheir industries in terms of their perceptions on:
1- Harvest:
Diving: Fully Protected. Fishing: Open to Harvest.
2- Impact on Environment:
Diving: Detrimental. Fishing: Positive.
10/06/2009 42
Conclusions – Cont’d Catch and release strategy was the most supported
management strategy (75% of all respondentssupported).
Habitat loss is one of the most critical impedimentsto sustainable fisheries.
Status quo and education were the most preferredtype of management strategy. Zoning, rights-basedmanagement, and less management were the leastpreferred.
10/06/2009 43
Conclusions – Cont’d The proponents of allowing harvest with bag and
seasonal limits were overwhelmingly those in thecharter boat fishery, while those in the diving industrywere largely split between continuing the current banand allowing limited harvest using a tag, permit, orlottery system.
The survey respondents had many expenses last year,with the highest expenses being fuel, docking fees, andvessel maintenance. Diving industry fuel expensesaveraged $14,811 and fishing charter industry averaged$ $13,047.
10/06/2009 44
More Information
The report can be obtained from the CEFA web
http://cefa.fsu.edu/projects.html. or by email: Dr
Julie Harrington and Bassam Awad.
Survey and presentation are not available online
but can be obtained by email.
10/06/2009 45
10/06/2009 46
