New York Statewide Angler Survey 2007: Summary Report

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007

SUMMARY July 2009 (Revised) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Fisheries 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233

INTRODUCTION With more than 7,500 lakes and ponds and 50,000 miles of rivers and streams New York State has some of the finest freshwater fishing in the country. There is world class fishing for a wide variety of coldwater and warmwater fish species. Whether smallmouth bass fishing on Lake Erie, brook trout fishing on a crystal clear Adirondack lake, Pacific salmon fishing on Lake Ontario, or fishing for stripers on the Hudson River, there's something special here for everyone. BACKGROUND Research for the 2007 New York State Freshwater Angler Survey was conducted by the Cornell University Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Bureau of Fisheries. The survey was implemented to learn more about fishing experiences in New York State, angler interests in different types of fishing opportunities, and angler opinions on fisheries management issues. The DEC will use the information obtained from the survey to carry out its mission in a manner that is responsive to the needs and desires of anglers. To obtain this information, the statewide angler survey was conducted by mail in three phases over the course of 2007-08, focusing on fishing experiences in New York during calendar year 2007. For each survey phase, a random sample of 17,000 anglers age 16 and older was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish during the phase. Of the 17,000 questionnaires mailed out during each phase, between 700 and 1,100 were undeliverable and between 6,000 and 8,000 completed questionnaires were returned. This resulted in adjusted response rates ranging from 38% for phase 2 to 49% for phase 3. Collectively, over 20,000 anglers participated in the survey. Results of the survey are documented in four reports. Each of the four reports are available on the DEC website as PDF documents and can be assessed at www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/56020.html. Report 1 contains statewide estimates of angler effort and expenditures, as well as breakouts by region, and major water body. It also provides estimates of specific use of New York’s fisheries broken out by species fished for, region fished, and water body. Report 2 assesses angler characteristics, preferences, satisfaction, and opinions on management topics. Report 3 provides estimates of angler effort and expenditures in New York State Counties. Report 4 compares two different survey methodologies used in this study and provides an analysis of trends in fishing effort. ANGLER PREFERENCES Species Preferences Black bass were the favorite species of 1/3rd of responding anglers and 3/4’s ranked them among their top 5 favorite species to fish for. Trout, walleye, and yellow perch were each among the top five favorite species for about half of the anglers.

1

Water body Preferences Most anglers (about 625,000 in total) indicated that they prefer to fish inland lakes for warmwater species. The next most preferred water body type was inland trout streams, preferred by half of the anglers. Water body preferences of New York anglers 700000

600000

# Anglers

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

In la nd

la ke s

In la nd

-w ar m

w

at er sp ec In ie la s nd tro la u ts ke t re s fo am rt s ro ut or In la sa nd lm st on re La am k s e -w O nt ar ar m io w at er La sp rg e ec wa ie s rm w at e La rr ive ke In rs O la nt nd ar io st re -t Ad am rib iro s. s -l nd ak a ck e ru po n nd tro s ut an d sa St lm .L on aw re nc e Ri ve r La ke Er ie Ni ag ar a R La ive ke r Er ie -t r ib s.

0

Types of Fishing Opportunities In the survey anglers were asked how important 18 different items were to their decision about where to fish. Of importance to almost all anglers (91%) was being able to fish in a water that contained a species they were interested in. Of lesser importance was the number or size of the fish present. Most anglers (79%) also wanted to fish a water that does not have a contaminant advisory. Many anglers (39%) expressed the desire to have new experiences – go to new places to fish. Management Opinions •

From the list of possible actions that DEC might do to increase angler’s enjoyment of their fish trips, most anglers desired an increase in the number of fishing access sites, improved facilities at existing sites, expanded opportunities to catch larger fish and increased opportunities to catch wild fish.

2

•

Survey results suggest that only 1% of licensed anglers sold panfish in 2007. Fifty-two percent of survey respondents expressed an opinion about allowing the continuation of the sale of angler caught panfish. Of these, 77% felt that the practice should be prohibited. Support for a ban was lowest in Northern NY, but respondents residing in Regions 5 & 6 still favor banning the sale of angler caught panfish by a margin of nearly two to one.

•

The majority of anglers are satisfied with DEC’s stocking practices and want to see the current mix of stocked one and two year old brown trout maintained.

•

Approximately 2/3rds of those surveyed expressed a desire for making New York’s fishing regulations easier to understand.

FISHING EFFORT •

Anglers spent an estimated 18.7 million angler days fishing New York’s freshwaters in 2007. An angler day is defined as any part of a day that a person spent fishing. Effort divided between inland waters and Great Lakes waters was 81% and 19% respectively.

Percent of total angler days for Great Lakes and Inland Waters

19%

Inland Waters Great Lakes

81%

•

Over 7 million days were spent fishing for warmwater gamefish. Almost 6 million days were spent in pursuit of coldwater gamefish. Fishing for panfish accounted for over 3 million days of effort, while fishing for marine/anadromous species in freshwater and carp accounted for less than half a million days each in 2007. Some anglers indicated that they fished for no species in particular or for other unclassifiable species, but this represented only 7 percent of the angler effort in 2007.

3

Percent of total angler days by species group 1%

7%

2%

Warmwater gamefish 18%

40%

Coldwater gamefish Panfish Marine/anadromous Carp Nonspecific or unclassifiable

32%

The top species fished for in New York State was black bass (small or largemouth), which accounted for 4.6 million angler days. The three next most frequently fished for species or species groups were trout (brook, brown, or rainbow), walleye, and yellow perch accounting for over one million days of angler effort each.

Estimated number of angler days, by species sought 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000

Angler Days

3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000

Sh ad O th er fic sp ec ie s sp ec i No

Ca rp u sk Ti ge ie rm us kie M

ac k

ba ss (s Tr m ou al lo t( rl br ar oo ge k, m br ou ow th n, ) ra in bo w) W al le Ye ye ll o w pe rc La h Bl ke ue tro gi u ll t /s un No fis rth h er St Co ee n p ho ike lh ea /c d hi tro no Cr ok ut ap pi sa e lm (c St on al r ip B i co ed ul lh ba ba ea ss ss ds ) ,c (fr es at fis hw La h a te nd ro lo nl ck y) ed Pi At ck la er nt e ic l sa lm on

-

Bl

•

4

SATISFACTION Approximately half of the anglers were satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips.

Angler satisfaction with the number of fish caught 9% 16%

17% Very satisfied Mod. satisfied Neutral Mod. dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 33%

25%

Angler satisfaction with the size of fish caught 8%

15%

15%

Very satisfied Mod. satisfied Neutral Mod. dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 33%

29%

5

Almost half of the anglers were satisfied with the DEC Bureau of Fisheries efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats.

Over half were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of information that the Bureau provides, with only 9 percent indicating they were dissatisfied.

6

MOST FREQUENTLY FISHED WATERS The top 10 most frequently fished water bodies in the state were: 1. Lake Ontario (1.3 million days) 2. Oneida Lake (786,000 days) 3. Lake Erie (658,000 days) 4. St. Lawrence River (651,000 days) 5. Hudson River (471,000 days) 6. Chautauqua Lake (414,000 days) 7. Niagara River (367,000 days) 8. Seneca Lake (340,000 days) 9. Salmon River (333,000 days) 10. Cayuga Lake (296,000 days) EXPENDITURES •

New York’s resident and nonresident anglers collectively spent an estimated $331 million at the fishing site and $202 million en route to the fishing site. Almost one-third (30%) of the total atlocation expenditures were made by out-of-state anglers. Average daily trip-related expenses ($17.62 at-site plus $10.76 en route) for all anglers was $28.38 -- $22.36 for residents and $90.10 for nonresidents.

•

The Great Lakes fishery generated an estimated $98 million in at-location expenditures, compared with $231 million for inland waters.

The five counties with the highest angler expenditures in 2007, at the location fished were: • • • • •

Oswego Jefferson St. Lawrence Chautauqua Warren

$ 42,623,006 $ 35,314,663 $ 17,861,105 $ 15,353,656 $ 13,804,053

TRENDS •

The estimated 18.7 million days spent fishing New York’s freshwaters in 2007 was quite similar to the 1996 estimate of 18.6 million days. These estimates are both lower than the peak of 20.8 million days estimated in the 1988 survey. All of these estimates are higher than the 16 million days estimated in the 1970s.

•

Effort associated with most of the major species increased between 1996 and 2007. Walleye and yellow perch effort increased substantially. There was also a sizeable increase in angler days for bluegill/sunfish over that same time period.

7

Estimated number of angler days fished by species sought, 1996 and 2007. Angler Days 1996 2007 Species Sought Confidence Confidence Number Limits, + Number Limits, + Black Bass (small or largemouth) 4,627,280 215,840 4,613,610 265,493 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow, steelhead)* 4,044,620 309,340 4,572,639 316,038 Walleye 1,667,020 121,890 2,212,317 199,508 Yellow Perch 1,162,410 112,850 1,816,026 176,354 Lake Trout 762,050 92,070 954,511 100,865 Bluegill/Sunfish 647,600 71,970 944,978 117,242 Northern Pike 784,680 72,320 847,385 85,879 Coho/Chinook Salmon 604,190 64,560 700,250 74,832 Crappie (calico bass) 540,750 68,140 698,243 170,134 Bullheads, Catfish 511,540 65,560 578,396 83,513 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 291,230 46,890 262,773 41,514 *Several categories had to be combined from the original data to create a comparable trout category.

•

Trends in angler effort by major water bodies can be traced back as far as the first statewide angler survey in 1973. While effort on some water bodies has remained relatively constant between 1996 and 2007 (e.g., Lake Erie, Salmon River), none of the major water bodies appears to have had level effort over the entire period (1973 to 2007). For example, Lake Ontario effort (and bays) increased rapidly into the 1980’s and has gradually declined between 1996 and 2007.

Estimated number of angler days for major New York waters 1973, 1976-77, 1988, 1996, and 2007. Angler Days Waterway 1973 1976-77 1988 1996 2007 Lake Ontario (and Bays) 664,000 1,027,000 2,568,610 1,730,350 1,553,223 St. Lawrence River 596,000 702,800 716,440 921,790 651,455 Lake Erie 697,000 663,000 945,500 609,340 657,821 Salmon River 126,000 178,100 329,090 344,230 332,827 Oneida Lake 693,000 703,400 782,400 573,060 786,401 Chautauqua Lake 283,000 417,700 438,980 460,090 413,961 Lake George 152,000 192,800 298,600 337,020 289,011 Niagara River 534,000 515,700 525,490 477,690 369,449 Hudson River 144,000 116,600 232,110 276,520 470,731 * * Delaware River (main stem) 163,219 146,160 128,344 Seneca Lake 274,000 399,800 350,130 455,500 340,290 Cayuga Lake 214,000 274,200 365,210 291,900 295,920 Lake Champlain 309,000 335,000 482,170 273,310 277,759 (Sources: Brown 1975, Kretser and Klatt 1981, Connelly et al. 1990, 1997.) *Comparable data not available

•

Recent significant increases in the estimated number of angler days include the Hudson River which totaled 470,731 in 2007, as compared with 276,520 in 1996, with notable increases in angler days expended for striped bass. Oneida Lake showed an estimated increase of over 200,000 angler days as compared to 1996, returning it to the level estimated in 1988. 8

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The survey was conducted by Tom Brown and Nancy Connelly of the Human Dimensions Research Unit at the Cornell Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Brown and Ms. Connelly designed and oversaw implementation of the survey, conducted the analysis of the data, and summarized the findings in four reports. The Bureau of Fisheries Angler Survey Team provided much input during the process, including in questionnaire design and analysis planning. Shaun Keeler and Steve Hurst of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Bureau of Fisheries, were the primary contacts throughout the study and headed up the Bureau Angler Survey Team. Other members of the team that provided invaluable help and support for the project were Melissa Cohen, Steve LaPan, Bill Culligan, Dan Bishop, Phil Hulbert, and Bill Schoch. NYSDEC consultant, Scott Houde, deserves recognition for the many hours he spent on sample selection. NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries staff member, Casey Festa, is recognized for the many hours spent coding water bodies and checking data for the report. Several additional members of the Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit deserve recognition. Staff member Karlene Smith, assisted with sample selection, mailings, and construction of tables for this report. Margie Peech provided assistance with typing the tables and formatting this report. The Survey Research Institute at Cornell University implemented the surveys, conducted the nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, and scanned the completed questionnaires. This study was funded by the NYSDEC, Bureau of Fisheries using Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration funds.

EDITOR’S NOTE (Revisions / Corrections) The Summary was modified in July 2009. Changes were to made to the “Estimated number of angler days for major waters 1973, 1976-77, 1988, 1996, and 2007” table to clarify the estimated angler days for the Delaware River (main stem). Some of the earlier yearly totals reported included estimated angler days for the West Branch Delaware River and East Branch Delaware River (note that these are listed separately in Report 1 for year 2007).

`

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 ____________________________________

REPORT 1: ANGLER EFFORT AND EXPENDITURES

June 2009

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Fisheries 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233

`

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 __________________________________________________

REPORT 1: ANGLER EFFORT AND EXPENDITURES

by Nancy A. Connelly and Tommy L. Brown

`

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To efficiently manage New York’s freshwater fisheries, comprehensive information is needed periodically on the fishing patterns, preferences, and attitudes of anglers as well as the economic impacts of New York’s fisheries. To gather this information, a statewide angler survey was conducted by mail in three phases over the course of 2007-08 and focused on resident and nonresident fishing experiences in New York during the calendar year 2007. The study had multiple objectives. Those addressed in this report include: 1. Estimate angler effort statewide, by region, species, type of fishing, and major water body. 2. Estimate angler expenditures statewide, by region, and major water body. 3. Assess angler satisfaction with their fishing experience by water body. For each survey phase, a random sample of 17,000 was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish during the phase. Of the 17,000 questionnaires mailed out during each phase, between 700 and 1,100 were undeliverable and between 6,000 and 8,000 completed questionnaires were returned. This resulted in adjusted response rates ranging from 38% for phase 2 to 49% for phase 3. Anglers spent an estimated 18,763,715 days fishing New York’s freshwaters in 2007. (An angler day is defined as any part of a day that a person spent fishing.) Of the 716,398 fishing license holders eligible to fish between January and May 2007, approximately 49% or 351,035 fished at least one day during that period. Anglers fished an average of 14 days, for an estimated total of 4,939,800 days in New York between January and May, 2007. We estimated that 22% (or 91,361) of the anglers went ice fishing during the period and spent an estimated 836,287 days ice fishing in New York in 2007. Of the 1,023,871 fishing license holders eligible to fish in New York between June and September 2007, approximately 66% or 676,779 fished at least one day during that period. They fished an average of 15 days, for an estimated total of 10,428,826 days between June and September, 2007. Of the 572,173 fishing license holders eligible to fish between October and December 2007, an estimated 40% or 228,869 fished at least one day during that period. These anglers fished an average of 15 days, for an estimated total of 3,395,089 days in New York between October and December, 2007.

i

` Over 7 million days were spent fishing for warmwater gamefish (Fig. ES-1), with the majority of that effort occurring during the summer months (June-Sept.). Almost 6 million days were spent in pursuit of coldwater gamefish, with effort spread across the three study periods. Fishing for panfish accounted for over 3 million days of effort. Fishing for marine/anadromous species in freshwater and carp accounted for less than half a million days each in 2007. Some anglers indicated that they spent time fishing for no species in particular or other unclassifiable species, which totaled over 1 million days of effort in 2007.

Percent of total angler days by species group 1%

7%

2%

Warmwater gamefish 18%

40%

Coldwater gamefish Panfish Marine/anadromous Carp Nonspecific or unclassifiable

32%

Figure ES-1. Percent of total angler days fished in 2007 by species group.

ii

` Most of the fishing effort in New York State occurred on inland waters (Fig. ES-2), but 19% was associated with Great Lakes waters in 2007. In this report “Great Lakes waters” were defined as the New York portion of Lake Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and its embayments, and the portions of major Lake Ontario and Lake Erie tributaries in the counties closest to the lake before the first barrier impassable to fish. The St. Lawrence River is classified as an inland water.

Percent of total angler days for Great Lakes versus Inland Waters

19%

Inland Waters Great Lakes

81%

Figure ES-2. Percent of total angler days fished in 2007 by Great Lakes versus inland waters. Fisheries management in New York is divided into nine regions. Fig. ES-3 shows estimates of the number of days fished by region. Fishing was most concentrated in the northern, central, and western parts of New York State (Regions 5-9).

iii

`

Total angler days by DEC region fished 3,500,000

3,000,000

Angler Days

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

DEC Regions

Figure ES-3. Estimated number of days fishing in 2007 by DEC Region. The top species fished for in New York State was black bass (small or largemouth), which accounted for 4.6 million angler days. The three next most frequently fished for species or species groups were trout (brook, brown, or rainbow), walleye, and yellow perch accounting for over one million days of angler effort each. The top 10 most frequently fished water bodies in the state were: 1. Lake Ontario (1.3 million days) 2. Oneida Lake (786,000 days) 3. Lake Erie (658,000 days) 4. St. Lawrence River (651,000 days) 5. Hudson River (471,000 days) 6. Chautauqua Lake (414,000 days) 7. Niagara River (369,449 days) 8. Seneca Lake (340,000 days) 9. Salmon River (333,000 days) 10. Cayuga Lake (296,000 days) New York’s resident and nonresident anglers together spent an estimated $331 million at the fishing site and $202 million en route to the fishing site. Almost one-third (30%) of the total at-location expenditures were made by out-of-state anglers. Average daily trip-related expenses ($17.62 at-site plus $10.76 en route) for all anglers was $28.38 -- $22.36 for residents and $90.10 for nonresidents. iv

` ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Shaun Keeler and Steve Hurst of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Bureau of Fisheries, were our primary contacts throughout the study and headed up the Bureau Angler Survey Team. They provided invaluable help and support for the project. We also would like to thank the other members of the Bureau Angler Survey Team (Melissa Cohen, Steve LaPan, Bill Culligan, Dan Bishop, Phil Hulbert, and Bill Schoch) for their efforts in questionnaire design and analysis planning. NYSDEC consultant, Scott Houde, deserves recognition for the many hours he spent on sample selection. NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries staff member, Casey Festa, is recognized for the many hours spent coding water bodies and checking data for the report. We thank Human Dimensions Research Unit staff member, Karlene Smith, who assisted with sample selection, mailings, and construction of tables for this report. We also thank Margie Peech for typing the many tables in this report. The Survey Research Institute at Cornell University implemented the surveys, conducted the nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, and scanned the completed questionnaires. This study was funded by the NYSDEC, Bureau of Fisheries using Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration funds under contract C00278.

v

`

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................1 Questionnaire Design..................................................................................................................1 Sample Selection.........................................................................................................................2 Mail Survey Implementation ......................................................................................................2 Nonrespondent Telephone Follow-up.........................................................................................2 Analysis and Data Weighting .....................................................................................................2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................4 Mail Survey Response and Adjustments for Nonresponse Bias.................................................4 Organization of Results...............................................................................................................4 SECTION I: GENERAL ANGLER EFFORT ................................................................................5 SECTION II: SPECIFIC USE .......................................................................................................14 SECTION III: EXPENDITURES..................................................................................................77 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................90 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire ......................................................................................................91 APPENDIX B: Additional Methodological Information ..........................................................103 APPENDIX C: Additional Tables ..............................................................................................106 APPENDIX D: Definition of Great Lakes waters ......................................................................109

vi

`

List of Tables Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 2007 statewide angler survey response rates……………………………………… Species groupings as defined for this report………………………………………. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species groups……………………………………………………………………………... Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by water body type………………………………………………………………………………... Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, for Great Lakes and inland waters………………………………………………………………….. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by DEC region fished………………………………………………………………………………. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by DEC region of residence………………………………………………………………………... Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought……………………………………………………………………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 1………………………………………………………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 3………………………………………………………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 4………………………………………………………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 5………………………………………………………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 6 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters)………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 7 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters)………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 8 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters)………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 9 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters)………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region fished for Great Lakes and inland waters………………………………………………… Estimated number of angler days spent ice fishing versus open water fishing between Jan. 1 and May 31, 2007, in total and by region………………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 1……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 2……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 3……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 4………………………

vii

4 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 28 30 31 32 33 34 35

` 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 5……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 6……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 7……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 8……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 9……………………… Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, for major waters Lake Ontario—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………… Oneida Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………… Lake Erie—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary………………………. St. Lawrence River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………….. Hudson River (in its entirety)—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…. Lower Hudson River (Albany and Columbia Counties south)—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary……………………………………………. Chautauqua Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary………………. Lower Niagara River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………... Upper Niagara River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………... Seneca Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary……………………. Salmon River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………... Cayuga Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………… Lake George—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………… Lake Champlain—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary……………….. Mohawk River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………. Black Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary……………………... Erie Canal—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary……………………… Keuka Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………….. Susquehanna River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………….. Great Sacandaga Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………. Oswego River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary………………….. Saratoga Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary………………….. Cattaraugus Creek—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary……………... Genessee River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary………………… Canandaigua Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary……………... Delaware River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary………………… Beaver Kill—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………….. Seneca River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………… Black River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………….. Honeoye Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary………………….. Silver Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary…………………….. Fishing related expenditures by region of residence……………………………… Estimated expenditures for anglers fishing different water body types…………... Estimated expenditures for anglers fishing the Great Lakes and inland waters…...

viii

36 37 38 39 40 41 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 80

` 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Estimated expenditures by DEC region fished……………………………………. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 1 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 3 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 4 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 5 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 6 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 7 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 8 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 9 by region of residence…………………………………………………………………………...

ix

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

`

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map showing DEC regions in New York State………………………………… 7 Figure 2. Estimated number of angler days in 2007, by species sought…………………..17

x

`

INTRODUCTION To efficiently manage New York’s freshwater fisheries, comprehensive information is needed periodically on the fishing patterns, preferences, and attitudes of anglers as well as the economic impacts of New York’s fisheries. Such information is most effectively obtained from a statewide mail survey. New York has conducted four such surveys, in 1973 (Brown 1975), in 1976-77 (Kretser and Klatt 1981), in 1988 (Connelly et al. 1990), and in 1996 (Connelly et al. 1997). This is the first in a series of four reports that will document the results of a fifth statewide angler survey. The survey was conducted in three phases over the course of 2007-08 and focused on resident and nonresident fishing experiences in New York during the calendar year 2007. The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) at Cornell University conducted the study for the Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. The study had multiple objectives. Those addressed in this report include: 1. Estimate angler effort statewide, by region, species, type of fishing, and major water body. 2. Estimate angler expenditures statewide, by region, and major water body. 3. Assess angler satisfaction with their fishing experience by water body. Dissimilar to previous statewide angler surveys, which were conducted using a single annual mailing, the 2007 survey was implemented at three different times during the calendar year. By using a three-wave approach, we hoped to reduce the amount of recall bias associated with angler trip recollection. Past research (Connelly et al. 2000) has shown that both nonresponse bias and recall bias affect estimates of fishing effort. By reducing the recall period from one year to 3-5 months, we hoped to reduce recall bias, and by conducting nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, we hoped to be able to estimate that bias. In addition, we conducted a smaller annual survey similar to previous annual statewide angler surveys to measure the degree of recall bias, provide for trend comparisons, and offer feedback on the improved estimates versus the increased cost of a three-wave approach. The results of this effort did not uncover any significant recall bias. Therefore, results presented in this report can be compared with the results of past angler surveys. For more detailed information on the comparisons and to examine general trends in fishing over time, see Report #4 in this series (Connelly and Brown 2009).

METHODS

Questionnaire Design The Bureau of Fisheries Angler Survey Team met numerous times to go over questions from past surveys and develop new ones to address issues of current interest and

1

` management needs. Core questions on fishing effort and expenditures were retained from past surveys to allow for trends comparisons. New questions on angler satisfaction, preferences, and opinions on management issues were developed and will be reported primarily in Report 2. Appendix A shows the exact content and wording of the questionnaire. The questionnaires were identical for each phase except for the dates of fishing effort. Sample Selection For each phase, a random sample of 17,000 was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish during the phase. Lifetime licenses holders aged 16 or older at the time the survey was implemented were included in the random drawing. Other license types that permitted fishing included annual resident fishing and sportsman, annual nonresident fishing and sportsman, and short-term (1-day, 7-day) resident and nonresident fishing licenses. Additional details on sample selection can be found in Appendix B. Mail Survey Implementation The mail survey for each phase was implemented as soon as possible after the phase period ended. The first phase covered the period from Jan. 1 to May 31, 2007. The surveys were sent out on May 31, 2007 with up to three follow-up mailings sent to nonrespondents over the course of the following month. Phase 2 covered the period from June 1 to Sept., 30, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Oct. 18, 2007. Phase 3 covered the period from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Jan. 7, 2008. Nonrespondent Telephone Follow-up A telephone follow-up to 200 nonrespondents was implemented after each phase, for a total of 600 nonrespondent interviews. Questions were asked on fishing effort and satisfaction. Past research has found that nonrespondents fished less than respondents (Connelly et al. 1990, 1997). Nonrespondent data allows us to adjust overall fishing estimates to account for any nonresponse bias. Analysis and Data Weighting Returned mail questionnaires were scanned and entered into SPSS (a statistical analysis package for the social sciences). Locations fished, as written in by anglers, were matched to the Bureau of Fisheries database of water bodies and assigned unique identifiers (FIN codes [Fisheries Index Numbers]). An explanation of the matching process can be found in Appendix B. Yearly effort totals were calculated by adding data from the three phases. Confidence intervals were calculated at the 95% level. (See Appendix B for the formula used.) Estimates of angler effort were reported by phase and in total if the 95% confidence limit was less than 50% of the estimate. A large confidence interval could be due to a small

2

` sample size, large variability among anglers, or both. For example, the number of anglers fishing in Region 2 was small, but the variability among anglers was also small enough in Phase 1 to estimate angler effort, but too large in Phases 2 and 3 for estimates. Estimates where the confidence limit was more than 50% of the estimate were considered too variable/imprecise to be useful to managers. An exception to this rule of thumb was made for the tables that report angler effort by region fished and species fished for. In these tables, effort was reported even if the confidence limit exceeded 50% of the estimate, if the sample size was greater than 10, and the distribution of the responses was considered normal. These numbers are highlighted in italics to alert readers to the increased variability of the estimate. Angler effort was estimated for a total of 80 waters. The top 30 water bodies, based on total effort of over 100,000 days, were selected for more detailed analysis. Waters with less than 100,000 days of effort were not analyzed in more detail primarily because the sample sizes were too small to permit breakdowns of angler effort by region of residence. Response rates and undeliverable rates differed based on where people lived, and of less importance to this report, the type of license they purchased (Appendix Table C-1). Response rates were lower and undeliverable rates were higher in the New York City and Long Island areas than in central and western New York. This is typical of mail surveys in New York State (Connelly et al. 2002, Enck and Brown 2008). Without weighting the data to account for these differences, estimates of fishing effort would likely be biased downward in locations in and near New York City, and slightly overestimated elsewhere. Therefore, respondents from regions with lower response rates (and higher undeliverable rates) were given more weight, and those in regions with higher response rates were given less weight, corresponding to delivery and response rates. Nonrespondents who were contacted by telephone were considered to be representative of all nonrespondents. Checks of license type at least partially confirmed this assumption. Comparisons of respondents and nonrespondents indicated that only days fished during phase 2 differed significantly. Thus, nonresponse adjustments were made only for effort estimates in phase 2. Examination of the expenditure data did not reveal a significant response bias as had been found in previous surveys (Connelly et al. 1990, 1997), perhaps due to the shorter recall period. Therefore, the expenditure data were not weighted in expansions of sample data. However, at-location expenditure estimates over $400 and en-route estimates over $600 per day were considered outliers and were not used in the expenditure estimates. Estimates of effort by species were derived from the question asking for an estimate of the number of days spent primarily fishing for each species at each water body fished. The question was worded in such a way that the number of days fished by species should add to the total days fished. A number of anglers misunderstood the question and likely reported catch instead of days or perhaps indicated they were fishing primarily for several species on the same day. Only respondents whose species days equaled total days were used in the estimate of mean days fished by species. However, the mean days by species was expanded to the total estimate of days for a particular species using all respondents who indicated that they fished for that species.

3

`

RESULTS Mail Survey Response and Adjustments for Nonresponse Bias Of the 17,000 questionnaires mailed out during each phase, between 700 and 1,100 were undeliverable and between 6,000 and 8,000 completed questionnaires were returned (Table 1). This resulted in adjusted response rates ranging from 38% for phase 2 to 49% for phase 3.

Table 1. 2007 statewide angler survey response rates. Phase 1 Phase 2 (Jan.-May) (June-Sept.) Initial sample size 17,000 17,000 Undeliverable 800 1,103 Undeliverable rate 4.7% 6.5% Responses 6,823 6,018 Response rate adjusted for undeliverables 42.1% 37.9%

Phase 3 (Oct.-Dec.) 17,000 751 4.4% 7,934 48.8%

Analysis of the nonrespondent telephone follow-up surveys showed that nonrespondents were just as likely to have fished during the phase and fished approximately the same number of days during the phase as respondents. The exception was days fished in phase 2, in which respondents fished more than nonrespondents (17.3 vs. 12.8 days). As noted previously in the methods section, data were weighted for this bias in phase 2 analysis. Comparisons between respondents and nonrespondents for all questions asked on the nonrespondent survey and covered in this report can be found in Appendix Table C-2. Organization of Results The results presented in this report are divided into the three major sections, each of which is designed to stand alone. The beginning of each section presents summary information and a descriptive interpretation of the data. This is followed by tables, which provide the bulk of the information. Each expansion estimate presented in a table represents the best point estimate of that number. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are presented for most estimates. Totals shown in a particular table may vary slightly from an addition of subtotals because of rounding and because the sample size for individual item estimates may vary. In each case, the totals shown in the tables are more accurate estimates of population parameters than would be obtained by summing the region or waterway estimates. (For example, summing angler effort by region fished yields a total of 18,611,935 days, compared with our best estimate of 18,763,715 total days fished.)

4

`

SECTION I: GENERAL ANGLER EFFORT Anglers spent an estimated 18,763,715 days fishing New York’s freshwaters in 2007. (An angler day is defined as any part of a day that a person spent fishing. It could be two hours or twelve hours; any part of a day counts as a fishing day.) Of the 716,398 fishing license holders eligible to fish between January and May 2007, approximately 49% or 351,035 fished at least one day during that period. Anglers fished an average of 14 days, for an estimated total of 4,939,800 days in New York between January and May, 2007. An estimated 22% (or 91,361) of anglers went ice fishing during the period and spent 836,287 days ice fishing in New York in 2007. Of the 1,023,871 fishing license holders eligible to fish in New York between June and September 2007, approximately 66% or 676,779 fished at least one day during that period. They fished an average of 15 days, for an estimated total of 10,428,826 days between June and September, 2007. Of the 572,173 fishing license holders eligible to fish between October and December 2007, an estimated 40% or 228,869 fished at least one day during that period. These anglers fished an average of 15 days, for an estimated total of 3,395,089 days in New York between October and December, 2007. Table 2 identifies how fish species were grouped into categories and Table 3 uses those categories to document the strong interest of New York’s anglers in both coldwater and warmwater fishing. Over 7 million days were spent fishing for warmwater gamefish, with the majority of that effort occurring during the summer months (June-Sept.). Almost 6 million days were spent in pursuit of coldwater gamefish, with effort spread across the three study periods. Fishing for panfish accounted for over 3 million days of effort. Fishing for marine/anadromous species in freshwater and carp accounted for less than half a million days each in 2007. Some anglers indicated that they spent time fishing for no species in particular or other unclassifiable species, which totaled over 1 million days of effort in 2007. Using the Bureau of Fisheries Statewide Fisheries Database, we classified waters fished as either lake/pond or river/stream and found that almost 10 million days were spent fishing on lakes/ponds compared with 6.5 million days on rivers/streams (Table 4). An additional 2.6 million days were spent on waters that could not be classified based on the anglers’ description of the water body and our methods of major water body identification (outlined in Appendix B). Most of the freshwater fishing effort in New York State occurred on inland waters (Table 5), but 19% was associated with Great Lakes waters in 2007. In this report “Great Lakes waters” were defined as the New York portion of Lake Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and its embayments, and the portions of major Lake Ontario and Lake Erie tributaries in the counties closest to the lake before the first barrier impassable to fish. The St. Lawrence River is classified as an inland water. (See Appendix D for a complete list of the embayments and tributaries included in the definition of Great Lakes.)

5

` Fisheries management in New York is divided into nine regions (Fig. 1). Much of the data in this report is presented on a regional basis to provide managers insight into the levels of fishing activity associated with each region. Table 6 provides estimates of the number of days fished by region. Very few licensed anglers fished freshwater areas in Region 2 (New York City). Although the confidence limit for total Region 2 effort is more than 50% of the estimate, we have reported the estimate and its associated confidence limit to give an indication of the magnitude of fishing in that region. The variability was sufficiently small that an estimate could be made in Region 2 during Phase 1, but the variability was too great to make an estimate for the other two time periods. Table 7 provides estimates of fishing effort based on where anglers live (i.e., region of residence). A sufficient number of anglers who live in Region 2 responded to accurately estimate their fishing effort in New York State. Table 7 also shows that 8.5% of the fishing effort in the state was attributed to anglers living outside the state.

6

`

Figure 1. Map showing DEC Regions in New York State.

7

`

Table 2. Species groupings as defined for this report. Warmwater gamefish Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Northern Pike Pickerel Muskie Tiger Muskie Coldwater gamefish Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Lake Trout Steelhead Trout Coho/Chinook Salmon Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Panfish Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish Bullheads, Catfish Crappie (calico bass) Marine/anadromous Striped Bass Shad

8

` Table 3. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species groups. Angler Days Species Groups Warmwater gamefish Coldwater gamefish Panfish Marine/ anadromous Carp Nonspecific or unclassifiable

Total Number

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

7,145,740

339,960

1,300,324

133,469

4,693,049

294,282

1,152,366

105,626

5,747,765 3,328,521

279,586 247,600

1,580,291 1,206,709

118,716 146,638

2,939,003 1,603,286

227,787 187,061

1,228,472 518,526

110,397 69,364

444,458 167,971

83,721 39,598

156,232 64,588

37,802 29,592

237,584 76,904

73,659 22,070

50,642 26,479

12,438 14,324

1,326,627

138,895

302,416

72,581

880,685

114,565

143,526

29,981

Percent of total angler days by species group 1%

7%

2%

Warmwater gamefish 18%

40%

Coldwater gamefish Panfish Marine/anadromous Carp Nonspecific or unclassifiable

32%

9

` Table 4. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by water body type. Angler Days Total Water Body Type Lake/ pond River/ stream Unclassifiable

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

9,763,608

353,389

2,504,641

186,006

5,646,172

281,088

1,612,795

106,185

6,523,385

284,218

1,745,328

142,020

3,441,170

226,793

1,336,887

95,787

2,602,681

167,117

715,478

67,022

1,416,720

144,251

470,484

51,263

Percent of total angler days by water body type 14%

Lakes/ponds 51%

Rivers/streams Unclassifiable

35%

10

` Table 5. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, for Great Lakes and inland waters. Angler Days Total Water Body Type Inland Waters Great Lakes

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

15,248,702

485,034

4,092,945

245,890

8,553,027

389,241

2,602,730

152,602

3,563,072

216,275

857,146

107,281

1,902,300

171,334

803,627

76,880

Percent of total angler days for Great Lakes versus Inland Waters

19%

Inland Waters Great Lakes

81%

11

` Table 6. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by DEC region fished. Angler Days Total

Jan.-May

Number ConfiRegion dence Fished Limits, + 1 360,103 64,018 98,744 2 29,319 19,520 5,100 3 2,252,597 185,104 713,436 4 1,410,128 127,697 395,144 5 2,530,014 192,222 541,451 6 2,674,411 191,275 618,789 7 3,275,457 214,999 959,007 8 2,916,539 221,890 673,246 9 3,163,369 245,088 832,163 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate. Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, + 25,717 1,916 104,810 68,567 98,245 88,778 118,294 88,250 115,993

Number

212,705 * 1,173,693 798,772 1,642,477 1,649,628 1,572,535 1,657,027 1,717,226

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, + 54,883 * 138,047 103,199 158,714 159,821 159,966 190,344 199,683

Number

48,654 * 365,468 216,212 346,086 405,993 743,915 586,266 613,980

Confidence Limits, + 20,612 * 64,974 30,903 45,901 56,230 81,497 72,225 82,100

Total angler days by DEC region fished 3,500,000

3,000,000

Angler Days

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

1

2

3

4

5

DEC Regions

12

6

7

8

9

`

Table 7. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by DEC region of residence. Angler Days Total Number

Region of Residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state

493,022 277,139 2,337,878 1,445,855 1,541,213 1,726,129 3,182,206 3,011,020 3,164,515 1,598,548

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, + 72,319 44,592 203,273 129,045 172,276 150,214 224,324 222,827 261,540 117,092

120,114 95,749 702,241 403,085 362,313 477,743 1,011,437 657,782 823,653 285,870

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, + 26,587 29,128 103,354 80,078 100,663 76,036 138,462 93,744 115,593 48,475

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, + 62,378 30,370 159,916 94,860 133,692 114,699 159,924 187,591 218,417 101,602

298,194 144,925 1,236,098 814,763 928,059 920,831 1,585,999 1,765,613 1,703,185 1,040,870

Number

74,714 36,465 399,539 228,007 250,841 327,556 584,770 587,625 637,677 271,808

Confidence Limits, + 22,843 14,755 71,169 35,239 40,897 60,223 74,658 75,322 85,618 32,213

Total angler days by DEC region of residence 3,500,000

3,000,000

Angler Days

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

1

2

3

4

5

6

DEC Region

13

7

8

9

Out-of-state

`

SECTION II: SPECIFIC USE

This section details specific use of New York’s fisheries, first by species fished for, then by region fished, and finally by water body. Information by water body is provided for the top 30 water bodies based on total angler effort. Black bass (small or largemouth) accounted for 4.6 million angler days, with the majority of those days occurring in the summer months (Table 8, Fig. 2). The three next most frequently fished for species or species groups -- trout (brook, brown, or rainbow), walleye, and yellow perch -- accounted for over one million days of angler effort each. Anglers also indicated that they spent over one million days fishing for no species in particular. Information on species fished for by DEC Region (broken down by Great Lakes versus inland waters as appropriate) is presented in Tables 9 through 16. (There is no table for Region 2 because the number of anglers who fished there was too small.) All species that were listed in the questionnaire and could conceivably be caught in these waters are listed in the tables. Confidence intervals for some estimates presented in these tables exceed 50%. We included these estimates to give an indication of the magnitude of the fishing effort by species. However, we caution readers that the variability of these estimates (highlighted in italics) can be very large. For example, the estimated angler effort for crappie in Region 3 (Table 10) is 129,283 days, but the confidence interval indicates that the true effort could be as low as 20,683 days or as high as 237,883 days. Angler effort by region was segmented between inland waters and Great Lakes waters for Regions 6 through 9 (Table 17). For Regions 6 through 8, effort in inland waters dominated use, but Region 9 effort was more evenly split between inland waters and Great Lakes. Ice fishing accounted for 4.5% of angler effort in New York in 2007. It was most popular in Regions 5 through 9, with over 100,000 days of effort devoted to the activity in each region (Table 18). The origin (residence) of anglers is of interest to fisheries staff and regional planners, both in terms of predicting fishing demand and in measuring the tourism attraction of particular areas. Tables 19 through 27 show the number of days fished in each region by anglers’ residence. The tables also show fishing effort in each region apportioned by water body type. A more detailed analysis of effort by water body begins with Table 28. All water bodies in New York where the confidence limit did not exceed 50% of the estimate of total effort were included in the table. This resulted in estimates of effort for 80 water bodies. In this analysis Lake Ontario is defined as the lake itself, and does not include the bays. The major bays are listed as separate water bodies. In defining fishing on the Hudson River, anglers who accessed the river from Rensselaer County were included in the totals for the River, but not in the estimates of the Upper or Lower River. We could not determine whether

14

` these anglers were fishing above or below the Troy dam which defines the two sections. Angler effort associated with Rensselaer County was likely less than 10% of total Hudson River effort. Specific data on New York’s top 30 waters are presented in Tables 29 through 59. Detailed information is presented for the Hudson River in its entirety and for the Lower Hudson River because of the intense interest in this subsection. The Lower Hudson River is defined as counties south of and including Albany and Columbia counties. Subtraction of Lower Hudson River effort from River totals to obtain estimates for the Upper Hudson River would be inaccurate because anglers who accessed the river from Rensselaer County were not included in estimates of the Upper or Lower Hudson River. Because of the differences between the Upper and Lower Niagara River in the geology, biology including the fish community, and demographics, detailed information is presented separately for the Upper and Lower Nigara River. Information on angler effort by region of residence, expenditures, one-way distance traveled, satisfaction with the fishing experience, and species sought is included in the detailed tables. Effort by species was reported if the species was listed on the questionnaire (see Appendix A) and more than 5% of fishing effort in at least one survey phase could be attributed to that species. Satisfaction with the fishing experience was reported on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=very dissatisfied, 3=neutral, and 5=very satisfied. No water body had an average satisfaction rating lower than neutral. Average satisfaction ranged from 3.1 on Great Sacandaga Lake to 3.9 on Lake George.

15

`

Table 8. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought. Angler Days Total Number Species

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Black Bass (small or largemouth) 4,613,610 265,493 606,111 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 3,784,604 233,953 1,113,236 Walleye 2,212,317 199,508 578,574 Yellow Perch 1,816,026 176,354 735,125 Lake Trout 954,511 100,865 258,039 Bluegill/ Sunfish 944,978 117,242 322,508 Northern Pike 847,385 85,879 227,223 Steelhead Trout 788,035 82,085 272,249 Coho/ Chinook Salmon 700,250 74,832 88,675 Crappie (calico bass) 698,243 170,134 259,365 Bullheads, Catfish 578,396 83,513 176,326 Striped Bass (freshwater only) 401,720 83,073 129,464 Pickerel 325,727 62,889 85,729 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 262,773 41,514 56,857 Carp 167,971 39,598 64,588 Muskie 127,029 39,882 * Tiger Muskie 82,094 17,984 * Shad 54,687 16,995 * Other 177,110 43,112 69,670 No specific species 1,132,624 125,761 225,227 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

97,188

3,338,006

235,087

669,493

75,996

97,374 89,264 109,104 49,757

2,002,709 1,215,550 779,542 514,751

193,018 165,140 132,680 81,221

668,658 418,192 301,359 181,720

89,421 67,559 39,915 33,185

79,262 41,690

472,393 484,714

75,953 69,100

150,077 135,447

41,163 29,365

44,085

240,691

57,811

275,095

38,111

22,518

374,923

59,886

236,653

38,812

71,769

332,812

150,129

106,067

35,442

40,859

316,805

68,089

85,266

25,862

34,876 20,143

226,239 191,064

74,527 57,921

46,016 48,934

11,422 13,942

19,886 29,592 * * * 28,774

122,255 76,904 78,548 47,087 18,408 73,270

30,882 22,070 36,204 11,935 7,027 24,852

83,660 * 29,926 * * *

19,346 * 12,879 * * *

60,897

794,381

107,224

113,016

24,704

16

Figure 2. Estimated number of angler days in 2007, by species sought. No

Sh ad sp O ec ific the r sp ec ie s

Ca rp M us Ti kie ge rm us kie

ba ss (s Tr m ou al lo t( rl br ar oo ge k, m br ou ow th n, ) ra in bo w) W al le Ye ye llo w pe rc La h Bl ke ue t ro gi ut ll /s un No fis rth h e rn St Co ee pi ho ke lh ea /c d hi tro no Cr ok ut ap pi sa e l m (c St on al r ip Bu ic ed o llh ba ba ea ss ss ds ) ,c (fr es at fis hw La h at nd er lo on ck ly ed ) Pi At c ke la nt re ic l sa lm on

ac k

Angler Days

17 Bl

5,000,000

4,500,000

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

-

`

Table 9. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 1. Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 127,683 33,040 36,295 17,173 68,036 23,265 a a Black Bass (small or largemouth) 81,650 21,851 14,337 6,696 57,520 19,896 a a Bluegill/ Sunfish 21,960 10,042 a a a a a a Yellow Perch a a a a a a a a Walleye a a a a a a a a Pickerel a a a a a a a a Crappie (calico bass) a a a a a a a a Bullheads, Catfish a a a a a a a a Carp a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species a a a a a a a a a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

18

`

Table 10. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 3. Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 621,598 67,364 223,352 41,193 314,597 48,175 83,650 22,808 Black Bass (small or largemouth) 557,449 87,203 88,405 24,801 373,899 73,485 95,144 39,867 Striped Bass (freshwater only) 45,781* 163,611 50,916 61,854 21,317 81,322 20,434 6,489 Crappie (calico bass) 129,283 108,600* a a 29,092 12,174 a a Lake Trout 127,373 31,427 42,816 17,852 56,946 23,259 27,610 11,313 Bluegill/ Sunfish 83,983 28,945 44,606 24,779* 28,602 9,983 a a Yellow Perch 78,581 19,110 36,182 11,943 23,715 10,891 18,685 10,196* Pickerel 73,725 16,194 28,015 10,704 36,954 11,223 8,756 4,658* Walleye 63,621 23,931 a a 25,135 11,973 9,405 5,555* Bullheads, Catfish 39,297 18,295 a a 18,992 11,897* a a Carp 27,196 10,013 a a a a a a Shad 19,243 9,490 a a a a a a Northern Pike a a a a a a a a Muskie a a a a a a a a Tiger Muskie a a a a a a a a Landlocked Atlantic Salmon a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species 85,198 29,379 42,527 25,940* 33,153 12,843 9,518 5,028* *Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

19

`

Table 11. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 4. Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 493,014 96,115 160,085 45,771 286,961 83,702 45,968 11,710 Black Bass (small or largemouth) 348,884 67,759 49,702 17,204 226,527 59,016 72,655 28,505 Walleye 144,318 40,627 36,806 17,436 88,535 35,921 18,977 7,500 Yellow Perch 78,855 31,168 a a 41,447 24,407* 10,885 6,821* Striped Bass (freshwater only) 68,055 20,731 35,254 17,718* 24,920 10,127 7,881 3,644 Lake Trout 57,908 19,387 21,639 12,234* 28,949 13,973 a a Bluegill/ Sunfish 53,585 23,692 a a 25,930 11,987 a a Bullheads, Catfish 34,825 11,679 a a 25,816 11,453 a a Northern Pike a a a a a a a a Pickerel a a a a a a a a Crappie (calico bass) a a a a a a a a Tiger Muskie a a a a a a a a Landlocked Atlantic Salmon a a a a a a a a Carp a a a a a a a a Shad a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species 78,869 25,696 a a 58,753 23,867 9,653 4,233 *Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

20

`

Table 12. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 5. Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Black Bass (small or largemouth) 715,278 89,204 63,310 26,952 567,947 81,928 84,020 22,775 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 505,948 58,378 126,274 24,634 318,029 51,031 61,644 14,034 Yellow Perch 308,802 137,230 a a a a 44,582 16,655 Lake Trout 212,982 43,986 39,503 8,942 143,752 42,020 29,727 9,439 Northern Pike 206,918 50,099 46,910 22,517 137,711 44,430 22,297 5,370 Walleye 164,048 39,465 a a 100,561 29,583 33,047 11,758 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 80,128 28,578 11,974 6,663* 49,152 26,458* 19,003 8,502 Bullheads, Catfish 79,958 35,066 a a 42,969 21,855* a a Bluegill/ Sunfish 68,119 22,163 a a 43,051 12,812 a a Pickerel 31,216 10,243 a a 22,156 9,138 a a Crappie (calico bass) a a a a a a a a Muskie a a a a a a a a Tiger Muskie a a a a a a a a Steelhead Trout a a a a a a a a Carp a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species 163,720 42,294 15,786 6,283 128,160 39,843 a a *Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

21

`

Table 13. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 6 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters). Angler Days Total

Species Inland Waters Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Northern Pike Yellow Perch Bullheads, Catfish Crappie (calico bass) Bluegill/ Sunfish Lake Trout Muskie Pickerel Tiger Muskie Steelhead Trout Coho/Chinook Salmon Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Carp Other No specific species

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

627,508 430,753

93,605 108,369

67,568 119,529

23,892 51,477

483,394 228,537

88,411 89,159

76,546 82,687

19,353 33,833

365,342 261,103 210,729

69,468 48,592 40,661

91,416 71,646 78,195

25,601 25,981 26,018

212,510 141,833 100,209

59,157 31,857 28,397

61,416 47,624 32,325

25,898 25,909* 13,037

110,066

48,622

40,808

15,729

102,400

29,046

25,221

9,707

61,329

94,274 71,075 27,942 a a

25,322 35,393* 11,617 a a

a a a a a

a a a a a

52,984 29,792 13,497 a a

a

a

a

a

25,089

a

a

17,914 17,562* 3,932 a a

a a a a a

a a a a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a

a

140,876

39,733

22

110,946

38,414

13,775

5,138

`

Table 13. (cont.) Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Great Lakes Black Bass (small or largemouth) 104,178 34,034 a a 82,436 32,947 13,819 8,077* Yellow Perch 49,502 15,216 14,223 7,846* 26,548 10,021 a a Walleye 39,969 13,779 8,864 2,482 28,031 13,459 a a Northern Pike 29,814 14,300 a a 20,623 13,871* a a Coho/Chinook Salmon 18,958 b a a 14,386 8,109* 4,571 2,323* Steelhead Trout a a a a a a a a Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) a a a a a a a a Landlocked Atlantic Salmon a a a a a a a a Bluegill/ Sunfish a a a a a a a a Lake Trout a a a a a a a a Crappie (calico bass) a a a a a a a a Bullheads, Catfish a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species a a a a a a a a *Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate. b A confidence interval could not be calculated for this estimate because the sample in one of the Phases was zero.

23

`

Table 14. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 7 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters). Angler Days Total

Species Inland Waters Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Yellow Perch Bluegill/ Sunfish Lake Trout Bullheads/ Catfish Northern Pike Crappie (calico bass) Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Pickerel Coho/Chinook Salmon Muskie Tiger Muskie Steelhead Trout Carp Striped Bass (freshwater only) Other No specific species

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

558,609 445,012

91,098 71,039

63,941 152,391

25,464 38,620

419,197 188,604

85,465 49,759

75,472 104,017

18,602 32,849

415,105 259,642

68,528 58,901

133,298 107,845

24,219 38,583

181,177 114,270

51,218 43,339

100,630 37,526

38,552 10,118

161,842 117,389

44,419 54,103

68,584 16,937

35,785* 9,805*

54,104 a

15,863 a

39,154 16,764

20,998* 7,399

97,311 71,574

24,203 20,470

30,755 17,957

9,779 7,699

50,392 42,872

20,735 18,098

16,165 10,745

7,758 5,675*

58,520

15,239

33,716

14,012

31,535 18,718

10,541 6,084

a a

14,211 a a

5,969 a a

a a

a

a

12,569

4,375

a a

a a

a a

14,416 a

8,371* a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

9,494 a a

5,802* a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

a a

150,530

40,774

12,870

5,648

39,346

25,389*

24

98,314

31,401

`

Table 14. (cont.). Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Great Lakes Coho/Chinook Salmon 308,038 44,646 29,605 12,273 147,803 32,455 130,630 28,096 Steelhead Trout 181,648 34,553 60,196 16,306 46,350 26,967* 75,102 14,170 Black Bass (small or largemouth) 120,918 70,361* a a 69,480 24,585 11,518 4,034 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 106,333 29,206 23,738 10,075 42,573 20,086 40,022 18,657 Yellow Perch 60,455 29,139 a a a a a a Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 41,376 14,167 a a 24,163 13,792* 15,282 3,154 Walleye 37,733 12,826 a a 21,172 11,147* a a Bluegill/ Sunfish a a a a a a a a Crappie (calico bass) a a a a a a a Northern Pike a a a a a a a a Bullheads, Catfish a a a a a a a a Lake Trout a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species a a a a a a a a *Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

25

`

Table 15. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 8 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters). Angler Days Total

Species Inland Waters Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Yellow Perch Bluegill/ Sunfish Lake Trout Walleye Bullheads, Catfish Crappie (calico bass) Northern Pike Steelhead Trout Pickerel Muskie Tiger Muskie Coho/Chinook Salmon Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Carp Other No specific species

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

484,836

73,022

46,038

11,131

350,805

70,094

87,993

17,117

345,171 206,581

73,406 38,912

98,395 77,820

26,865 24,000

160,872 76,246

59,888 22,725

85,903 52,515

32,865 20,535

178,472 163,939 99,181

71,974 28,416 73,263*

a 40,106 12,781

a 9,756 3,914

a 77,188 a

a 21,703 a

a 46,644 22,377

a 15,533 7,103

92,513

32,807

21,990

9,292

47,693

27,061*

87,521 86,818

47,705* 25,660

22,468 23,497

8,864 9,888

a 45,457

a 23,097*

49,261 a a a

19,621 a a a

a a a a

a a a a

a a a a

a a a a

a

a

a 17,863

a 5,218

26,929 a a a

16,347* a a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a a a

a

a

153,768

54,584

26

115,375

50,922

8,091

3,591

`

Table 15. (cont.) Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Great Lakes Black Bass (small or largemouth) 203,477 43,441 17,028 6,151 165,627 42,102 20,821 8,757 Yellow Perch 180,904 52,824 73,989 30,880 75,088 41,250* 31,827 11,627 Coho/Chinook Salmon 178,527 48,376 20,472 13,137* 130,797 46,245 27,258 5,391 Steelhead Trout 124,637 42,422 a a 64,599 36,207* 33,508 13,367 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 87,260 22,105 22,119 11,251* 36,789 17,539 28,352 7,378 Bluegill/ Sunfish 43,038 20,991 a a a a a a Northern Pike 36,545 17,186 a a a a a a Lake Trout 24,868 6,834 a a 16,012 5,402 a a Bullheads, Catfish 15,181 4,287 a a 7,097 2,551 a a Crappie (calico bass) a a a a a a a a Landlocked Atlantic Salmon a a a a a a a a Walleye a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species 54,594 20,115 a a 42,568 19,273 a a *Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

27

`

Table 16. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by species sought in Region 9 (broken down by inland versus Great Lakes waters). Angler Days Total

Species Inland Waters Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Bluegill/ Sunfish Yellow Perch Steelhead Trout Crappie (calico bass) Northern Pike Lake Trout Bullheads, Catfish Muskie Tiger Muskie Carp Other No specific species

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

403,111 301,276

77,485 83,587

118,500 84,132

24,312 41,891

212,412 176,295

67,464 70,220

72,199 40,848

29,352 17,350

298,679

59,670

50,522

15,796

200,552

54,337

47,605

18,934

132,661 129,908

30,650 31,870

38,115 56,930

16,432 23,369

74,104 56,470

21,661 20,641

a 16,508

a 6,598

122,602

25,811

47,764

12,842

41,371

11,838

122,117 74,082 24,772

32,756 30,147 7,632

56,398 20,240 a

16,754 10,189* a

a 8,693 a

a 3,399 a

a a a a a 93,932

a a a a a 43,838

a a a a a

a a a a a

19,954

9,237

28

a 52,825 a a a a a a a 64,354

a 26,254 a a a a a a a 42,535*

a a a a a 9,624

a a a a a 5,218*

`

Table 16. (cont.) Angler Days Total

Species

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Great Lakes Walleye 329,093 63,302 54,482 28,971* 205,187 46,897 69,424 31,120 Black Bass (small or largemouth) 320,786 78,703 96,119 53,088* 186,584 56,824 38,083 12,120 Steelhead Trout 162,731 29,571 69,495 24,664 35,367 9,993 57,869 12,895 Yellow Perch 154,616 32,660 59,137 20,048 68,256 24,739 27,223 7,264 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 90,513 24,875 38,765 20,842* 27,334 8,746 24,415 10,388 Coho/Chinook Salmon 82,250 19,297 23,125 13,741* 36,041 11,349 23,084 7,402 Lake Trout 42,525 12,482 12,321 2,645 16,690 9,760* 13,514 7,317* Northern Pike 30,013 8,510 8,638 4,503* 14,107 7,028 7,268 1,659 Bluegill/ Sunfish a a a a a a a a Landlocked Atlantic Salmon a a a a a a a a Crappie (calico bass) a a a a a a a a Bullheads, Catfish a a a a a a a a Other a a a a a a a a No specific species 85,270 29,178 14,682 8,577* 49,595 23,698 a a *Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

29

`

Table 17. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region fished for Great Lakes and inland waters. Angler Days Total Region/ Water body Type Region 6 Inland Great Lakes Region 7 Inland Great Lakes Region 8 Inland Great Lakes Region 9 Inland Great Lakes

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept.

Oct-Dec.

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

2,399,826 278,246

183,683 44,251

566,480 52,273

87,887 12,114

1,470,394 181,108

152,907 39,714

362,952 44,866

51,329 15,303

2,531,885 757,862

180,814 89,111

767,786 193,055

100,363 56,184

1,259,772 322,935

135,834 60,244

504,328 241,872

64,575 33,980

2,085,062 826,931

177,600 103,885

494,169 179,181

71,293 43,123

1,130,973 520,828

149,455 91,464

459,920 126,922

64,206 23,811

1,858,228 1,307,546

175,555 142,491

521,775 313,997

81,739 69,666

1,009,147 705,572

145,300 111,677

327,305 287,977

55,011 54,576

30

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

`

Table 18. Estimated number of angler days spent ice fishing versus open water fishing between Jan. 1 and May 31, 2007, in total and by region. Angler Days Region/Type of Fishing Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits + Statewide Ice Fishing 836,287 88,521 Open Water 4,119,378 245,737 Region 1 Ice Fishing a a Open Water 89,849 23,733 Region 2 Ice Fishing a a Open Water a a Region 3 Ice Fishing 85,963 22,406 Open Water 590,614 87,039 Region 4 Ice Fishing 31,737* 63,102 Open Water 332,252 55,986 Region 5 Ice Fishing 156,768 41,204 Open Water 356,980 74,744 Region 6 Ice Fishing 106,197 27,402 Open Water 491,008 68,295 Region 7 Ice Fishing 145,012 31,150 Open Water 772,093 99,628 Region 8 Ice Fishing 110,420 26,875 Open Water 533,705 70,036 Region 9 Ice Fishing 113,317 23,310 Open Water 671,629 101,084 * Note: Confidence limit exceeds 50% of the estimate. Therefore, the accuracy of the estimate is very limited in our opinion. The number of angler days and associated confidence interval are italicized to emphasize this point. a No estimate is reported because the sample size was 10 or fewer anglers, or the distribution of responses violated the assumption of normality, making an estimate of the confidence interval inaccurate.

31

`

Table 19. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 1. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 1 Other Total

302,106 56,577 360,103

59,113 18,875 64,018

82,221 15,780 98,744

24,299 7,609 25,717

174,316 37,714 212,705

50,050 16,832 54,883

45,569 * 48,654

19,973 * 20,612

Lake/pond 104,890 39,735 * River/stream 82,099 17,335 30,139 Unclassifiable 174,014 33,339 46,952 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

* 9,403

* 43,553

* 13,250

* *

* *

15,151

106,454

27,687

*

*

Water Body Type

Region 1 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 350,000

300,000

Angler Days

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

1

Other

Region of Residence

32

`

Table 20. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 2. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec.

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

1,689 218 1,916

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

*

Region of Residence 2 Other Total

* * 29,319

* * 19,520

4,152 577 5,100

Water Body Type Lake/pond 7,411 2,923 * River/stream * * * Unclassifiable * * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

33

`

Table 21. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 3. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 1 2 3 Other regions Out-of state Total

89,004 109,874 1,839,895

24,271 23,868 172,666

* 31,572 598,954

* 15,528 99,054

59,551 52,722 944,445

19,284 13,427 127,361

* 25,580 296,496

* 12,176 61,490

86,044

20,234

25,030

8,856

48,789

17,519

12,225

4,905

130,269 2,252,597

37,424 185,104

* 713,436

* 104,810

68,690 1,173,693

27,821 138,047

* 365,468

* 64,974

Lake/pond 920,880 115,587 283,798 River/stream 875,336 87,716 272,669 Unclassifiable 468,585 57,987 160,948 * Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

66,558 43,440 33,711

497,026 451,430 232,737

88,789 65,815 43,867

140,056 151,237 74,899

32,357 38,412 17,371

Water Body Type

Region 3 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000

Angler Days

1,400,000

1,200,000 1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

1

2

3

Region of Residence

34

Other regions

Out-of-state

`

Table 22. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 4. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other regions Out-of State Total

53,734 52,148 139,349 828,846 77,422 30,712 77,823 *

16,532 16,828 52,982 96,425 34,228 9,040 27,979 *

* 20,118 38,183 251,008 * 3,690 * *

* 10,036 13,751 59,528 * 1,343 * *

36,970 28,642 * 456,102 * 15,888 * *

15,063 13,421 * 72,571 * 7,214 * *

* 3,388 * 121,736 * 11,133 * *

* 1,525 * 22,081 * 5,280 * *

119,575 1,410,128

32,838 127,697

* 395,144

* 68,567

63,337 798,772

21,734 103,199

* 216,212

* 30,903

Lake/pond 471,688 60,565 132,570 River/stream 752,476 97,818 211,850 Unclassifiable 187,517 24,747 50,207 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

34,945 44,465 11,638

265,170 435,787 99,316

46,637 84,333 20,137

73,948 104,839 37,995

16,492 21,893 8,454

Water Body Type

Region 4 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 900,000

800,000

700,000

Angler Days

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

1

2

3

4

5

6

Region of Residence

35

7

Other regions

Out-of-state

`

Table 23. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 5. Angler Days Jan.-May

June-Sept.

Oct-Dec.

Total Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of State Total

38,684 16,953 147,682 446,623 1,345,150 102,123 113,358 52,156 49,975

8,327 4,383 27,248 66,161 159,815 25,259 38,605 13,758 23,473

* 2,624 32,639 109,753 304,340 33,376 13,975 4,403 4,497

* 279 9,730 39,787 84,696 15,953 4,954 2,013 1,875

27,031 13,241 97,182 279,518 833,377 55,919 88,405 40,976 28,086

4,667 4,292 24,820 51,308 130,523 18,663 38,021 13,164 7,585

* * 17,861 57,352 207,433 12,827 10,978 * *

* * 5,636 12,715 36,485 5,937 4,497 * *

225,616 2,530,014

32,306 192,222

29,102 541,451

13,655 98,245

183,128 1,642,477

28,945 158,714

13,386 346,086

4,403 45,901

Lake/pond 1,707,045 150,577 339,888 River/stream 544,432 69,205 130,405 Unclassifiable 283,430 38,589 71,920 * Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

69,758 40,209 23,050

1,129,826 332,747 183,709

129,075 50,989 30,461

237,330 81,281 27,801

33,865 23,931 5,471

Water Body Type

Region 5 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 1,600,000

1,400,000

Angler Days

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

1

2

3

4

5

6

Region of Residence

36

7

8

9

Out-of-state

`

Table 24. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 6. Angler Days Total

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept.

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

61,281 * 1,437,692 411,718 239,488 90,052 82,112

19,067 * 138,149 67,933 52,419 39,726 34,314

10,489 * 380,623 111,148 31,507 * 10,313

3,675 * 65,245 33,846 13,982 * 3,341

34,993 * 805,120 240,511 183,619 * *

15,541 * 111,539 56,651 49,473 * *

* 8,386 251,948 60,059 24,363 9,923 *

* 2,453 48,860 16,125 10,234 3,029 *

286,658 2,674,411

56,947 191,275

17,255 618,789

6,658 88,778

244,256 1,649,628

55,841 159,821

25,147 405,993

8,968 56,230

Lake/pond 1,102,896 109,066 259,434 River/stream 1,296,898 130,207 285,976 Unclassifiable 283,784 47,982 72,406 * Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

46,140 62,856 20,891

676,419 814,008 163,571

94,353 109,277 38,348

167,043 196,914 47,807

29,397 32,580 19,882

Number

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 4 5 6 7 8 9 Other regions Out-of state Total

Water Body Type

Region 6 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 1,600,000

1,400,000

Angler Days

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

4

5

6

7

8

Region of Residence

37

9

Other regions

Out-of-state

`

Table 25. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 7. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 3 4 5 6 7 8 Other regions Out-of-state Total

92,340 69,625 23,162 166,485 2,379,172 144,084 46,069 357,367 3,275,457

41,257 27,152 10,772 42,852 184,804 26,846 14,947 60,079 214,999

7,992 12,109 * 47,069 766,747 25,959 * 77,176 959,007

1,537 3,359 * 12,439 110,201 8,725 * 26,699 118,294

* * 6,646 66,091 1,146,726 75,242 * 167,226 1,572,535

* * 2,915 31,877 131,150 19,360 * 50,845 159,966

29,781 22,690 8,345 53,325 465,699 42,883 11,725 112,965 743,915

13,069 9,393 4,100 25,795 69,340 16,424 3,565 17,645 81,497

Lake/pond 1,879,566 163,389 543,620 River/stream 1,129,454 102,468 314,300 Unclassifiable 269,865 39,502 101,445 * Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

91,470 54,438 27,878

985,339 484,661 104,263

122,949 75,136 21,854

350,608 330,493 64,157

56,681 43,483 17,483

Water Body Type

Region 7 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 2,500,000

Angler Days

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

3

4

5

6

7

Region of Residence

38

8

Other regions

Out-of-state

`

Table 26. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 8. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 7 8 9 Other regions Out-of state Total

100,864 2,363,807 207,792 78,317

25,735 206,289 42,677 22,400

49,705 532,622 36,326 24,052

21,470 82,171 10,630 7,370

34,584 1,361,714 132,041 30,619

11,723 177,707 37,366 13,796

16,575 469,471 39,425 *

7,994 64,987 17,666 *

168,557 2,916,539

31,702 221,890

30,644 673,246

8,720 88,250

101,604 1,657,027

28,469 190,344

36,310 586,266

10,886 72,225

Lake/pond 1,885,036 160,777 428,123 River/stream 650,924 82,994 145,841 Unclassifiable 374,465 70,236 100,344 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

70,918 29,489 25,877

1,137,626 323,130 190,225

136,877 69,271 59,691

319,286 181,953 83,896

45,659 34,928 26,464

Water Body Type

Region 8 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 2,500,000

Angler Days

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

7

8

9

Region of Residence

39

Other regions

Out-of-state

`

Table 27. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, by region of residence and water body type for anglers fishing Region 9. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 8 9 Other regions Out-of state Total

129,003 2,732,983 88,072

36,720 232,010 28,658

32,647 717,762 39,439

15,396 112,447 17,744

78,043 1,461,447 *

31,475 186,884 *

* 553,774 *

* 79,110 *

215,094 3,163,369

46,783 245,088

42,646 832,163

13,688 115,993

144,811 1,717,226

43,736 199,683

27,637 613,980

9,402 82,100

Lake/pond 1,604,567 132,477 424,013 River/stream 1,239,497 153,690 345,884 Unclassifiable 335,769 78,855 68,912 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

63,456 79,986 18,224

905,940 613,439 203,839

107,706 122,761 74,495

274,613 280,174 63,018

43,851 46,398 18,344

Water Body Type

Region 9 total angler days in 2007 by region of residence 3,000,000

2,500,000

Angler Days

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

8

9

Other regions

Region of Residence

40

Out-of-state

`

Table 28. Estimated number of angler days by phase and in total for 2007, for major waters.a Angler Days Total

Water Body 1 Lake Ontario 2 Oneida Lake 3 Lake Erie 4 St. Lawrence River 5 Hudson River Lower Upper 6 Chautauqua Lake 7 Niagara River Lower Upper 8 Seneca Lake 9 Salmon River** 10 Cayuga Lake 11 Lake George 12 Lake Champlain 13 Mohawk River 14 Black Lake** 15 Erie Canal 16 Keuka Lake 17 Susquehanna River 18 Great Sacandaga Lake 19 Oswego River 20 Saratoga Lake

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

1,314,066

110,172

287,269

52,034

807,972

91,008

218,825

33,880

786,401 657,821

103,944 78,427

250,012 161,747

56,201 38,263

370,263 370,110

80,980 62,316

166,126 125,964

32,985 28,346

651,455

75,615

121,592

27,272

434,962

68,316

94,901

17,512

470,731 355,109 78,989

61,770 57,562 17,941

152,440 124,990 9,421

27,980 26,913 3,936

240,708 172,054 55,727

52,686 48,774 16,942

77,584 58,065 13,841

16,027 14,498 4,399

413,961

69,949

130,791

35,208

236,570

58,448

46,601

15,397

369,449 194,811 172,888

67,223 47,881 43,562

86,066 * 39,428

30,699 * 17,936

197,379 95,301 99,423

54,618 34,328 37,829

86,003 56,082 34,037

24,358 22,950 12,040

340,290

54,752

102,669

29,673

155,971

41,335

81,651

20,217

332,827

31,734

74,699

18,189

98,051

18,747

160,077

18,020

295,920

43,346

66,483

15,975

175,295

38,334

54,142

12,417

289,011

41,755

63,157

14,046

192,602

37,289

33,252

12,478

277,759

52,105

74,042

29,872

157,130

39,540

46,587

16,102

219,735

47,375

140,139

38,913

49,187

17,609

219,659 188,825

39,420 53,382

54,012 23,488

22,689 9,608

141,899 136,925

31,888 51,232

23,748 28,413

4,717 11,516

178,340

45,040

30,623

7,400

114,005

42,906

33,713

11,529

174,897

37,392

36,586

13,649

103,871

32,175

34,440

13,290

160,513

29,536

29,703

10,412

108,613

26,447

22,197

8,032

159,089

44,320

*

*

89,205

36,990

29,740

7,203

148,840

41,333

*

*

100,008

34,894

19,655

7,119

*

*

41

`

Table 28. (cont.) Angler Days Total

Water Body 21 Cattaraugus Creek 22 Genesee River 23 Canandaigua Lake 24 Delaware River 25 Beaver Kill** 26 Seneca River 27 Black River** 28 Honeoye Lake 29 Silver Lake** 30 West Canada Creek 31 West Branch Delaware River** 32 Sodus Bay 33 Irondequoit Bay 34 Conesus Lake 35 Delta Lake 36 Esopus Creek 37 Eighteenmile Creek (to L. Erie) 38 Oak Orchard Creek 39 Eighteenmile Creek (to L. Ontario)

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

147,905

29,845

39,721

143,952

36,549

*

133,966

41,883

*

128,344

22,903

40,862

114,285

35,963

25,367

109,777

30,003

107,090

34,685

106,804

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

65,660

25,217

42,524

10,396

*

48,621

14,421

37,714

12,807

*

73,741

32,803

26,207

9,313

11,952

66,445

17,494

21,037

8,699

9,776

78,910

34,288

10,008

4,704

*

55,598

21,951

26,203

11,736

18,477

6,555

78,452

33,904

10,161

3,248

33,695

15,163

5,098

76,620

32,407

*

*

102,994

24,485

30,263

11,046

57,972

19,964

*

*

97,873

25,946

21,948

8,255

61,055

21,282

*

*

96,365 93,295

31,581 26,024

* 30,279

* 14,926

65,300 50,965

28,336 20,093

3,687 *

1,740 *

88,346

17,551

23,472

7,885

45,836

14,313

19,038

6,404

77,908 75,359

20,090 19,978

12,824 24,735

4,083 10,027

53,379 39,802

18,941 16,621

11,705 10,822

5,306 4,725

73,764

14,924

24,848

6,788

35,272

12,175

13,644

5,329

72,331

25,346

19,316

6,315

72,068

16,043

32,433

7,109

70,752

21,965

28,845

9,064

*

*

*

12,115

Number

*

*

7,123

2,699

42

*

31,731

*

*

13,756

*

` Table 28. (cont.) Angler Days Total

Water Body 40 Oatka Creek 41 Owasco Lake 42 Neversink River 43 Schroon Lake 44 Ashokan Reservoir 45 Lamoka Lake 46 Otisco Lake 47 Willowemoc Creek 48 North Pond/ Sandy Pond** 49 Canadarago Lake 50 Chemung River 51 Ninemile Creek** 52 East Branch Delaware River 53 Schoharie Creek 54 Waneta Lake** 55 Skaneateles Lake 56 Otsego Lake 57 Chenango River 58 Batten Kill 59 Rushford Lake 60 Raquette River**

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept.

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Number

*

*

69,480

24,698

*

*

66,727

23,324

*

*

29,748

10,041

*

*

66,295

19,979

*

*

42,757

14,533

6,195

2,478

61,619

18,931

4,594

30,481

13,903

*

*

61,229

29,175

*

*

39,842

18,079

*

*

60,705

23,603

*

*

*

*

60,215

19,397

*

*

59,405

26,442

*

*

*

*

57,757

20,279

*

*

*

*

56,339

20,624

*

*

*

*

*

*

56,284

23,370

*

*

*

*

*

*

56,152

15,056

*

*

34,275

11,562

*

*

52,223

10,694

2,305

34,441

9,880

8,062

3,380

52,037

18,766

*

*

38,751

17,816

*

*

51,789

18,983

17,982

8,491

*

*

14,939

6,044

51,510

17,993

*

*

*

7,136

3,098

50,954 48,955

15,312 16,804

10,220 *

4,706 *

47,828

18,224

*

*

*

*

*

*

47,160

20,610

*

*

*

*

*

*

17,474

9,720

* * 13,303

7,901

* 5,224

43

*

38,733

*

27,752

21,395 *

*

*

17,376

*

11,416

10,035 *

*

Confidence Limits, +

24,291

*

19,308

Number

70,354

12,854

42,194

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

12,827

* 5,933

`

Table 28. (cont.) Angler Days Total

Water Body 61 Hemlock Lake** 62 Irondequoit Creek 63 Ausable River 64 Wallkill River 65 Onondaga Lake 66 Pepacton Reservoir 67 Whitney Point Reservoir 68 Chautauqua Creek 69 Wiscoy Creek 70 Ischua Creek 71 Cranberry Lake** 72 West Branch Ausable River 73 East Koy Creek 74 Sandy Creek** 75 Kayaderosseras Creek** 76 Saranac River 77 Indian Lake** 78 Raquette Lake 79 Schroon River 80 Canadaway Creek

Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

46,286

14,841

46,164

10,343

45,951

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

*

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Oct-Dec. Number

Confidence Limits, +

*

*

*

22,898

10,901

12,962

5,991

20,656

7,036

12,546

4,646

8,420

7,131

2,605

30,148

7,457

8,672

2,916

42,981

11,858

2,349

834

28,224

9,983

*

*

41,985

18,865

4,360

2,133

*

*

*

40,903

12,452

13,976

4,346

12,118

5,395

*

*

36,875

8,605

14,265

4,801

14,074

4,782

*

*

34,634

11,491

13,960

6,524

*

*

*

33,242

11,142

*

*

9,751

*

*

32,619

14,659

6,182

2,637

*

*

*

*

31,682

14,941

*

*

*

*

*

*

30,228

12,171

3,202

1,445

*

*

4,245

1,789

30,155

12,035

7,583

3,470

*

*

*

*

29,778

10,334

*

*

*

*

9,951

3,805

29,636

9,195

*

*

7,642

*

*

26,882

8,626

*

*

*

7,241

2,936

26,877

5,820

7,909

3,156

16,289

4,771

2,679

1,074

25,984

10,069

*

*

20,653

9,634

*

*

24,080

6,622

5,724

2,393

15,291

5,949

*

*

17,797

4,547

7,150

2,285

*

7,969

3,242

44

*

* 22,695

21,459 *

*

` a

Numerical ranking of water bodies by angler days is only approximate because of the likelihood of sampling error, as shown by the confidence intervals for each waterway. For example, while results from this sample of anglers produced more angler days fished for Seneca Lake than for the Salmon River, confidence intervals for these two water bodies overlap considerably. Thus, we can say with very little statistical confidence that more angler days were actually spent on Seneca Lake than on the Salmon River. * Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate. **Location of waters in cases where more than one water with the same name exists in New York State: Salmon River in Oswego and Lewis Counties; Black Lake in St. Lawrence County; Beaver Kill in Delaware, Sullivan and Ulster Counties; Black River in Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida and Herkimer Counties; Silver Lake in Wyoming County; West Branch Delaware River in Delaware County; North Pond/Sandy Pond Bay of Lake Ontario; Ninemile Creek in Onondaga County; Waneta Lake in Schuyler and Steuben Counties; Raquette River in St. Lawrence, Franklin and Hamilton Counties; Hemlock Lake in Livingston and Ontario Counties; Cranberry Lake in St. Lawrence County; Sandy Creek in Monroe and Orleans Counties; Kayaderosseras Creek in Saratoga County; Indian Lake in the town of Indian Lake in Hamilton County.

45

` Table 29. Lake Ontario—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 6 7 8 9 Other regions Out-of-state

128,535 262,852 399,922 187,556 93,284 241,926

31,636 51,227 58,290 37,099 37,509 47,197

* 79,892 86,533 29,197 24,072 27,644

* 31,481 30,867 8,292 9,323 8,582

62,910 128,203 252,646 123,096 * 187,906

20,846 33,564 46,680 34,514 * 44,610

26,718 54,757 60,744 35,263 14,821 26,376

8,427 22,507 16,309 10,787 4,439 12,799

257,816 31,122 287,269

49,110 7,085 52,034

807,972

91,008

218,825

33,880

Type of Fishing Open water Ice Fishing

Total

1,314,066 110,172 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $51,844,062 (39.45) 23,932,678 (18.21)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Coho/Chinook Salmon Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Steelhead Trout Lake Trout Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Walleye Northern Pike Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, + $9,352,348 3,543,639

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

29.5

Percent of Days 14.8 33.4

34.7

21.0 8.1

5.8 15.2

27.1 5.1

18.6 10.0

7.9 5.3 5.3

20.8 7.1 8.1

4.0 4.2 4.7

5.6 6.8 3.8

4.2 3.3 2.3 1.9 7.2 4.0

0.4 5.4 5.8 5.2 6.3 5.1

5.2 2.5 1.3 0.8 7.8 3.9

5.7 3.5 1.3 1.4 5.9 2.7

Mean distance traveled = 118 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied) 46

`

Table 30. Oneida Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 6 7 8 Other regions Out-of-state

121,970 556,917 * 23,959 *

22,420 93,452 * 4,167 *

26,707 194,769 * 6,271 *

7,062 49,445 * 2,853 *

53,072 251,736 * 10,370 *

14,009 74,111 * 2,132 *

42,192 110,413 2,882 7,319 4,518

16,017 28,215 1,014 2,163 2,233

177,424 75,866 Total 786,401 103,944 250,012 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

37,680 22,275 56,201

370,263

80,980

166,126

32,985

Type of Fishing Open water Ice fishing

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $12,154,611 (15.46) 7,369,927 (9.37)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, + $2,594,616 1,762,962

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

57.5

63.2

Percent of Days 50.7

64.1

21.7 10.4 5.3 5.1

10.8 16.8 3.5 5.7

32.3 6.5 6.6 3.9

14.3 9.4 5.1 7.1

Mean distance traveled = 53 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

47

`

Table 31. Lake Erie—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 9 Other regions Out-of state

594,349 41,303

73,735 24,944

24,708

6,753

150,558 * *

37,685 * *

325,352 *

57,383 *

118,439 *

26,906 *

20,402

6,537

1,668

653

370,110

62,316

125,964

28,346

Type of Fishing Open water Ice Fishing

137,798 22,451 Total 657,821 78,427 161,747 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $13,435,693 (20.42) 8,452,284 (12.85)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Steelhead Trout No Specific Species Other

37,451 6,349 38,263

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, + $4,342,584 2,878,854

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

35.6

Percent of Days 20.2 42.8

34.2

27.2 17.5 4.5 7.5 7.7

32.3 27.6 3.8 4.9 11.2

18.2 20.3 9.9 7.5 9.9

28.1 12.2 2.9 8.6 5.4

Mean distance traveled = 59 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

48

`

Table 32. St. Lawrence River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 6 7 8 9 Other regions Out-of-state

242,400 106,095 103,274 23,038 77,500 102,919

44,789 28,481 36,757 4,691 32,627 22,782

78,407 21,136 4,694 * 12,262 *

24,586 9,568 1,908 * 6,075 *

116,863 69,447 86,491 14,907 * 93,401

34,711 26,388 36,072 3,089 * 22,434

47,130 15,512 * 3,185 * 7,583

14,025 4,827 * 1,439 * 3,669

94,524 27,219 Total 651,455 75,615 121,592 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

19,836 10,847 27,272

434,962

68,316

94,901

17,512

Type of Fishing Open water Ice fishing

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $23,187,421 (35.59) 10,563,046 (16.21)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Yellow Perch Walleye Muskie Bullhead/Catfish No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, + $3,942,019 1,778,605

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 33.3 20.9 14.9 9.3 4.0 2.9 7.8 6.9

7.9 27.5 29.7 9.6 3.6 11.0 5.6 5.1

40.2 20.1 11.4 7.9 3.3 0.8 9.1 7.2

34.6 15.8 11.8 15.5 8.0 2.0 4.7 7.6

Mean distance traveled = 136 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

49

`

Table 33. Hudson River (in its entirety)—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 3 4 5 Other

256,902 54,629 83,352 103,245 16,473 56,257 87,346 21,437 * 22,704 4,127 6,692 Total 470,731 61,770 152,440 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

131,420 33,014 66,924 9,616 240,708

46,908 8,219 20,692 2,800 52,686

Total (avg./day) $6,021,196 (12.79) 3,782,644 (8.04)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Striped Bass (freshwater only) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Shad Bullhead/Catfish Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

24,569 13,437 * 2,019 27,980

Jan.-May

42,130 13,974 14,377 6,396 77,584

Confidence Limits, + $1,528,142 1,010,729

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 49.9

67.1

41.0

42.9

17.8 4.7 4.1 2.0 11.0 10.5

4.4 9.6 2.5 0.0 6.9 9.5

22.9 2.8 5.6 2.2 13.5 12.0

28.6 1.1 2.6 5.5 11.3 8.0

Mean distance traveled = 32 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

50

13,429 4,822 4,350 2,261 16,027

`

Table 34. Lower Hudson River (Albany and Columbia Counties south)—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 3 4 Other

246,880 53,481 77,932 83,315 15,616 44,939 * * * Total 355,109 57,562 124,990 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

128,298 27,456 * 172,054

45,962 7,996 * 48,774

Total (avg./day) $4,938,910 (13.91) 2,729,996 (7.69)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Striped Bass (freshwater only) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Shad No Specific Species Other

24,102 12,745 * 26,913

Jan.-May

40,649 10,920 5,579 58,065

Confidence Limits, + $1,350,534 933,767

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 62.7

72.6

57.4

56.9

11.8 5.4 9.7 10.4

1.9 8.8 5.1 11.6

14.8 4.2 12.0 11.6

24.4 1.6 12.6 4.5

Mean distance traveled = 26 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

51

12,917 4,183 2,110 14,498

`

Table 35. Chautauqua Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 9 Other regions Out-of-state

298,543 * 96,592

60,582 * 34,451

115,246 * 9,287

34,166 * 3,820

144,944 * 80,025

47,708 * 33,994

38,353 1,062 *

15,056 149 *

92,694 34,921 Total 413,961 69,949 130,791 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

30,850 11,553 35,208

236,570

58,448

46,601

15,397

Type of Fishing Open water Ice Fishing

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $10,059,124 (24.30) 3,931,959 (9.50)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Crappie Muskie Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, + $2,918,731 1,027,920

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

33.3

Percent of Days 34.2 30.9

42.8

17.9 13.2 12.6 8.0 4.2 7.4 3.4

6.4 19.9 26.1 2.2 2.9 4.6 3.7

8.4 11.7 13.3 11.0 0.0 8.3 4.5

26.1 9.8 5.0 10.7 5.7 8.7 3.1

Mean distance traveled = 66 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

52

`

Table 36. Lower Niagara River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 9 Other

176,423 45,888 * * * * Total 194,811 47,881 * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

* * *

89,575 5,833 95,301

Total (avg./day) $2,801,005 (14.38) *

At Location En Route

33,365 2,182 34,328

53,548 * 56,082

Confidence Limits, + $926,250 *

*Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Steelhead Trout Walleye Coho/Chinook Salmon Lake Trout No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 30.6 24.0 9.1 7.2 5.2 12.3 11.6

8.8 40.7 11.8 2.9 10.3 11.8 13.7

45.0 7.5 11.9 6.6 3.6 14.9 10.5

Mean distance traveled = 75 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.8 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

53

22.9 39.2 2.2 11.7 4.0 8.1 11.9

22,731 * 22,950

`

Table 37. Upper Niagara River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 9 Other

167,639 41,911 38,467 * * * Total 172,888 43,562 39,428 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

98,308 * 99,423

Total (avg./day) $1,056,831 (6.11) 550,395 (3.18)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Muskie Northern Pike Walleye No Specific Species Other

17,496 * 17,936

36,457 * 37,829

30,865 * 34,037

Confidence Limits, + $385,254 175,242

Jan.-May

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 41.1 14.8 6.0 5.2 2.9 19.1 10.9

31.6 30.4 1.5 7.3 0.0 15.6 13.6

48.3 6.3 5.9 3.0 2.6 22.6 11.3

Mean distance traveled = 31 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

54

30.7 21.8 11.6 9.1 6.9 13.1 6.8

11,013 * 12,040

`

Table 38. Seneca Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 8 Other regions Out-of-state

283,380 50,121 86,027 34,842 14,166 * 18,351 8,155 * Total 340,290 54,752 102,669 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

129,254 11,772 11,783 155,971

Total (avg./day) $5,569,015 (16.37) 2,951,347 (8.67)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Lake Trout Yellow Perch Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) No Specific Species Other

27,210 * * 29,673

28.1 21.8

Jan.-May

38,052 4,827 5,832 41,335

68,099 * * 81,651

Confidence Limits, + $1,953,739 638,311

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 26.5 29.9 40.3 10.0

26.9 21.5

15.3 5.6

4.3 1.0

20.4 4.7

19.3 13.1

4.9 11.2 13.1

4.8 8.0 15.1

5.8 15.9 13.3

3.1 6.1 10.0

Mean distance traveled = 50 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

55

17,993 * * 20,217

`

Table 39. Salmon River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 7 Other regions Out-of-state

94,528 23,652 * 108,451 16,073 23,872 129,674 12,633 29,529 Total 332,827 31,734 74,699 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

34,036 37,366 26,641 98,051

Total (avg./day) $18,771,737 (56.40) 8,264,443 (24.83)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Trout Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Other

* 7,845 6,646 18,189

Jan.-May

13,926 10,830 4,581 18,747

39,061 47,213 73,505 160,077

Confidence Limits, + $2,222,109 1,057,897

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

46.5 37.3

Percent of Days 13.2 60.6 80.5 12.7

6.5

0.8

7.1

8.7

5.3 4.4

4.3 1.2

10.7 8.9

2.5 3.1

Mean distance traveled = 190 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

56

53.4 32.3

11,563 8,917 9,718 18,020

`

Table 40. Cayuga Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 7 8 Other regions Out-of-state

181,945 38,165 43,687 80,080 21,424 15,936 16,634 5,259 * 24,424 9,096 * Total 295,920 43,346 66,483 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

101,356 44,256 11,913 18,310 175,295

Total (avg./day) $5,692,926 (19.24) 3,250,758 (10.99)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Bluegill/Sunfish Bullhead/Catfish No Specific Species Other

13,815 6,726 * * 15,975

Jan.-May

31,989 18,707 4,881 8,613 38,334

36,902 19,888 1,518 * 54,142

Confidence Limits, + $2,218,021 657,937

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 32.8 15.6 14.9

15.2 8.4 20.9

41.9 19.4 12.9

25.0 12.2 14.2

8.2

11.9

4.3

16.2

5.6 4.4 3.4 9.5 5.6

9.9 5.2 12.3 10.9 5.3

3.2 4.4 1.0 8.0 4.9

7.9 3.4 0.3 12.5 8.3

Mean distance traveled = 53 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

57

15,569 7,988 592 * 12,417

`

Table 41. Lake George—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 3 4 5 Other regions Out-of state

29,203 39,410 139,144 26,640

6,093 11,497 36,836 6,497

53,638

10,325

7,119 * 35,928 2,185 *

3,006 * 9,011 669

18,376 26,807 79,368 22,465

4,541 10,170 33,793 5,928

*

44,704

7,808

192,602

37,289

* 3,261 23,849 * *

* 1,406 11,565 * *

Type of Fishing Open water Ice fishing

24,094 40,407 Total 289,011 41,755 63,157 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $14,107,011 (48.81) 5,950,615 (20.59)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

7,196 9,662 14,046

Jan.-May

33,252

Confidence Limits, + $3,513,632 2,539,915

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 45.1 20.6 10.9

18.2 24.2 33.9

57.0 16.9 2.6

27.9 35.2 15.3

4.5 3.9 5.4 9.6

5.4 9.0 2.5 6.8

3.9 2.8 6.1 10.7

6.0 0.6 6.7 8.3

Mean distance traveled = 112 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.9 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

58

12,478

`

Table 42. Lake Champlain—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 5 Other regions Out-of-state

184,569 48,794 * 53,373 13,871 * 40,000 10,646 * Total 277,759 52,105 74,042 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

100,656 31,629 25,776 157,130

Total (avg./day) $5,704,091 (20.54) 4,322,764 (15.56)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Lake Trout Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Walleye Bullhead/Catfish Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

* * * 29,872

Jan.-May

36,780 10,790 8,984 39,540

35,354 7,145 3,086 46,587

Confidence Limits, + $1,399,011 1,068,898

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 41.7 14.1 8.9

21.8 31.5 5.3

52.1 5.8 10.8

38.8 14.3 8.2

5.2 4.7 2.6 2.3 9.9 10.6

2.6 5.3 7.9 1.8 11.3 12.5

5.8 2.8 0.0 1.1 10.1 11.5

7.6 10.0 2.7 7.2 6.8 4.4

Mean distance traveled = 116 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

59

14,812 2,814 642 16,102

`

Table 43. Mohawk River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 4 6 Other

87,386 26,192 * 66,246 22,437 * * * * Total 219,735 47,375 * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

57,140 50,793 * 140,139

23,507 20,729 * 38,913

Total (avg./day) $1,778,764 (8.10) 1,072,811 (4.88)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

* * * *

Jan.-May

23,095 * * 49,187

Confidence Limits, + $912,600 315,631

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 47.4

30.3

48.0

56.3

14.4 12.7 3.2 12.9 9.4

27.8 7.8 5.6 16.7 11.8

13.7 13.3 1.2 14.8 9.0

7.9 14.0 7.5 5.3 9.0

Mean distance traveled = 24 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

60

10,595 * * 17,609

`

Table 44. Black Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 6 7 8 Other regions Out-of-state

45,922 21,365 * 33,575 10,024 * 30,025 7,736 5,862 63,547 27,898 14,166 47,088 8,863 3,580 Total 219,659 39,420 54,012 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

20,131 21,028 20,068 * 40,523 141,899

Total (avg./day) $12,359,809 (56.27) 5,227,760 (23.80)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Crappie Northern Pike Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

* * 2,708 2,219 1,057 22,689

5,399 9,006 7,014 * 8,743 31,888

3,261 4,853 4,095 8,517 2,986 23,748

Confidence Limits, + $2,265,948 1,170,165

Jan.-May

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 42.3 19.9 12.7 8.3 5.5 2.5 5.0 3.8

16.6 36.2 19.8 12.6 5.6 7.8 0.0 1.4

52.3 14.9 9.2 6.6 5.3 0.4 7.1 4.2

Mean distance traveled = 215 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

61

40.0 12.9 17.8 8.4 6.7 3.4 3.8 7.0

1,216 1,976 1,821 3,046 1,001 4,717

`

Table 45. Erie Canal—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 6 8 Other

46,072 14,510 * 68,833 32,479 5,056 * * * Total 188,825 53,382 23,488 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

27,682 * * 136,925

Total (avg./day) $1,777,113 (9.41) 462,382 (2.45)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Bullhead/Catfish Northern Pike Carp Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

* 1,948 * 9,608

Jan.-May

11,102 * * 51,232

* * * 28,413

Confidence Limits, + $2,671,028 120,324

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 29.6 13.4 6.4 5.6 4.0 3.5 2.8 25.2 9.5

12.0 4.1 3.7 14.8 0.0 11.5 7.6 37.0 9.3

32.9 16.0 8.0 3.3 3.6 1.2 1.4 25.7 7.9

Mean distance traveled = 16 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.2 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

62

28.1 8.6 1.1 9.2 9.2 7.9 5.5 13.0 17.4

* * * 11,516

`

Table 46. Keuka Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct.Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 8 Other regions Out-of-state

145,119 43,630 24,808 21,145 8,507 * 12,451 4,297 * Total 178,340 45,040 30,623 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

91,191 * 9,741 114,005

Total (avg./day) $3,154,050 (17.69) 1,924,759 (10.79)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Landlocked Atlantic Salmon No Specific Species Other

6,725 * * 7,400

Jan.-May

41,673 * 3,428 42,906

29,121 * * 33,713

Confidence Limits, + $1,383,347 763,205

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 39.6 22.9 12.9

9.0 24.4 33.1

52.3 18.6 5.2

24.1 35.9 20.8

3.5

7.9

2.6

2.8

1.5 10.6 9.0

0.0 11.1 14.5

0.3 12.7 8.3

6.7 3.1 6.6

Mean distance traveled = 72 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

63

11,031 * * 11,529

`

Table 47. Susquehanna River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 7 Other

126,108 32,589 19,656 47,409 17,151 * Total 174,897 37,392 36,586 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

81,074 * 103,871

Total (avg./day) $1,174,547 (6.72) 652,141 (3.73)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Bullhead/Catfish Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) No Specific Species Other

7,395 * 13,649

Jan.-May

29,125 * 32,175

25,378 9,046 34,440

Confidence Limits, + $683,317 195,174

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

31.2

Percent of Days 55.3 13.9

26.2 8.3

10.9 7.1

37.3 8.7

9.0 8.6

7.0 19.5 7.8

10.8 9.7 6.2

7.1 23.8 9.2

2.8 17.1 5.2

Mean distance traveled = 23 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

64

57.3

12,614 4,145 13,290

`

Table 48. Great Sacandaga Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 4 5 Other

59,544 17,265 * 69,060 16,155 15,035 * * * Total 160,513 29,536 29,703 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

43,845 41,501 * 108,613

Total (avg./day) $3,108,070 (19.36) 1,691,464 (10.54)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Yellow Perch Bullhead/Catfish No Specific Species Other

* 7,053 * 10,412

Jan.-May

15,991 12,673 * 26,447

10,314 * * 22,197

Confidence Limits, + $1,865,944 859,384

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

40.5

Percent of Days 52.7 36.5

44.8

25.0 7.0

9.1 17.7

29.8 5.3

23.1 0.8

6.1 2.1 0.9 12.8 5.6

0.0 11.4 0.0 9.1 0.0

7.7 0.0 0.0 13.8 6.9

6.2 0.0 6.2 12.5 6.4

Mean distance traveled = 57 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.1 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

65

4,660 * * 8,032

`

Table 49. Oswego River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 7 Other

119,151 41,453 * 39,572 11,984 4,344 Total 159,089 44,320 * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

* * 89,205

Total (avg./day) $2,293,825 (14.42) 1,313,813 (8.26)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Coho/Chinook Salmon Black Bass (small or largemouth) Steelhead Trout Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Bullhead/Catfish Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Yellow Perch Carp Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

* 1,574 *

Jan.-May

* * 36,990

14,712 15,430 29,740

Confidence Limits, + $855,073 272,292

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

26.4

Percent of Days 10.0 28.6

42.4

13.4 13.0

1.0 25.8

22.2 3.5

3.9 24.0

9.9 8.6 7.6 4.6

21.7 16.5 0.0 10.0

6.0 7.3 12.2 3.5

5.5 2.0 3.8 0.5

3.4 3.1 1.8 1.3 4.7 2.2

0.0 3.3 5.0 5.0 0.0 1.7

2.8 1.6 1.0 0.0 8.3 3.0

10.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Mean distance traveled = 112 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

66

4,372 5,447 7,203

`

Table 50. Saratoga Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 4 5 Other

57,195 21,405 * 78,753 34,630 * 11,653 5,187 1,970 Total 148,840 41,333 * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

895 *

40,834 * * 100,008

20,168 * * 34,894

Total (avg./day) $1,879,359 (12.63) 957,548 (6.43)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Yellow Perch Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Crappie Bullhead/Catfish No Specific Species Other

* *

Jan.-May

7,239 12,327 * 19,655

Confidence Limits, + $821,153 314,362

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 60.6 11.9 6.2 5.5 4.7 4.2 0.7 5.0 1.2

14.3 21.4 14.3 7.1 14.3 14.3 0.0 14.3 0.0

76.6 8.8 5.0 2.6 2.3 1.2 0.0 3.3 0.2

Mean distance traveled = 37 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

67

47.0 13.9 0.0 18.2 2.8 4.2 5.6 0.0 8.3

3,406 6,065 * 7,119

`

Table 51. Cattaraugus Creek—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 9 Other

132,459 28,030 38,906 13,909 5,153 866 Total 147,905 29,845 39,721 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

58,745 * 65,660

Total (avg./day) $1,142,100 (7.72) 1,377,040 (9.31)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Trout Steelhead Trout Bullhead/Catfish Other

11,965 419 12,115

45.6 41.4 4.4 8.6

Jan.-May

49.4 42.0 1.8 6.8

23,423 * 25,217

34,808 7,768 42,524

Confidence Limits, + $337,003 437,456

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 60.3 21.6 8.9 9.2

Mean distance traveled = 48 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

68

19.3 71.3 0.0 9.4

9,688 3,795 10,396

`

Table 52. Genessee River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 8 9 Other

49,056 14,467 * 75,182 31,167 * * * * Total 143,952 36,549 * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

23,228 23,827 * 48,621

Total (avg./day) $994,256 (6.91) 1,160,540 (8.06)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Trout Lake Trout Bullhead/Catfish Landlocked Atlantic Salmon No Specific Species Other

* * * *

Jan.-May

9,405 11,370 * 14,421

13,125 18,823 * 37,714

Confidence Limits, + $262,879 290,011

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 54.0

74.0

43.2

37.6

11.1 6.1 6.1 4.8 4.3 2.7

2.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 6.0 0.0

21.4 7.5 4.6 1.5 4.5 6.0

12.0 7.5 17.2 10.1 1.3 2.4

2.6 7.7 0.6

0.0 10.0 0.0

0.0 10.1 1.2

9.8 1.3 0.8

Mean distance traveled = 61 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.8 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

69

6,113 9,135 * 12,807

`

Table 53. Canandaigua Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 8 Other

103,799 34,869 * * * * Total 133,966 41,883 * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

* * 73,741

Total (avg./day) $1,440,328 (10.75) 905,226 (6.76)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Lake Trout Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Crappie Walleye Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

* * *

Jan-May

* * 32,803

21,333 * 26,207

Confidence Limits, + $938,829 218,281

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 30.8 21.1 15.4

2.8 27.8 12.5

43.6 16.5 13.4

30.5 25.5 24.8

5.1 4.9 2.8 2.1 11.8 6.0

16.7 19.4 0.0 8.3 12.5 0.0

0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 14.3 8.9

4.4 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 5.8

Mean distance traveled = 36 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

70

8,837 * 9,313

`

Table 54. Delaware River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 3 Other regions Out-of-state

46,558 14,746 17,675 48,778 11,980 15,112 32,925 12,721 * Total 128,344 22,903 40,862 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

25,212 23,816 * 66,445

Total (avg./day) $3,687,358 (28.73) 2,521,404 (19.65)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Shad Walleye No Specific Species Other

7,731 7,231 * 11,952

Jan.-May

12,410 7,712 * 17,494

* * * 21,037

Confidence Limits, + $1,960,419 1,089,996

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 54.6

56.3

52.9

56.4

17.5 10.1 4.3 6.5 7.0

13.0 19.8 4.2 0.0 6.7

19.3 5.4 3.3 12.0 7.1

20.6 6.1 7.8 1.8 7.3

Mean distance traveled = 78 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

71

* * * 8,699

`

Table 55. Beaver Kill—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 3 Other regions Out-of state

* 40,862

* 13,261

* 9,486

* 4,671

* 28,173

* 12,045

2,966 *

1,402 *

22,569 6,316 4,616 114,285 35,963 25,367 * Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

1,752 9,776

14,237 78,910

5,078 34,288

* 10,008

* 4,704

Total

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $4,334,869 (37.93) 2,175,896 (19.04)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Other

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, + $1,400,205 884,395

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 98.0 2.0

100.0 0.0

97.8 2.2

Mean distance traveled = 125 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

72

95.0 5.0

`

Table 56. Seneca River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 7 Other

83,846 23,957 * * * * Total 109,777 30,003 * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

47,505 * 55,598

Total (avg./day) $319,016 (2.91) 448,328 (4.08)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Bullhead/Catfish Walleye Carp Bluegill/Sunfish Yellow Perch Northern Pike Crappie Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) No Specific Species Other

* * *

Jan.-May

20,708 * 21,951

18,207 * 26,203

Confidence Limits, + $149,727 366,602

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 29.7 12.3 7.9 7.5 4.5 4.2 3.8 3.3

26.8 5.7 11.0 15.8 0.0 2.6 5.7 7.9

23.6 14.8 10.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.6 0.0

45.9 13.9 0.0 5.4 9.7 5.6 2.1 5.6

1.3 21.8 3.7

0.0 19.3 5.2

0.0 30.4 4.6

5.6 6.4 0.0

Mean distance traveled = 18 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

73

7,372 * 11,736

`

Table 57. Black River—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 6 Other

92,441 14,455 107,090

Total

33,107 4,548 34,685

Estimated Expenditures

6,215 422 6,555

67,233 11,154 78,452

Total (avg./day) $878,565 (8.20) 666,787 (6.23)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Lake Trout Steelhead Trout Coho/Chinook Salmon Crappie No Specific Species Other

17,035 1,329 18,477

Jan.-May

32,378 4,493 33,904

8,173 1,972 10,161

Confidence Limits, + $401,710 228,457

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 28.8 19.0

40.7 17.1

24.3 21.5

42.1 3.0

18.9 8.0 3.9 1.9 1.4 0.5 12.7 4.9

0.0 1.3 22.8 7.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.9

24.2 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 5.0

12.1 5.3 0.0 5.4 15.1 5.3 7.4 4.3

Mean distance traveled = 66 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

74

3,015 572 3,248

`

Table 58. Honeoye Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 8 Other

83,106 31,577 10,221 * * * Total 106,804 33,695 15,163 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Estimated Expenditures

* * 76,620

Total (avg./day) $1,854,983 (17.37) 1,129,920 (10.58)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Yellow Perch Crappie No Specific Species Other

3,392 * 5,098

Jan.-May

* * 32,407

* * *

Confidence Limits, + $802,895 299,183

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

Percent of Days 45.0 18.7 16.3 4.7 4.3 8.8 2.2

6.7 24.0 38.6 12.7 17.8 0.0 0.2

55.4 14.2 9.8 3.0 2.5 12.3 2.8

Mean distance traveled = 44 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

75

29.6 36.3 27.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.5

* * *

`

Table 59. Silver Lake—Effort, expenditure, and satisfaction summary. Angler Days Total Number

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, +

Number

June-Sept.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Oct-Dec.

Confidence Limits, +

Number

Confidence Limits, +

Region of Residence 9 Other

80,752 22,221

21,871 10,684

24,095 *

6,581 *

42,618 15,124

18,881 4,944

* *

* *

10,254 20,891 Total 102,994 24,485 30,263 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

2,662 9,553 11,046

57,972

19,964

*

*

Type of Fishing Open water Ice fishing

Estimated Expenditures

Total (avg./day) $814,823 (7.91) 833,496 (8.09)

At Location En Route

Total Fished Primarily For Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Crappie Bullhead/Catfish No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May

Confidence Limits, + $273,680 223,563

June-Sept.

Oct.-Dec.

23.1 19.9 14.3

Percent of Days 49.8 7.6 17.6 20.2 3.9 18.7

29.4 23.6 18.0

14.2 11.8 5.0 1.3 9.4 1.0

0.0 12.8 11.0 1.7 0.0 3.2

18.3 4.2 0.8 5.6 0.0 0.1

20.5 13.3 2.9 0.0 16.7 0.1

Mean distance traveled = 41 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

76

SECTION III: EXPENDITURES

New York’s resident and nonresident anglers together spent an estimated $331 million at the fishing site and $202 million en route to the fishing site. More specific information by region of residence can be found in Table 60. For example, $99 million, or 30% of the total at-location expenditures were made by out-of-state anglers. Average daily trip-related expenses ($17.62 atsite plus $10.76 en route) for all anglers was $28.38 -- $22.36 for residents and $90.10 for nonresidents. Per day expenditures by water body type were higher for lakes/ponds than for rivers/streams (Table 61). Two-thirds of the at-location expenditures were made by anglers fishing lakes/ponds in New York. The Great Lakes fishery generated an estimated $98 million in at-location expenditures, compared with $231 million for inland waters (Table 62). Total expenditures at the fishing site were greatest in Regions 6 and 7 (Table 63). With so few licensed anglers fishing freshwater in Region 2, the estimated expenditures were quite small and the confidence limit was very large, making the estimate much less precise than for other regions. Tables 64 through 71 provide estimates of the at-location expenditures for each region by anglers’ region of residence. These tables provide an indication of the level of fishingrelated expenditures coming into a given region. This breakdown was not done for anglers fishing in Region 2 because of the small sample size.

77

Table 60. Fishing related expenditures by region of residence. At Location En Route Region of Residence Number (Confidence Limits +) 1 $11,297,972 $6,421,589 (2,881,520) (1,556,588) 2 9,993,602 6,693,184 (2,447,569) (2,188,053) 3 31,790,396 21,257,649 (4,518,711) (3,181,008) 4 22,043,385 15,170,801 (3,954,198) (2,877,980) 5 18,615,273 12,276,071 (3,753,262) (2,002,082) 6 15,913,839 11,338,328 (2,359,896) (2,080,713) 7 36,348,514 25,030,531 (5,423,543) (2,780,097) 8 40,947,305 28,674,579 (5,579,080) (4,487,112) 9 41,638,211 28,693,891 (6,369,668) (5,563,334) Out-of-state 98,631,941 45,390,166 (10,179,866) (4,767,723) Total 330,638,103 201,945,086 (16,894,576) (10,818,309)

78

Total $17,719,561 (3,275,076) 16,686,787 (3,283,013) 53,048,045 (5,526,080) 37,214,186 (4,890,650) 30,891,344 (4,253,858) 27,252,168 (3,146,185) 61,379,045 (6,094,568) 69,621,884 (7,159,630) 70,332,102 (8,457,148) 144,022,107 (11,241,034) 532,583,189 (20,061,468)

Table 61. Estimated expenditures for anglers fishing different water body types. Total Confidence (avg./day) Limits + Estimated Expenditures Lakes/ponds At Location $197,574,647 $14,365,402 (20.24) En Route 114,822,223 8,738,511 (11.76) Rivers/streams At Location En Route

Unclassifiable At Location En Route

107,229,344 (16.44) 65,922,014 (10.11)

8,304,726

26,513,384 (10.19) 22,119,873 (8.50)

3,454,820

79

5,032,881

2,501,040

Table 62. Estimated expenditures for anglers fishing the Great Lakes and inland waters. Total Confidence (avg./day) Limits + Estimated Expenditures Inland Waters At Location $231,068,975 $12,555,869 (15.15) En Route 150,219,710 8,171,804 (9.85) Great Lakes At Location En Route

98,440,892 (27.63) 51,620,670 (14.49)

80

10,939,389 6,122,254

Table 63. Estimated expenditures by DEC region fished. Region Fished At Location Expenditures 1 $2,483,057 2 342,722 3 21,520,278 4 20,583,037 5 56,252,495 6 65,050,376 7 64,253,218 8 45,907,650 9 41,625,092

81

Confidence Limits + $727,318 593,583 2,364,247 4,487,481 6,223,347 8,428,319 7,508,130 7,018,626 6,850,679

Table 64. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 1 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 1 $1,819,432 $695,366 Other regions 660,508 255,397 Total 2,483,057 727,318 26.6% by non-Region residents.

82

Table 65. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 3 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 1 $2,584,132 $1,183,120 2 3,080,535 941,843 3 11,578,063 1,514,706 Other regions 1,896,389 700,815 Out-of-state 2,400,968 728,949 Total 21,520,278 2,364,247 35.1% by non-Region 3 New York residents, 11.2% by nonresidents of New York.

83

Table 66. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 4 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 1 * * 2 $1,531,328 $777,359 3 * * 4 5,020,245 1,503,855 5 * * 6 263,747 106,958 7 * * Other regions * * Out-of-state 5,273,591 2,419,526 Total 20,583,037 4,487,481 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

48.3% by non-Region 4 New York residents, 25.6% by nonresidents of New York.

84

Table 67. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 5 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 1 $2,890,756 $1,343,452 2 605,537 143,838 3 6,510,745 2,403,437 4 9,967,209 2,645,696 5 12,791,246 3,074,833 6 1,623,551 684,163 7 2,065,724 837,018 8 2,173,383 967,714 9 3,467,462 1,672,393 Out-of-state 13,799,772 2,614,039 Total 56,252,495 6,223,347 52.1% by non-Region 5 New York residents, 24.5% by nonresidents of New York.

85

Table 68. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 6 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 3 $2,602,871 $1,044,269 4 * * 5 * * 6 11,227,535 1,964,056 7 10,584,528 4,132,754 8 8,665,603 2,099,165 9 4,809,917 1,572,081 Other 1,022,422 494,764 Out-of-state 20,479,760 5,746,658 Total 65,050,376 8,428,319 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

48.0% by non-Region 6 New York residents, 31.5% by nonresidents of New York.

86

Table 69. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 7 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 3 $3,880,788 $1,135,653 4 * * 5 * * 6 1,673,499 680,918 7 19,024,523 3,339,950 8 3,691,298 1,762,022 Other 3,237,119 1,299,830 Out-of-state 26,302,785 5,239,910 Total 64,253,218 7,508,130 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

27.6% by non-Region 7 New York residents, 40.9% by nonresidents of New York.

87

Table 70. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 8 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 7 $1,254,546 $555,257 8 23,173,602 4,715,187 9 4,183,837 1,913,489 Other 2,589,168 1,074,922 Out-of-state 13,014,727 4,251,941 Total 45,907,650 7,018,626 17.5% by non-Region 8 New York residents, 28.3% by nonresidents of New York.

88

Table 71. Estimated expenditures at location for anglers fishing Region 9 by region of residence. Region of Residence At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits + 8 $1,587,453 $578,059 9 26,337,183 5,753,189 Other 2,731,259 897,423 Out-of-state 10,828,923 3,293,025 Total 41,625,092 6,850,679 10.4% by non-Region 9 New York residents, 26.0% by nonresidents of New York.

89

LITERATURE CITED Brown, T. L. 1975. The 1973 New York statewide angler study. Cornell University/NYSDEC. 117pp. Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 2009. Survey method comparison and analysis of trends in fishing effort. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 25 pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1990. New York statewide angler survey 1988. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 158 pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1997. New York statewide angler survey 1996, Report 1: Angler effort and expenditures. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 107pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Assessing the relative importance of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler surveys. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5(4):19-29. Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth, and D. L. Kay. 2002. Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environmental Management 29(4):467476. Enck, J. W., and T. L. Brown. 2008. 2007 Statewide deer hunter survey: Opinions about hotbutton issues and trends in characteristics of hunters. HDRU Publ. No. 08-5. Dept. of Nat. Resour., N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 81pp. Kretser, W. A., and L. E. Klatt. 1981. 1976-77 New York angler survey final report. NYSDEC, Survey and Inventory Unit. 214p.

90

APPENDIX A: 20007 Statewide Angler Questionnaire (Questionnaires were identical for all three phases, except for the dates of fishing effort.)

91

APPENDIX B: Additional Methodological Information Sample Selection Details License holders eligible to fish during a Phase were put into one of five groups based on the type of license they purchased (lifetime, annual resident fishing and sportsman, annual nonresident fishing and sportsman, short-term resident, short-term nonresident). The sample was drawn from each group in the same proportion that they existed in the population. Therefore, the sample for each phase should represent the distribution of all license holders eligible to fish during the period by region of residence and license type. The “initial n” column in Appendix Table C-1 shows this distribution.

Additional methodology needed to verify data (i.e. name of water bodies) received from some surveys Question 6 of the survey provides data pertaining to individual fishing trips, and a requirement was that the individual bodies of water listed be clearly identified in order for the accompanying data to be used in major water body analysis. Waters fished that were clearly identified in Question 6 of the survey went straight into a master waters table requiring no additional verification as the County / Town field was adequate for making a clear identification. Each of these was assigned a corresponding unique Fisheries Index Number (FIN), a unique identifier previously established by the Bureau of Fisheries. In several instances, surveys were received listing waters (i.e. in Question 6) that could not be identified due to a variety of reasons including: misspellings, not matching a previously identifying county, the water name not being unique, and having multiple waters with the same name. Consulting with Cornell University, NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries used several approaches to identify these individual waters, and if successful, the data in the accompanying records were included for data analysis. Identifying the FIN, for as many of these instances as possible was desirable for both (a) including as many records as possible (for overall analysis of the survey data) and (b) for obtaining the minimum sample size needed for conducting more detailed analysis on individual water bodies (Tables 29 thru 59). Initially it was believed that a minimum of 30 anglers fishing on the same body of water would be needed to provide for a more detailed analysis for that individual body of water. Some waters without a unique name (more than 1 water with the same name) were able to be clearly identified by reviewing the County/Town field, and assigned a FIN.

103

[While the identification of additional waters became resolved through this process, many were not.] At this juncture the priorities became (a) to focus on opportunities to obtain the minimum number of records needed for the detailed analysis (for individual waters), and (b) to add good additional records for waters that already had the minimum required number of good records (for detailed analysis) to increase the amount of data for such analysis. The unusable records were sorted and queried, in an alphabetical nature, to clump the waters with the same or similar name. This was particularly helpful because it created organized lists which provided a quick overview of the number of thus far unusable records largely organized by water body. These lists, as organized, also revealed waters with a potential for obtaining the minimum number of 30. Any waters having at least 20 good records were identified as potentials for minimum number of 30 (which, during this process, was adjusted to 25). A cursory review of the entire list was conducted as part of identifying potential waters to meet the minimum required number of surveys for individual water data analysis. Four separate approaches were taken in an effort to determine the correct identities of additional waters, and to match to its appropriate FIN. Many records were initially left out because they could not be matched to a FIN due to a problem with the County / Town field. (a) in some cases the angler listed a water body that did not exist in the county/town that the angler listed, (b) in others there were more than one water body with the same name in the same county, and (c) in many instances the county field was left blank and the water could not be identified because the water body name was not unique. (Approach) -Those instances where the angler listed a county or town that did not match the water body name were not useable. Cases where a water body was identified to an adjacent county were used (with a review of maps used to demonstrate the likelihood of being the same water). -For multiple waters with the same name, and where the county/town field was left blank (and for any additional unknowns), a review of surveys already included and contained on the master water table and clearly assigned a FIN were referred to. If 95% or more of these good records were for one principle water, then the records lacking county/town information and the unknowns were assigned to that principle water. [For example in the case of the Salmon River for which there are three waters with this same name (separate counties) approximately 97%, 699 of 721 of the good surveys received were for the larger more prominent water (located in Oswego County). Therefore, all of the Salmon Rivers without county/town information were assigned to the principal water (FIN # ONT- 53).

104

Many records had still been left out because of misspellings (e.g. Oswegatchie River, Sacandaga Reservoir, Willowemoc). Those that were unique enough to be readily identified were matched with a FIN and added to the Master Waters Table. Many records were initially left out because a pseudo “global” name was used for identification, where in fact, no principal water body exists, and there are actually separately defined multiple water bodies. [For example, while there is no Saranac Lake, there are three distinct lakes, each identified with its own FIN (Upper Saranac Lake, Middle Saranac Lake and Lower Saranac Lake). Many entrees just identified the water body as Saranac Lake. These situations were also addressed by looking at the % breakdown of existing records, as described above. This was used for final determination, although as part of this, each of the appropriate Regional Fisheries Managers were consulted for their first hand knowledge to determine if surveys using the global name were very likely to be intended for one of the specific water bodies (in the above example, intended for either Upper, Middle or Lower).

Closing Comments The above process was instrumental in making initially unusable records available for inclusion in the data analysis, once questionable water body identities were rectified. This both provided for including additional records for data analysis, as well as obtaining the minimum number of records needed for the detailed analysis (for individual waters). Additional documentation of the steps taken is retained by the NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries, to serve as a future reference.

Formula for calculating overall confidence intervals 95% Confidence Interval = 1.96 x square root(Phase1variance + Phase2variance + Phase3variance)

105

APPENDIX C: Additional Tables

106

Table C-1. Initial sample, number of respondents, and response rate (not adjusted for undeliverable questionnaires), by survey phase and region of residence/license type. Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 # Response # Response # Response Region of Initial n Respondents Rate Initial n Respondents Rate Initial n Respondents Rate Residence

107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state License Type Annual Resident Fishing Short-term Resident Annual Resident Sportsman Short-term Nonresident Annual Nonresident Fishing Annual Nonresident Sportsman Lifetime

790 605 2,493 1,501 989 1,587 2,774 2,182 2,916 1,163

269 143 934 592 380 630 1,208 921 1,213 533

34.1 23.6 37.5 39.4 38.4 39.7 43.5 42.2 41.6 45.8

605 508 1,668 1,369 1,362 1,425 2,244 2,648 2,338 2,833

164 118 495 472 494 486 835 985 887 1,030

27.1 23.2 29.7 34.5 36.3 34.1 37.2 37.2 37.9 36.4

638 496 1,730 1,553 1,424 1,601 2,505 2,824 2,742 1,487

252 162 736 744 642 755 1,280 1,357 1,330 676

39.5 32.7 42.5 47.9 45.1 47.2 51.1 48.1 48.5 45.5

4,775 86

1,680 18

35.2 20.9

6,464 495

2,067 101

32.0 20.4

2,082 37

1,014 9

48.7 24.3

10,523 203

4,394 65

41.8 32.0

6,769 1,801

2,630 585

38.9 32.5

12,950 621

6,040 210

46.6 33.8

771

386

50.1

921

399

43.3

616

344

55.8

189 453

82 198

43.4 43.7

97 453

40 196

41.2 43.3

242 452

121 196

50.0 43.4

Table C-2. Tests for nonresponse bias. Phase 1

Phase 2

Nonrespondents

Respondents

Respondents

Questions Fish in NYS Jan. 1 2007 through current phase No 48.1 49.0 Yes 51.9 51.0 NS Fish in NYS in 2006 No Yes

31.9 68.1

32.1 67.9

24.6 75.4

33.0 67.0

(X2 = 7.3, df = 1, p = .01)

30.7 69.3

38.2 61.8

(X2 = 5.0, df = 1, p = .03)

34.5 65.5

NS Provided # days fished in Phase No 54.5 Yes 45.5 NS Gender Male 89.0 Female 11.0 NS

Respondents

Nonrespondents

28.7 71.3

42.8 57.2

Percent

34.2 65.8 NS

Fish in NYS in 2005 No Yes

Phase 3

Nonrespondents

33.4 66.6

42.6 57.4

(X2 = 18.9, df = 1, p < .001)

29.9 70.1

(X2 = 12.1, df = 1, p = .001)

31.1 68.9

(X2 = 7.2, df = 1, p = .01)

49.0 51.0

34.3 65.7

35.0 65.0

85.8 14.2

37.0 63.0 NS

62.7 37.3

NS 92.0 8.0

41.3 58.7

58.7 41.3 NS

85.0 15.0

91.2 8.8

NS

92.0 8.0 NS

Mean # Days fished NYS during Phase (for those who fished)

13.3

12.7

7.7

4.7

8.3

NS # Days ice fishing in NYS during Phase (for those who went ice fishing)

8.7

12.8

12.9

(t = 2.8, df = 138, p = .01)

NS # Days fished Lake Ontario during Phase (for those who fished Lake Ontario)

17.3

7.3 NS

7.3 NS

108

12.6 NS

7.8

9.3 NS

APPENDIX D: Waters included in the definition of Great Lakes

Lake Ontario (including the smaller bays of Mexico, Chaumont, Three Mile, Guffins, Black River, and Henderson and Sacketts Harbors) Lake Erie Niagara River Irondequoit Bay Sodus Bay North Pond/Sandy Pond and South Pond (the ones adjacent to Lake Ontario) Braddock Bay Cranberry Pond (the one in Jefferson County) Long Pond (the one in Monroe County) Buck Pond (the one in Monroe County) Port Bay Maxwell Bay Eighteen Mile Creek (the one in Erie County) Eighteen Mile Creek (the one in Niagara County) Johnson Creek (the one in Orleans County) Sandy Creek (the one in Monroe County) Sandy Creek (the one in Jefferson County) Salmon Creek (the one in Monroe County) Salmon River (the one in Oswego County) Oak Orchard Creek (only the portion in Orleans County) Oswego River (only the portion in Oswego County) Black River (only the portion in Jefferson County) Genesee River (only the portion in Monroe County) Cattaraugus Creek (only the portion in Chautauqua or Erie Counties) Although they were not included in the 2007 survey, we note the following tributaries should be included in future surveys. Buffalo River (only the portion in Erie County) Cazenovia Creek (only the portion in Erie County) Delaware Creek Silver Creek (the one in Chautauqua County) Walnut Creek Canadaway Creek Chautauqua Creek Little Salmon River (the one in Oswego County) Stony Creek (the one in Jefferson County) Mill Creek (the one in Jefferson County) Twelve Mile Creek (the one in Niagara County) Sandy Creek and South Sandy Creek (the ones in Jefferson County) Skinner Creek (the one in Jefferson County) Lindsey Creek 109

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 ____________________________________

REPORT 2: ANGLER CHARACTERISTICS, PREFERENCES, SATISFACTION, AND OPINION ON MANAGEMENT TOPICS

June 2009

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Fisheries 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 __________________________________________________

REPORT 2: ANGLER CHARACTERISTICS, PREFERENCES, SATISFACTION, AND OPINION ON MANAGEMENT TOPICS

by Nancy A. Connelly and Tommy L. Brown

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To efficiently manage New York’s freshwater fisheries, comprehensive information is needed periodically on the fishing patterns, preferences, and attitudes of anglers as well as the economic impacts of New York’s fisheries. To gather this information, a statewide angler survey was conducted by mail in three phases over the course of 2007-08 and focused on resident and nonresident fishing experiences in New York during the calendar year 2007. The study had multiple objectives. Those addressed in this report include: 1. Examine demographic characteristics of anglers and their level of participation consistency. 2. Assess angler preferences for species and water bodies. 3. Assess angler satisfaction with the number and size of fish caught, the DEC Bureau of Fisheries performance, and what actions the Bureau might take to increase satisfaction. 4. Assess angler opinion on several management topics: regulation of panfish sale, brown trout stocking options, amenities at boat launch and fishing access sites, and establishment of an Internet-based angler diary program. 5. Characterize anglers by region of residence in terms of their preferences, satisfactions, and views on several management topics. For each survey phase, a random sample of 17,000 was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish during the phase. Of the 17,000 questionnaires mailed out during each phase, between 700 and 1,100 were undeliverable and between 6,000 and 8,000 completed questionnaires were returned. This resulted in adjusted response rates ranging from 38% for phase 2 to 49% for phase 3. Responses from all three phases were weighted and combined for the analysis reported herein (total = 20,775), and reflect the distribution of license types sold over a one year period. Thus, the results are representative of people who hold a license that allowed them to fish in New York State in 2007. Anglers are older than the general population (Fig. ES-1), and the majority are male (86%), whereas the gender of the general population is almost evenly split. These findings are not new or unique to New York.

ii

Comparison of NYS population and anglers by age 30

25

20

% 15

10

5

0 16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Age Groups NYS Population

Anglers

Figure ES-1. Comparison of the NYS 2005 projected population with anglers by age. We estimated from the survey results that over half (55%) of the fishing license holders fished every year for the past five years (we considered these consistent anglers); 28% fished intermittently (in at least one year, but not all five years), and 17% did not fish at all. Respondents who had fished at least once in the past three years (2005-2007) were asked to complete the questions reported in the remainder of this report on preferences, satisfaction, and management topics. This sample represents an estimated 834,483 anglers. Of those, 68% were considered consistent anglers, using the definition above; the remainder were called intermittent anglers. Black bass was the favorite species of one-third of responding anglers. Trout, walleye, and yellow perch were each among the top five favorite species for about half of the anglers. Most anglers (about 625,000 in total) would like to be able to fish inland lakes for warmwater species in New York. The next most popular water body type was inland trout streams, preferred by half of the anglers. Angler preferences were not limited to one water body type. On average, anglers checked 3.4 water body types from the 13 listed in the questionnaire as favorite types. To look at angler preferences in more detail, we used cluster analysis to group anglers based on their preferences for fishing locations. We found five groups of anglers who had

iii

similar preferences within their group, but different preferences from other groups. We named each group, and the most distinguishing characteristics of each group are discussed below. 1. The largest of the five groups (38.9%) was labeled “new experiences” because the most important factor to this group was going to new places, and getting away from the usual places. 2. The second group (20.1%) sought wild fish and unspoiled places. We labeled them “wild and unspoiled.” They wanted to fish for wild (not stocked) fish in uncrowded areas. 3. The third group (20.2%) was named “home bodies” because they wanted to fish close to home in waters where they had success catching fish in the past. 4. The fourth group (12.2%) was named “catch and access” because they wanted more so than other angler groups to have good access and be able to catch lots of fish. 5. The fifth group (8.6%) contained the smallest number of anglers. They said all the factors were important to them. Of particular importance was fishing a water that did not have a contaminant advisory, which was an item in the harvesting fish factor, and where they had the ability to catch many and large fish. Thus, we named this group “clean catch.” Results from this analysis can be used by managers in a variety of ways. For example, knowing that almost 40% of anglers are looking for new experiences could lead to educational programs aimed at introducing anglers to the variety of fishing opportunities available in New York. Or it could lead to a desire for future research to better pinpoint the type of new experiences anglers are looking for. Approximately half of the anglers were satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips during the time period for which they were surveyed. One-quarter to one-third were neutral regarding their satisfaction, with the remainder (22-27%) being moderately or very dissatisfied. Average satisfaction levels did not vary during the year. Almost half of the anglers (49%) were satisfied with the Bureau’s efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. Over half of the anglers (56%) were satisfied with the quality of the information that the DEC Bureau of Fisheries provides. Very few anglers (9%) were moderately or very dissatisfied. Anglers were asked what DEC Bureau of Fisheries might do to increase anglers’ enjoyment of their fishing trips. From the list of possible actions provided on the questionnaire, most popular were to increase the number of fishing access sites, improve facilities at existing sites, and expand opportunities to catch larger fish and wild trout. Anglers ranked the top five amenities that they would like to see at boat launches and fishing access sites. At the top of the list were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities (81%), portable toilets (86%), and trash receptacles (92%). Fish cleaning stations, used fishing line receptacles, and information kiosks were next, with over 50% of anglers ranking them among the top five needed amenities. New York is one of a few states that allows the sale of panfish caught by anglers. While over half of the license holders who had fished in the past three years (i.e., those who were asked

iv

the questions on the sale of panfish) indicated that they would fish for panfish in 2007, very few indicated that they would sell panfish in 2007. We estimated the number of people selling panfish at just under 5,000. A plurality of anglers (48%) had no opinion on the sale of panfish. Of those who had an opinion, most (approximately 330,000) thought the sale should be banned. We estimated that 100,000 anglers thought the sale should be allowed to continue. The DEC Bureau of Fisheries asked anglers their opinion regarding the current stocking mix of yearling and two-year old brown trout. Three-quarters of the license buyers who fished in the past three years had a brown trout stocking preference. The majority wanted to see the current mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained. Of the remainder, a slightly larger percentage wanted more two year old trout stocked compared to having only one year old trout stocked. Those who fished for trout or listed it among their top five favorite species to fish for were more likely to have an opinion about stocking, and more likely to prefer the current mix or more two year old brown trout.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Shaun Keeler and Steve Hurst of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Bureau of Fisheries, were our primary contacts throughout the study and headed up the Bureau Angler Survey Team. They provided invaluable help and support for the project. We also would like to thank the other members of the Bureau Angler Survey Team (Melissa Cohen, Steve LaPan, Bill Culligan, Dan Bishop, Phil Hulbert, and Bill Schoch) for their efforts in questionnaire design and analysis planning. NYSDEC consultant, Scott Houde, deserves recognition for the many hours he spent on sample selection. NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries staff member, Casey Festa, is recognized for the many hours spent coding water bodies and reviewing data for the report. We thank Human Dimensions Research Unit staff member, Karlene Smith, who assisted with sample selection and mailings. We also thank Margie Peech for typing the many tables in this report. The Survey Research Institute at Cornell University implemented the surveys, conducted the nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, and scanned the completed questionnaires. This study was funded by the NYSDEC, Bureau of Fisheries using Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration funds under contract C00278.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Report Organization....................................................................................................................1 SECTION I: METHODS AND INITIAL RESULTS .....................................................................1 Questionnaire Design..................................................................................................................1 Sample Selection.........................................................................................................................2 Mail Survey Implementation ......................................................................................................2 Nonrespondent Telephone Follow-up.........................................................................................2 Analysis and Data Weighting .....................................................................................................2 Mail Survey Response ................................................................................................................3 SECTION II: ANGLER DEMOGRAPHICS AND CONSISTENCY............................................3 SECTION III: ANGLER PREFERENCES FOR SPECIES AND WATER BODIES ...................5 Species Preferences.....................................................................................................................5 Water Body Preferences ...........................................................................................................10 Preferences for Different Types of Fishing Opportunities .......................................................15 SECTION IV: ANGLER SATISFACTION..................................................................................19 Satisfaction with the Number and Size of Fish Caught ............................................................19 Angler Satisfaction with DEC Bureau of Fisheries Efforts ......................................................20 Suggestions for Improving Angler Satisfaction........................................................................26 SECTION V: ANGLER OPINIONS ON SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES........................30 Sale of Panfish ..........................................................................................................................30 Brown Trout Stocking Options.................................................................................................32 Angler Preferences for Amenities at Boat Launching and Fishing Access Sites .....................34 Angler Interest in an Internet-based Angler Diary Program.....................................................34 SECTION VI: CHARACTERIZATION OF ANGLERS BY REGION OF RESIDENCE..........36 Region 1 ....................................................................................................................................36 Region 2 ....................................................................................................................................37 Region 3 ....................................................................................................................................38 Region 4 ....................................................................................................................................39 Region 5 ....................................................................................................................................40 Region 6 ....................................................................................................................................41 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Region 7 ....................................................................................................................................42 Region 8 ....................................................................................................................................43 Region 9 ....................................................................................................................................44 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................45 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire .......................................................................................................46 APPENDIX B: Additional Tables .................................................................................................58

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

14

15

16 17 18 19

Page 2007 statewide angler survey response rates……………………………………… Comparison of NYS population with age and gender of survey respondents, and among respondents those who indicated they fished at least one day during the time period about which they were surveyed……………………………………. Past fishing activity of fishing license holders, statewide and by DEC region of residence…………………………………………………………………………... Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State……………………... Anglers who fished at least one day for their favorite species during the time period they were surveyed ……………………………………………………….. Anglers’ favorite species to fish for in New York (grouped by type), overall and by region of residence and participation consistency……………………………. Water body preferences of fishing license holders who have fished in New York State in past three years…………………………………………………………... Importance of items to anglers’ decisions about where to fish, grouped by location preference factors………………………………………………………… Mean factor scores and the percent of anglers for angler types generated by cluster analysis…..………………………………………………………………… Anglers’ favorite species to fish for (grouped by species type), overall and by angler types generated by cluster analysis………………………………………… Angler preferences for different types of water bodies, overall and by angler types generated by cluster analysis……………………………………………….. Angler preference for actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries might take to increase enjoyment of angler fishing trips, by angler types generated by cluster analysis………….………………………………………………………………… Angler satisfaction with the number and size of fish caught on their fishing trips during each survey time period and the respondent average for all time periods…………………………………………………………………..………… Angler satisfaction with DEC Bureau of Fisheries efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats, overall and by region of residence, participation consistency, gender, age, and type of license purchased…………… Angler satisfaction with the quality of the information that the DEC Bureau of Fisheries provides, overall and by region of residence, participation consistency, gender, age, and type of license purchased……………………………..………… Angler preference for actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries might take to increase enjoyment of angler fishing trips………………………………………..………… Anglers’ opinion on the sale of panfish and their use of the panfish resource…………………………………………………………………………… Anglers’ opinion on the sale of panfish by their use of the panfish resource…………………………………………………………………………… Anglers’ preference for the brown trout stocking program, overall and if they fished for trout or listed it as one of their top 5 favorite species to fish for………………………………………………………….………………………

ix

3

4 6 8 11 12 13 16 18 18 20

21

22

24

27 29 31 32

33

20 21

Anglers’ top five preferences for amenities at DEC boat launches and fishing access sites in New York State………………………………………………….… Angler access to the Internet and interest in an internet-based angler diary program, overall and by region of residence and age……...………………………

x

35 35

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map showing DEC Regions in New York State……………………………… 7 Figure 2. Anglers’ favorite species to fish for in New York State…………………………9 Figure 3. Water body preferences of New York anglers…………………………………..14 Figure 4. Angler satisfaction with the number and size of fish caught on their fishing trips in 2007…………………………………………………………………….. 23

xi

INTRODUCTION To efficiently manage New York’s freshwater fisheries, comprehensive information is needed periodically on the fishing patterns, preferences, and attitudes of anglers as well as the economic impacts of New York’s fisheries. Such information is most effectively obtained from a statewide mail survey. New York has conducted four such surveys, in 1973 (Brown 1975), in 1976-77 (Kretser and Klatt 1981), in 1988 (Connelly et al. 1990), and in 1996 (Connelly et al. 1997). This is the second in a series of four reports that will document the results of a fifth statewide angler survey. The survey was conducted in three phases over the course of 2007-08 and focused on resident and nonresident fishing experiences in New York during the calendar year 2007. The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) at Cornell University conducted the study for the Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. The study had multiple objectives. Those addressed in this report include the following: 1. Examine demographic characteristics of anglers and their level of participation consistency. 2. Assess angler preferences for species and water bodies. 3. Assess angler satisfaction with the number and size of fish caught, the DEC Bureau of Fisheries performance, and what actions the Bureau might take to increase satisfaction. 4. Assess angler opinion on several management topics: regulation of panfish sale, brown trout stocking options, amenities at boat launch and fishing access sites, and establishment of an Internet-based angler diary program. 5. Characterize anglers by region of residence in terms of their preferences, satisfactions, and views on several management topics. Report Organization The remainder of the report is divided into six sections. The first deals with methods used to collect data and the results of that effort (e.g., response rates). The remaining sections each deal with one objective listed above. Extensive appendix tables are used to provide more detailed information on comparisons discussed in each section.

SECTION I: METHODS AND INITIAL RESULTS Questionnaire Design The Bureau of Fisheries Angler Survey Team met numerous times to go over questions from past surveys and develop new ones to address issues of current interest and management needs. Core questions on fishing effort and expenditures were retained from past surveys to allow for trends comparisons, and are reported on primarily in Report 1 (Connelly and Brown 2009). New questions on angler satisfaction, preferences,

1

and opinions on management issues were developed and are discussed in this report. Appendix A shows the exact content and wording of the questionnaire. Sample Selection Dissimilar to previous statewide angler surveys, which were conducted using a single annual mailing, the 2007 survey was implemented at three different times during the calendar year. By using a three-wave approach, we hoped to reduce the amount of recall bias associated with angler trip recollection. For each phase, a random sample of 17,000 was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish during the phase. Lifetime licenses holders aged 16 or older at the time the survey was implemented were included in the random drawing. Other license types that permitted fishing included annual resident fishing and sportsman, annual nonresident fishing and sportsman, and short-term (1-day, 7-day) resident and nonresident fishing licenses. Mail Survey Implementation The mail survey for each phase was implemented as soon as possible after the phase period ended. The first phase covered the period from Jan. 1 to May 31, 2007. The surveys were sent out on May 31, 2007 with up to three follow-up mailings sent to nonrespondents over the course of the following month. Phase 2 covered the period from June 1 to Sept., 30, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Oct. 18, 2007. Phase 3 covered the period from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Jan. 7, 2008. Nonrespondent Telephone Follow-up A telephone follow-up to 200 nonrespondents was implemented after each phase, for a total of 600 nonrespondent interviews. Questions were asked on fishing effort and satisfaction to provide an estimate of the degree to which nonrespondents differed from respondents. Analysis and Data Weighting Returned mail questionnaires were scanned. The data were entered into SPSS (a statistical analysis package for the social sciences). Generally questions analyzed in this report are not associated with a specific timeframe, thus, responses from all three survey phases can be combined. However, in each phase only license holders eligible to fish during that phase were sampled, resulting in a combined sample with more sportsmans’ license holders than fishing license holders, as compared to the annual number of licenses sold. Therefore, weighting of the combined data file was needed to accurately represent the views of anglers who purchased a license in 2007. This was accomplished by giving more weight to “fishing only” license holders and less weight to sportsman license holders. Also there was a difference in response rate by license type, with short-term license holders responding at

2

a lower rate than other types of license holders (Appendix Table B-1). This was adjusted for in the weighting as well. The final combined sample reflected the distribution of license types sold over a one year period, and thus, the results are representative of people who hold a license that allowed them to fish in New York State in 2007. Nonrespondents who were contacted by telephone were considered to be representative of all nonrespondents. Checks of license type partially confirmed this assumption. Comparisons indicated that respondents were less satisfied than nonrespondents with the number and size of fish caught, and DEC Bureau of Fisheries performance (Appendix Table B-2). These differences may be due in part to the reluctance of some anglers to tell phone interviewers that they were dissatisfied. We did not adjust the results to reflect the difference between respondents and nonrespondents, preferring instead to focus on respondents who were more negative as a baseline/benchmark for gauging improvements desired by DEC Bureau of Fisheries. Mail Survey Response Of the 17,000 questionnaires mailed out during each phase, between 700 and 1,100 were undeliverable and between 6,000 and 8,000 completed questionnaires were returned (Table 1). This resulted in adjusted response rates ranging from 38% for phase 2 to 49% for phase 3. Table 1. 2007 statewide angler survey response rates. Phase 1 Phase 2 (Jan.-May) (June-Sept.) Initial sample size 17,000 17,000 Undeliverable 800 1,103 Undeliverable rate 4.7% 6.5% Responses 6,823 6,018 Response rate adjusted for undeliverables 42.1% 37.9%

Phase 3 (Oct.-Dec.) 17,000 751 4.4% 7,934 48.8%

SECTION II: ANGLER DEMOGRAPHICS AND CONSISTENCY Anglers are older than the general population. While this finding is by no means new or unique to New York, the differences shown in Table 2 are quite striking. The proportion of anglers in the youngest two age brackets (14%) is half that of the NYS population in the same age brackets (34%). A few caveats about the numbers in Table 2: 1) anglers were defined here as those who fished at least one day during the time period for which they were surveyed. Some survey respondents who did not fit this definition of angler could still be considered anglers if they fished in another time period than the one they were sampled for, 2) people who respond to mail surveys tend to be a little older than the general population, and 3) survey respondents are not all residents of NYS. Still

3

Table 2. Comparison of NYS population with age and gender of survey respondents, and among respondents those who indicated they fished at least one day during the time period about which they were surveyed.

Age

NYS 2005 Projected Population*

Survey Respondents

16.1 17.8 20.1 18.4 13.3 14.3

Percent 5.0 7.3 15.3 23.4 23.3 25.7

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Anglers (i.e., fished at least once during time period surveyed)

5.6 8.4 17.8 25.5 24.9 17.8

Gender Male 48.4 86.1 85.6 Female 51.6 13.9 14.4 *Source: http://pad.human.cornell.edu/che/BLCC/pad/data/projections.cfm

Comparison of NYS population and anglers by age 30

25

20

% 15

10

5

0 16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

Age Groups NYS Population

4

Anglers

55-64

65+

given these caveats, anglers fishing in New York are clearly older than the population as a whole. The majority of survey respondents and anglers are male, whereas the gender of the general population is almost evenly split (Table 2). Again, this finding is not new or unique to New York. Because the definition of an “angler” changed between this study and the previous statewide angler survey (Connelly et al. 1997), exact comparisons are not possible. However, the current study shows an even older angler population than previously reported, and perhaps a slight increase in the proportion of anglers who are women. Using data provided by the DEC Bureau of Fisheries on license sales in New York in 2007, we estimated that 1,031,500 people possessed a short-term, annual, resident, nonresident, or lifetime license that gave them the privilege of fishing in New York State in 2007. Of those people, we estimated from the survey results that over half (55%) fished every year for the past five years; 28% fished intermittently (in at least one year, but not all five years), and 17% did not fish at all. The proportions were similar between residents of Regions 3 through 9, but fewer people who had a license actually fished from Regions 1 and 2 (Table 3). (See Figure 1 for a map of DEC Regions.) Out-of-state anglers were more likely to be intermittent anglers in New York. If we define consistent anglers as those who fish every year of the last five years, then over half a million people are consistent New York State anglers. Respondents who had fished at least once in the past three years (2005-2007) were asked to complete the questions reported in the remainder of this report on preferences, satisfaction, and management topics. These respondents represent an estimated 834,483 anglers. Of those, 68% were considered consistent anglers, using the definition above; the remainder were called intermittent anglers. While out-of-state anglers were considered more intermittent in their participation than anglers in other regions over the past five years, they were more likely to have fished in the past three years (Table 3). This probably can be attributed to out-of-state anglers who had to purchase a more expensive nonresident license in anticipation of a trip to New York State in 2007, being more likely to fish in 2007 than resident anglers.

SECTION III: ANGLER PREFERENCES FOR SPECIES AND WATER BODIES Species Preferences Anglers were asked to rank their five favorite species to fish for in New York State, and over three-quarters chose black bass as one of their top five (Table 4, Fig. 2). Black bass was also the favorite species of one-third of responding anglers, followed by trout, walleye, and yellow perch, which were each among the top five for about half of the anglers. Preferences differed by DEC region of residence (detailed in Appendix Tables B3 - B12).

5

Table 3. Past fishing activity of fishing license holders, statewide and by DEC region of residence. Did not fish in past 5 years

Statewide Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Out-of-state

17.2 (177,418) 28.3 (9,341) 26.1 (6,192) 19.0 (20,186) 20.0 (16,298) 17.3 (11,956) 18.5 (15,839) 17.2 (26,613) 19.7 (29,871) 18.1 (28,752) 7.5 (12,455)

Fished intermittently (at least 1 year, but not all 5 years)

Fished every year

Fished in 2007 or 2006 or 2005

% (and estimated number) of license holders 27.9 54.9 (287,788) (566,294) 25.0 46.7 (8,252) (15,415) 30.7 43.2 (7,283) (10,249) 23.9 57.1 (25,392) (60,666) 23.8 56.2 (19,394) (45,796) 21.9 60.8 (15,135) (42,019) 23.4 58.1 (20,034) (49,742) 23.6 59.2 (36,515) (91,597) 22.0 58.3 (33,359) (88,401) 23.5 58.4 (37,330) (92,769) 50.8 41.7 (84,364) (69,252)

80.9 (834,483) 68.9 (22,742) 72.6 (17,224) 78.5 (83,402) 77.8 (63,398) 81.0 (55,980) 79.4 (67,978) 80.8 (125,018) 78.3 (118,727) 79.6 (126,445) 91.8 (152,454)

Fishing participation over the past 5 years by fishing license holders statewide

Fished every year Fished intermittently Did not fish

6

Figure 1. Map showing DEC Regions in New York State.

7

Table 4. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State.

Favorite species Black Bass Trout Walleye Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Yellow Perch Northern Pike Lake Trout Bullhead/Catfish Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Crappie/Calico Bass Striped Bass Sunfish Muskie Carp Pickerel Tiger Muskellunge Shad No Specific Type

#1

#2

32.3 22.6 11.2

17.7 12.4 10.3

5.5 4.3 3.9 3.4 3.1 1.8

4.3 6.3 9.0 8.8 6.6 3.4

1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.4

2.8 3.8 2.4 2.8 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.4

#4

#5

Among top 5

8.1 8.0 8.8

6.0 5.7 7.0

76.1 58.4 46.7

4.0 4.1 10.9 8.4 7.0 4.7

3.2 3.7 11.0 8.2 6.5 5.3

3.0 2.6 9.8 7.3 5.4 6.4

20.0 21.0 44.6 36.1 28.6 21.6

2.7 5.0 3.0 4.9 1.5 0.7 2.7 0.9 0.3 0.6

2.9 6.2 2.9 6.4 2.0 1.1 2.5 1.2 0.3 0.7

2.4 5.2 2.6 8.1 2.6 1.8 2.8 1.2 0.6 5.5

12.4 21.8 12.3 23.5 7.8 4.5 9.7 4.1 1.5 8.6

#3 Percent 12.0 9.7 9.4

8

ac k ba ss

Figure 2. Anglers’ favorite species to fish for in New York State. No

fic

ty pe

Sh ad

us kie

ck er el

Ca rp

us kie

ge rm

sp ec i

Ti

Pi

M

Tr ou t W al le ye oo k sa lm on St ee lh ea Ye d llo w pe rc No h rth er n pi ke La ke La Bu tro nd llh ut lo ea ck d/ ed C at At fis la nt h Cr ic sa ap lm pi e/ on C al ico ba St ss r ip ed ba ss Su nf ish Co ho /C hi n

Bl

9

Favorite species (%) 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Many anglers had the opportunity to fish for their favorite species during the time period for which they were surveyed (Table 5). Since the time period during which anglers were asked to report their fishing participation might not have encompassed their primary fishing season, it is quite likely that they may have had the opportunity to fish for their favorite species at other times in 2007. For example, anglers who listed striped bass as their favorite species but were surveyed during Jan.-May, when the season was partially closed, might not have fished for their favorite species during the period they were surveyed. However, they may have had an opportunity to fish for striped bass at another time during 2007. Therefore, the percentages in Table 5 are likely lower than if anglers were asked to report their fishing participation over a one year period. Warmwater gamefish (i.e., black bass, walleye, northern pike, muskie, and tiger muskie) was the favorite species group to fish for by almost 50% of all anglers (Table 6). Over one-third of anglers reported a coldwater gamefish (i.e., trout and salmon) as their favorite. Few anglers listed panfish (i.e., yellow perch, bluegill/sunfish, bullheads/catfish, and crappie/calico bass), marine/anadromous (i.e., shad and striped bass), or carp as their favorite species to fish for. Residents of Regions 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were more likely to favor warmwater gamefish, whereas coldwater gamefish were more popular than average among Region 2, 3, 4, 5, and out-of-state anglers. As expected, marine/anadromous species were more popular among anglers who lived closest to marine waters. Water Body Preferences Most anglers (about 625,000 in total) would like to be able to fish inland lakes for warmwater species in New York (Table 7, Fig. 3). The next most popular water body type was inland trout streams, preferred by half of the anglers. Angler preferences were not limited to one water body type. On average, anglers checked 3.4 water body types listed in Table 7; only 17% checked just one water body type. Other water body types preferred by over one-quarter of anglers were inland lakes for trout or salmon, the open water of Lake Ontario, and inland streams for warmwater species. Preferences differed based on where anglers live. These results are detailed in Appendix Table B-13. Table B-14 shows that consistent anglers prefer more water body types than intermittent anglers. For those water body preferences that could be checked, almost all anglers who fished a water body listed it as a preferred location. For example, 96% of those who fished the St. Lawrence River in 2007 indicated it was a type of water that they preferred to fish in New York State. The same was true for anglers fishing the Niagara River (97%), Lake Erie (91%), and to a slightly lesser extent Lake Ontario (84%). Thus, it appears that anglers are fishing the waters they prefer to fish.

10

Table 5. Anglers who fished at least one day for their favorite species during the time period they were surveyed. Species

Percent who fished at least one day for favorite species during survey time period

Black bass Trout Walleye Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Yellow Perch Northern Pike Lake Trout Bullhead/Catfish Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Crappie/Calico Bass Striped Bass Sunfish Muskie Carp Pickerel Tiger Muskellunge Shad

65.4 66.7 62.9 68.5 73.1 65.3 64.9 58.5 45.8 61.6 64.5 43.8 57.2 47.6 51.4 68.0 13.0 64.3

11

Table 6. Anglers’ favorite species to fish for in New York (grouped by type), overall and by region of residence and participation consistency. Favorite species to fish for in New York Warmwater Gamefish

Coldwater Gamefish

Panfish

Marine/ Anadromous

Percent 8.9 1.5

Overall

49.4

38.3

Region of Residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state

55.2 42.4 44.0 47.4 42.4 56.6 56.7 55.0 55.4 37.0

32.9 42.0 43.1 40.8 44.4 32.2 29.4 26.8 30.6 58.2

4.0 4.7 5.2 5.5 10.7 10.2 11.4 15.5 11.2 3.0

Participation consistency Consistent Intermittent

51.1 45.7

37.3 40.5

9.1 8.4

Carp

0.4

1.5

3.3 6.2 5.8 3.8 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8

1.3 4.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1

3.3 0.7 1.4 2.1 1.7 0.7 1.3 1.9 1.9 0.9

1.3 2.1

0.3 0.5

0.9 2.8

Favorite species to fish for in New York by species group 2% 0% 2% 9%

49%

38%

12

No Specific Type

Warmwater gamefish Coldwater gamefish Panfish Marine/anadromous Carp No specific type

Table 7. Water body preferences of fishing license holders who have fished in New York State in past three years. % (and estimated number) of license holders who fished in Water Body Preferences past 3 years Inland lakes for warm water species 74.9 (625,028) Inland trout streams 50.3 (419,745) Inland lakes for trout or salmon 39.5 (329,621) Lake Ontario—open water 25.2 (210,290) Inland streams for warm water species 25.0 (208,621) Large warm water rivers 23.4 (195,269) Lake Ontario—tributaries for lake run trout and salmon 22.1 (184,421) Back country Adirondack ponds 21.0 (175,241) Inland streams for lake run trout and salmon 19.7 (164,393) St. Lawrence River 16.6 (138,524) Lake Erie—open water 11.5 (95,966) Niagara River 9.1 (75,938) Lake Erie—tributaries for lake run trout and salmon 8.3 (69,262)

13

-w ar m w

at er sp In ec l an In ie la d s nd tro la ut ke st s re fo am rt s ro ut or In la sa nd lm st on re La am ke s -w O nt ar ar m io w at er La sp rg e ec wa ie s rm w at er La riv ke er In O s la n nd ta rio st re -t Ad am rib i s. s ro -l nd ak ac e k ru po n nd tro s ut an d sa St lm .L on aw re nc e Ri ve r La ke Er ie Ni ag ar a R La ive ke r Er ie -t r ib s.

la ke s

14 In la nd

# Anglers

700000

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0

Figure 3. Water body preferences of New York anglers.

Preferences for Different Types of Fishing Opportunities Anglers were asked how important 18 different items were to their decision about where to fish in New York State. The items were grouped into six factors using factor analysis, which explained 58% of the variance in the data and had a reliability score of alpha=0.74. Both values are sufficiently high for us to accept the factors as adequately describing the reasons for fishing location preferences. The first factor we named “catching fish” (Table 8). Many anglers based their decision on where to fish on the species of fish found in a water body and their past experience catching fish in the water body. Many anglers also wanted a “pleasant, convenient location” in which to fish, the second factor. This factor contained items such as good access, uncrowded location, and close to home/camp. The third factor, which also was important to many anglers, was fishing in a new location. Three other factors were important to some people, but for others they were not important at all. These factors included fishing in a natural location with wild fish, being able to harvest the fish, and fishing in a vacation spot or tournament location. To what extent can these data be examined to compare how well the suite of fishing opportunities currently provided in New York matches angler preferences? This is not as simple as it may initially appear because most anglers want a suite of items or opportunities as opposed to just one leading preference. To look at angler preferences in more detail, we used cluster analysis to group anglers based on their preferences for fishing locations. We did this using the waverage clustering method and found five groups of anglers who had similar preferences within their group but different preferences from other groups. The most distinguishing characteristics of each group are discussed below and summarized in Table 9. 1. The largest of the five groups (38.9%) was labeled “new experiences” because the most important factor to this group was going to new places, and getting away from the usual places. 2. The second group (20.1%) sought wild fish and unspoiled places. We labeled them “wild and unspoiled.” They wanted to fish for wild (not stocked) fish in uncrowded areas. 3. The third group (20.2%) was named “home bodies” because they wanted to fish close to home in waters where they had success catching fish in the past. 4. The fourth group (12.2%) was named “catch and access” because they wanted more so than other angler groups to have good access and be able to catch lots of fish. 5. The fifth group (8.6%) contained the smallest number of anglers. They said all the factors were important to them. Of particular importance was fishing a water that did not have a contaminant advisory, which was an item in the harvesting fish factor, and where they had the ability to catch many and large fish. Thus, we named this group “clean catch.” Returning to the question of the extent to which angler preferences matched preferred location characteristics, most anglers who fished in New York State listed a

15

Table 8. Importance of items to anglers’ decisions about where to fish, grouped by location preference factors. Not Important

Mean* Factor/Item Catching Fish The water contains the species for which you desire to fish 3.90 You have caught lots of fish in that body of water in the past 3.12 You have caught relatively large fish in that body of water in the past 2.84 The water is known for its trophy fish 2.17 Pleasant, Convenient Location The water has good access 3.43 The water is not crowded with other anglers 3.43 The water is in an aesthetically pleasing location 2.98 Close to home/camp 2.93 Harvesting Fish The water does not have a contaminant advisory 3.64 The water is stocked with fish 2.59

Somewhat Important

Important

Very Important

Extremely Important

Percent

3.5

5.6

23.8

31.5

35.6

8.4

19.4

36.0

24.1

12.1

13.7

25.0

33.3

19.4

8.6

39.5

25.1

20.0

9.3

6.1

5.9

11.9

34.1

29.9

18.2

5.0

15.8

30.3

29.3

19.6

12.9

19.9

34.1

22.5

10.6

14.3

25.2

27.1

19.7

13.7

10.7

10.5

20.2

21.0

37.6

26.5

23.2

25.5

14.0

10.8

16

Table 8. (cont.) Not Important

Somewhat Important

Important

Very Important

Extremely Important

Mean* Percent Factor/Item Harvesting Fish You hear that fishing has been good lately on a particular body of water 2.55 19.4 28.6 34.4 13.0 Regulations for the water allow you to keep more fish 1.77 59.3 17.5 13.6 6.3 Natural/Wild Fish The water contains wild fish 3.00 16.0 16.7 32.1 21.3 The water has catch and release/artificial lures regulations in place 1.98 50.5 20.0 16.1 7.6 Novelty/New Places You usually fish this water and don’t change waters often 2.47 28.4 23.6 27.9 13.1 You want to fish different waters 2.45 23.8 28.7 30.6 12.2 Vacation/Tournament Location The water is a vacation destination 2.02 50.7 17.8 16.6 8.2 You wish to participate in a fishing tournament 1.49 76.0 10.0 7.0 3.5 *Mean calculated on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = not important and 5 = extremely important.

17

4.6

3.3

13.9

5.8

7.0 4.7

6.7

3.5

Table 9. Mean factor scores and the percent of anglers for angler types generated by cluster analysis. New Experiences

Wild & Unspoiled

Home Bodies

Catch & Access

Clean Catch

3.16b 3.19b 2.65b 2.45b 2.93b 2.80c

3.94c 3.83d 3.68d 3.51d 3.00b 3.00d

Means*

Factors Catching fish Pleasant, convenient location Harvesting fish Natural/wild fish Novelty/new places Vacation/tournament location

a

2.63 2.83a 2.22a 1.84a 3.28c 1.49b

b

3.10 3.38c 2.91c 3.44c 3.36d 1.48b

3.17b 3.42c 2.70b 2.40b 2.11a 1.37a

% of anglers 38.9 20.1 20.2 12.2 8.6 *Mean calculated on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = not important and 5 = extremely important. a,b,c,d Angler types with different letters have a significantly different mean factor score from each other, at P = 0.05 using Scheffe’s test.

warmwater species such as bass as their favorite species to fish for (Table 10). This was true for all the clusters of anglers, except for the wild and unspoiled group, who were more likely than the other groups to prefer to fish for a coldwater species (trout or salmon). Thus, species preference appears largely consistent with anglers’ preferences for where they want to fish.

Table 10. Anglers’ favorite species to fish for (grouped by species type), overall and by angler types generated by cluster analysis. Angler Type Overall

Favorite species (grouped) Warm water Cold water Marine/anadromous No specific type

58.7 38.4 1.5 1.4

New Experiences

60.7 36.1 1.4 1.8

18

Wild & Unspoiled

Home Bodies

Percent 47.9 60.5 50.0 36.4 1.5 1.3 0.6 1.8

Catch & Access

Clean Catch

67.1 29.4 1.9 1.6

57.6 39.6 2.1 0.7

We also examined whether preferences for specific types of water bodies available in New York seemed to match the preferred location characteristics of anglers. Again, we found consistency in this regard (Table 11). For example, the wild and unspoiled angler group was more likely than other groups to prefer to fish inland trout streams. Similarly the St. Lawrence River has many good public and private access sites and good warmwater fisheries, making it more attractive to the “catch and access” group compared to other groups. Anglers were asked what DEC Bureau of Fisheries could do to increase the enjoyment of their fishing trips, and again we found consistency between angler types and expressed desires (Table 12). For example, anglers in the catch and access group were more likely to choose the actions that would improve access and improve opportunities to catch larger fish than other possible actions DEC might take. Over half of the wild and unspoiled group wanted DEC to expand wild trout fishing opportunities. Almost two-thirds of the clean catch group wanted DEC to expand fishing opportunities for larger fish. Results from this analysis can be used by managers in a variety of ways. For example, knowing that 40% of anglers are looking for new experiences could lead to educational programs aimed at introducing anglers to the variety of fishing opportunities available in New York. Or it could lead to a desire for future research to better pinpoint the type of new experiences anglers are looking for. Angler preferences vary somewhat by region, which has implications across the board—for attempting to better address those preferences, for providing information on existing opportunities, and for marketing.

SECTION IV: ANGLER SATISFACTION

Satisfaction with the Number and Size of Fish Caught Approximately half of the anglers were satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips during the time period for which they were surveyed (Table 13, Fig. 4). One-quarter to one-third were neutral regarding their satisfaction, with the remainder being moderately or very dissatisfied. Average satisfaction levels did not vary during the year. Anglers coming from out-of-state tended to be more satisfied with the number and size of fish caught than in-state anglers (Appendix Table B-15). Residents of Region 4 were the least satisfied with the number of fish caught and residents of Region 2 were the least satisfied with the size of fish caught.

19

Angler Satisfaction with DEC Bureau of Fisheries Efforts Almost half of the anglers were satisfied with the Bureau’s efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats (Table 14). Residents of Regions 7 and 9 were slightly more satisfied and residents of Region 3 were less satisfied. Out-of-state anglers were less likely to have an opinion about the Bureau’s efforts. Consistent anglers (those who had fished every year in the past five years) were more likely than intermittent anglers to have an opinion, either positive or negative.

Table 11. Angler preferences for different types of water bodies, overall and by angler types generated by cluster analysis. Angler Type Overall

Water Body Preferences

New Experiences

Wild & Unspoiled

Home Bodies

Catch & Access

Clean Catch

Percent Checking* Inland lakes for warm water species 74.9 78.3 71.4 71.3 78.0 73.2 Inland trout streams 50.3 51.2 62.5 42.4 41.1 51.1 Inland lakes for trout or 39.5 39.2 45.3 33.4 36.8 46.6 salmon Lake Ontario--open water 25.2 25.2 23.1 20.3 31.6 33.1 Inland streams for warm water species 25.0 26.7 28.8 19.5 22.7 26.5 Large warm water rivers 23.4 25.8 25.1 17.1 23.5 26.0 Lake Ontario—tributaries for lake run trout and salmon 22.1 22.5 25.5 16.4 21.0 27.8 Back country Adirondack 21.0 22.4 25.7 13.5 21.0 22.5 ponds Inland streams for lake run trout and salmon 19.7 20.6 24.3 13.7 18.3 24.6 St. Lawrence River 16.6 17.4 14.4 13.1 22.9 17.9 Lake Erie – open water 11.5 11.7 9.2 8.8 15.4 16.9 Niagara River 9.1 9.5 8.1 6.9 11.8 11.8 Lake Erie – tributaries for lake run trout and salmon 8.3 8.3 9.5 6.2 8.5 11.1 *Percentages add to more than 100% because anglers could check more than one type of water body preference.

20

Table 12. Angler preference for actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries might take to increase enjoyment of angler fishing trips, by angler types generated by cluster analysis. Angler Type Actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries might take

New Experiences

Related to the fishing experience: Increase the number of fishing access sites Improve facilities at existing fishing access sites Provide more information on fishing opportunities in NY Make fishing regulations easier to understand Related to the fish: Expand fishing opportunities for larger fish Expand wild trout fishing opportunities Make more waters open to year-round catch and release fishing Make more waters open to year-round harvest fishing Stock fewer but larger fish if possible

Wild & Unspoiled

Home Bodies

Catch & Access

Clean Catch

% indicating action would increase their enjoyment of fishing trips

39.9

50.0

39.6

42.7

56.4

38.8

43.0

38.0

45.3

55.2

31.1

39.0

28.0

36.0

47.0

28.1

34.2

29.5

30.7

43.9

35.3

48.5

36.9

44.4

62.1

35.2

57.2

34.3

36.7

52.9

30.6

47.4

27.4

36.1

44.9

22.4

27.0

24.0

28.2

41.2

12.4

19.3

15.0

17.1

24.8

21

Table 13. Angler satisfaction with the number and size of fish caught on their fishing trips during each survey time period and the respondent average for all time periods. Very Dissatisfied

Moderately Dissatisfied

Mean* Numbers of fish caught Jan.-May June-Sept. Oct.-Dec. Overall

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

Neutral

Moderately Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Percent

9.4 8.6 9.5 9.6

17.2 16.8 15.9 16.8

24.8 24.6 26.1 23.7

32.6 36.2 32.3 33.9

Size of fish caught Jan.-May 3.3 8.2 15.2 28.8 33.0 June-Sept. 3.3 7.0 14.9 30.8 34.4 Oct.-Dec. 3.4 8.0 12.2 30.2 32.6 Overall 3.3 8.2 14.0 29.2 33.1 *Measured on a 5-point scale where 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.

22

16.0 13.8 16.2 16.0

14.8 12.9 17.0 15.5

Angler satisfaction with the number of fish caught 9% 16%

17% Very satisfied Mod. satisfied Neutral Mod. dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 33%

25%

Angler satisfaction with the size of fish caught 8%

15%

15%

Very satisfied Mod. satisfied Neutral Mod. dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 33%

29%

Figure 4. Angler satisfaction with the number and size of fish caught on their fishing trips in 2007. 23

Table 14. Angler satisfaction with DEC Bureau of Fisheries efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats, overall and by region of residence, participation consistency, gender, age, and type of license purchased. Very Dissatisfied

Moderately Disssatisfied

Very Satisfied

No Opinion/ Don’t Know

Percent 25.6 27.6

21.1

9.7

Neutral

Moderately Satisfied

Overall

6.3

9.7

Region of Residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state

8.1 4.3 7.5 7.0 8.1 8.0 6.5 6.6 7.0 2.9

11.5 12.6 8.8 13.4 10.5 11.2 8.7 11.0 10.8 6.1

25.1 24.5 25.4 28.9 24.8 26.5 24.9 24.7 24.0 27.2

25.4 24.5 27.9 26.6 29.5 28.6 30.4 28.0 30.1 22.5

21.4 21.2 20.6 16.1 18.4 18.9 22.2 20.6 21.8 24.4

8.5 12.9 9.8 8.0 8.7 6.8 7.3 9.1 6.3 16.9

Participation consistency Consistent Intermittent

7.5 3.6

11.3 6.3

23.5 30.3

29.6 23.0

20.9 21.7

7.2 15.1

Gender Male Female

6.4 6.5

10.1 6.7

25.3 26.8

27.4 29.0

21.5 19.5

9.3 11.5

Age 16-44 45-54 55-64 65+

4.4 6.5 8.7 8.7

9.4 10.0 9.8 10.9

27.1 24.9 22.3 21.2

30.1 29.8 28.0 28.6

21.2 21.4 22.4 21.8

7.8 7.4 8.8 8.8

24

Table 14. (cont.) Very Dissatisfied

Moderately Disssatisfied

Neutral

Moderately Satisfied

Very Satisfied

No Opinion/ Don’t Know

Percent Type of License Lifetime Resident-annual Resident-sportsman Resident-Short-term Nonresident-annual Nonresident-sportsman Nonresident-short-term

7.8

14.5

26.2

32.4

13.2

5.9

6.6

8.9

25.5

27.4

22.2

9.4

7.6

12.1

24.7

30.8

18.7

6.1

3.6

12.6

28.0

18.9

19.8

17.1

4.1

9.0

23.1

27.2

25.6

11.0

4.4

5.1

31.4

31.4

17.5

10.2

2.1

4.2

29.5

19.2

24.1

20.9

Angler satisfaction with DEC Bureau of Fisheries efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats 10% 21% 6%

Very satisfied

10%

Mod. satisfied Neutral Mod. dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No Opinion

27% 26%

25

Over half of the anglers were satisfied with the quality of the information that the DEC Bureau of Fisheries provides (Table 15). Very few anglers were moderately or very dissatisfied. Satisfaction levels did not vary by region of residence, except that out-ofstate anglers were less likely to have an opinion about the quality of the information (Table 15). Satisfaction also did not vary by participation consistency of the angler, gender, age, or license type purchased. Anglers who were dissatisfied with the information provided by DEC Bureau of Fisheries were asked for suggestions for improvement. Anglers wrote in a wide variety of suggestions which we categorized by method of communication and content of information provided. • By far the most commonly requested improvement was to the provision of stocking information (species, location, timing, number and size) on the web, in brochures, and via telephone. • Some anglers thought DEC could do a better job publicizing where to look for information, as well as putting the information in a variety of locations (e.g., bait and tackle shops, license sale locations, state parks, boat launching and fishing access sites). For example, one angler commented “Information boxes on state land are usually empty and lack fishing brochures on local waters in those areas.” Another said “When you make new laws tell someone i.e. new minnow regulation.” • Also commonly mentioned was reducing the complexity of regulations to make them more easily understood. For example, an angler commented “Too many different regulations in each area. You never know what are illegal and what is legal where you fish.” • Other ideas mentioned less frequently, but by more than 20 anglers, were making the website easier to navigate and keeping it updated, have more knowledgeable people answer telephone inquiries, and produce brochures that identify species and provide maps showing access sites and good fishing locations. For example, one angler commented “Dedicated website to show the fishing locations, launch points, and different species of fish.” Suggestions for Improving Angler Satisfaction Anglers were asked what DEC Bureau of Fisheries might do to increase anglers’ enjoyment of their fishing trips. The list of possible actions provided on the questionnaire were divided into two types – those related to the fishing experience and those related to the fish (Table 16). Among those related to the fishing experience, the two most popular were to increase the number of fishing access sites and improve facilities at existing sites. These actions would increase the satisfaction of two-fifths of anglers and might increase the satisfaction of another two-fifths. In designing the

26

Table 15. Angler satisfaction with the quality of the information that the DEC Bureau of Fisheries provides, overall and by region of residence, participation consistency, gender, age, and type of license purchased. Very Dissatisfied

Moderately Disssatisfied

Neutral

Moderately Satisfied

Very Satisfied

No Opinion/ Don’t Know

28.9

8.2

Overall

3.2

6.3

Percent 25.9 27.5

Region of Residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state

4.6 5.0 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.5

6.9 8.7 7.3 7.6 6.5 6.6 5.7 6.7 7.5 3.9

26.4 24.3 22.9 27.8 28.3 27.9 25.6 28.8 24.9 24.0

25.0 24.9 27.2 29.5 28.0 27.8 29.5 26.5 29.4 24.6

27.1 29.9 31.4 23.7 26.5 27.4 29.3 28.0 29.5 31.2

10.0 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.3 6.9 6.6 5.4 13.8

Participation consistency Consistent Intermittent

3.7 2.3

7.0 4.7

25.7 26.4

28.6 25.1

28.7 29.2

6.3 12.3

Gender Male Female

3.2 3.1

6.4 5.6

26.1 25.0

27.6 25.6

28.8 30.9

7.9 9.8

Age 16-44 45-54 55-64 65+

2.9 3.2 3.5 4.3

6.8 6.9 6.5 6.0

27.4 26.2 23.6 24.8

28.7 28.2 29.5 27.4

27.1 29.1 30.7 29.7

7.1 6.4 6.2 7.8

27

Table 15. (cont.) Very Dissatisfied

Moderately Disssatisfied

Neutral

Moderately Satisfied

Very Satisfied

No Opinion/ Don’t Know

Percent Type of License Lifetime Resident-annual Resident-sportsman Resident-Short-term Nonresident-annual Nonresident-sportsman Nonresident-short-term

2.0

7.1

30.6

29.2

25.2

5.9

3.5

6.6

25.7

27.0

29.2

8.0

3.5

7.3

27.1

29.4

27.4

5.3

0.9

5.5

23.6

26.4

29.1

14.5

2.8

4.1

24.0

26.8

34.0

8.3

4.4

5.9

23.7

25.2

35.6

5.2

2.2

3.5

23.7

23.4

29.7

17.5

Angler satisfaction with the quality of the information that the DEC Bureau of Fisheries provides 8% 3% 29%

6%

Very satisfied Mod. satisfied Neutral Mod. dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No Opinion

26%

28%

28

Table 16. Angler preference for actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries might take to increase enjoyment of angler fishing trips. Would increase enjoyment of fishing trips

Actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries might take

May increase enjoyment of fishing trips

Would not increase enjoyment of fishing trips

Percent Related to the fishing experience: Increase the number of fishing access sites Improve facilities at existing fishing access sites Provide more information on fishing opportunities in NY Make fishing regulations easier to understand Related to the fish: Expand fishing opportunities for larger fish Expand wild trout fishing opportunities Make more waters open to year-round catch and release fishing Make more waters open to year-round harvest fishing Stock fewer but larger fish if possible

43.5

36.7

19.8

41.6

38.8

19.6

34.0

44.0

22.0

31.4

36.5

32.1

41.6 41.2

40.4 34.3

18.0 24.5

35.2

30.8

34.0

26.0 16.0

31.7 49.6

42.3 34.4

questionnaire, Bureau staff accurately anticipated possible sources of dissatisfaction mentioned above by asking if improving communication about fishing opportunities would increase satisfaction. We found this to be the case, as well as making fishing regulations easier to understand. Most popular among actions related to the fish that would increase angler enjoyment were expanding opportunities to catch larger fish and wild trout. However, stocking fewer but larger fish was not seen as a way to increase enjoyment. Making more waters open to year-round fishing was not favored by as many anglers as other actions listed on the questionnaire. Almost all of the actions that might increase fishing enjoyment were more likely to be favored by residents of Regions 1 through 3 than residents of other regions or outof-state anglers (Appendix Table B-16). Additionally, half of Region 5 residents said that expanding wild trout fishing opportunities would increase their enjoyment. Anglers were also asked to write in other ideas for actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries could take that would increase their enjoyment of their fishing trips. Only a few people (11%) wrote in an idea and most of those were elaborations on actions already 29

listed. For example, people listed locations where they thought additional fishing access was needed or which regulations should be made easier to understand. Several new ideas mentioned by more than just a few anglers included providing more handicappedaccessible fishing sites, increasing law enforcement (and also decreasing law enforcement), and increasing the number of stocked fish (which appears to be the opposite of the item “stock fewer but larger fish”). Anglers also had some unrealistic expectations for what the DEC Bureau of Fisheries could do, such as getting rid of invasive species and cleaning up the water so that no fish consumption health advisories are needed.

SECTION V: ANGLER OPINIONS ON SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES Sale of Panfish New York is one of a few states that allows the sale of panfish caught by anglers. The information provided to anglers in the questionnaire regarding this issue was as follows: “Species that are legal for anglers to sell in New York are those which have no closed season or minimum size limit (e.g., yellow perch, bluegill, sunfish). The DEC Bureau of Fisheries placed daily limits of 50 yellow perch and 50 sunfish or bluegills for most of the State’s waters in 1996 in an effort to conserve these species. The DEC Bureau of Fisheries continues to receive correspondence from anglers who are upset over what they feel is over-harvest of panfish by anglers who are selling part or all of their catches. The scientific literature documents that angler harvest can and does affect panfish populations with the tendency being to remove more of the larger, older fish.” Over half of the license holders who had fished in the past three years (i.e., those who were asked the questions on the sale of panfish) indicated that they would fish for panfish in 2007 (Table 17). Most would fish for them in open water only. Very few indicated that they would sell panfish in 2007. We estimated the number of people selling panfish at just under 5,000. Anglers living in Regions 7 through 9 were the most likely to fish for panfish (Appendix Table B-17). Those living in Region 5 were the most likely to use ice fishing as a method to catch panfish and were also the most likely to sell their catch. A plurality of anglers had no opinion on the sale of panfish (Table 17). Of those who had an opinion, most (approximately 330,000) thought the sale should be banned. We estimated that 100,000 anglers thought the sale should be allowed to continue. The results did not differ to any large degree by region of residence (Appendix Table B-17). Among those who fished for panfish in 2007 or indicated that panfish were their favorite species to fish for, more anglers had an opinion about the sale, but the

30

Table 17. Anglers’ opinion on the sale of panfish and their use of the panfish resource. % (and estimated number) of license holders who fished in past 3 years

Fish for panfish in 2007 Yes

56.7 (473,152) 43.3 (361,331)

No Panfish fishing method Ice fishing only

5.5 (26,023) 68.1 (322,216) 26.4 (124,912)

Open water only Ice fishing and open water Sell panfish in 2007 Yes

1.0 (4,732) 99.0 (468,420)

No Opinion on sale of panfish Ban the sale

39.6 (330,455) 12.0 (100,138) 48.4 (403,890)

Continue to allow sale No opinion

Anglers' opinion on the sale of panfish

40% Ban the sale Continue to allow sale No opinion

48%

12%

31

proportions favoring and opposing the sale remained essentially the same (Table 18). Eighty percent of those who sold panfish in 2007 thought the sale should continue to be allowed. Among those who fished for panfish, those living in Regions 5 through 7 were more likely than those living in other regions to support the continuation of the sale (Appendix Table B-18). This was also true for Region 5 residents who did not fish for panfish.

Table 18. Anglers’ opinion on the sale of panfish by their use of the panfish resource. Fish for panfish in 2007

Opinion on sale of panfish Ban the sale Continue the sale No opinion

Yes

No

47.6 13.3 39.1

27.7 10.3 62.0

Panfish are favorite species

Yes

No

44.3 15.1 40.6

39.6 11.7 48.7

Percent

Fishing method used to catch panfish Ice fishing Open water only only Both

Opinion on sale of panfish Ban the sale Continue the sale No opinion

45.4 17.2 37.4

Percent 46.6 11.5 41.9

50.2 16.8 33.0

Sell panfish in 2007

Yes

Opinion on sale of panfish Ban the sale Continue the sale No opinion

No Percent 6.8 47.9 79.6 12.6 13.6 39.5

Brown Trout Stocking Options The DEC Bureau of Fisheries asked anglers their opinion on the stocking of brown trout. The information provided to anglers in the questionnaire regarding this issue was as follows: “Since 1995 the DEC Bureau of Fisheries has been stocking two year old brown trout in addition to, or instead of, the one year old brown trout traditionally stocked. Two year old brown trout average 14 inches while one year old brown trout average 8 ½ inches. Because of the additional space requirements for raising the two year old brown trout, the DEC Bureau of Fisheries must reduce the number of one year old brown trout (one 14” fish requires the same amount of

32

hatchery space as three 8 ½” fish). This results in fewer, but larger fish being stocked.” Three-quarters of the license buyers who fished in the past three years had a brown trout stocking preference (Table 19). The majority wanted to see the current mix of one and Table 19. Anglers’ preference for the brown trout stocking program, overall and if they fished for trout or listed it as one of their top 5 favorite species to fish for. Overall

Brown trout stocking preference Stock only one year old brown trout Stock current mix of one and two year old brown trout Stock more two year old and fewer one Year old brown trout No opinion

Fished for trout during time period surveyed

Trout was among top 5 favorite species to fish for

Percent 8.9

9.3

9.5

48.6

56.5

56.2

16.9 25.2

24.4 10.2

20.3 14.0

Brown trout stocking preference for anglers who listed trout among their top 5 favorite species to fish for

14%

10%

56%

20%

33

Current mix More two year old Only one year old No opinion

two year old brown trout maintained. Of the remainder, a slightly larger percentage wanted more two year old trout stocked compared to having only one year old trout stocked. Those who fished for trout or listed it among their top five favorite species to fish for were more likely to have an opinion about stocking and more likely to prefer the current mix or more two year old brown trout. Residents of Regions 1 through 3 were more likely than residents of other regions to favor the stocking of more two year old brown trout (Appendix Table B-19). No other notable differences by region of residence were observed. Angler Preferences for Amenities at Boat Launching and Fishing Access Sites Anglers ranked the top five amenities that they would like to see at boat launches and fishing access sites. At the top of the list were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles (Table 20). Fish cleaning stations, used fishing line receptacles, and information kiosks were next with over 50% of anglers ranking them among the top five needed amenities. Boat washing stations and septic pump out facilities were at the bottom of the list; rated among the top five by 30% or fewer anglers. Few differences existed among anglers living in different parts of the state (Appendix Table B-20). Of note was the larger number of anglers in western New York and out-of-state interested in fish cleaning stations compared with anglers living in eastern New York. Also, lower proportions of out-of-state anglers than New York residents were interested in shore fishing opportunities. Angler Interest in an Internet-based Angler Diary Program The DEC Bureau of Fisheries is considering the development of an internet-based angler diary program where anglers can enter information about their fishing trip on any given body of water and then view compiled catch statistics from other anglers also participating in the diary program. Over three-quarters of all anglers indicated that they had access to the Internet and thus the potential to participate in this program (Table 21). As would be expected, younger anglers were more likely than older anglers (aged 65+) to have access. Access also appeared a little lower among Region 6 anglers. Among all anglers with access to the Internet, approximately half said they would enter their information into the system, with another third being unsure (Table 21). Somewhat fewer anglers thought the information they obtained from the system would influence where they fished. Participation and subsequent influence on fishing behavior appeared to be lower among older anglers (aged 65+) than younger anglers. The system would be used by the same proportion of anglers in each region, but it might influence the fishing behavior of smaller proportions of Region 5 and 6 anglers compared to other New York anglers.

34

Table 20. Anglers’ top five preferences for amenities at DEC boat launches and fishing access sites in New York State. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Amenity Percent Fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities 38.9 11.1 12.0 10.8 8.5 81.3 Portable toilets 22.5 26.5 18.9 11.9 6.6 86.4 Trash receptacles 15.7 26.8 25.6 16.5 7.4 92.0 Fish cleaning station 8.5 10.6 9.7 12.8 14.4 56.0 Boat washing station 4.9 4.1 4.9 6.6 10.7 31.2 Used fishing line receptacle 3.5 8.6 11.3 13.0 15.3 51.7 Information kiosks 3.1 6.5 8.6 13.8 18.2 50.2 Septic pump out facility 0.8 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.7 11.5 Table 21. Angler access to the Internet and interest in an internet-based angler diary program, overall and by region of residence and age. Of those with Internet access: Access to Would enter info. Internet Info. influence fishing into system Yes Yes Unsure Yes Unsure Percent Overall 77.7 50.4 32.5 42.1 31.2 Region of residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state

83.7 83.9 79.5 75.4 75.8 69.6 77.8 76.2 73.5 85.0

55.5 48.0 52.8 48.7 47.0 46.7 48.7 48.0 49.9 54.9

31.0 34.3 31.7 33.2 33.7 34.6 33.9 34.8 33.0 28.3

45.3 49.5 45.5 42.6 36.7 32.6 39.8 41.3 44.0 44.8

32.1 25.3 30.8 29.9 31.4 35.4 32.5 31.6 32.7 28.5

Age 16-44 45-54 55-64 65+

85.9 82.6 77.0 54.0

52.0 52.0 50.4 43.7

32.5 33.0 31.2 34.0

45.6 42.0 38.7 33.6

30.5 32.3 32.1 32.2

35

SECTION VI: CHARACTERIZATION OF ANGLERS BY REGION OF RESIDENCE Another way to look at the data already presented in this report is to summarize it by DEC region of residence. (See Figure 1 for a map of DEC Regions.) This gives those interested in a specific region an easy reference for information about anglers living in that region. Region 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

69% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 23,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 15,000 residents fish in New York every year. 55% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 33% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 4% listed a panfish species. Black bass and trout were the top two preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 80% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 56% wanted to fish inland trout streams; and 42% wanted to fish inland lakes for trout or salmon. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 47% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 52% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Half or more of the anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, improving facilities at existing fishing access sites, and making more waters open to year-round catch and release fishing. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 45% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 5% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 52% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 22% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 6% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

36

Region 2 • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

73% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 17,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 10,000 residents fish in New York every year. 42% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 42% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 6% listed a marine/ anadromous species. Black bass and trout were the top two preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 77% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 50% wanted to fish inland trout streams; and 39% wanted to fish inland lakes for trout or salmon. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 46% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 55% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Over 50% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, improving facilities at existing fishing access sites, providing more information on fishing opportunities in New York, and expanding wild trout fishing opportunities. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 32% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 11% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 41% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 22% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 10% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

37

Region 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

78% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 83,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 61,000 residents fish in New York every year. 44% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 43% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 6% listed a marine/ anadromous species. Black bass and trout were the top two preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 82% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 65% wanted to fish inland trout streams; and 49% wanted to fish inland lakes for trout or salmon. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 48% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 59% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Over 50% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, and expanding wild trout fishing opportunities. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 41% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 9% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 51% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 23% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 8% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

38

Region 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

78% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 63,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 46,000 residents fish in New York every year. 47% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 41% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 6% listed a panfish species. Black bass and trout were the top two preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 83% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 62% wanted to fish inland trout streams; 49% wanted to fish large warm water rivers; and 46% wanted to fish inland lakes for trout or salmon. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 43% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 54% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Over 45% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, expanding fishing opportunities for larger fish, and expanding wild trout fishing opportunities. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 38% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 12% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 52% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 18% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 10% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

39

Region 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

81% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 56,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 42,000 residents fish in New York every year. 42% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 44% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 11% listed a panfish species. Black bass and trout were the top two preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 80% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 65% wanted to fish inland trout streams; 60% wanted to fish inland lakes for trout or salmon; and 58% wanted to fish back country Adirondack ponds. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 48% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 57% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Over 40% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, expanding fishing opportunities for larger fish, and expanding wild trout fishing opportunities. Over 70% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 35% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 18% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 53% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 18% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 10% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

40

Region 6 • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

79% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 68,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 50,000 residents fish in New York every year. 57% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 32% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 10% listed a panfish species. Black bass, trout, and walleye were the top three preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 76% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 56% wanted to fish inland trout streams; and 46% wanted to fish the St. Lawrence River. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 47% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 55% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Approximately 40% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, improving facilities at existing fishing access sites, expanding fishing opportunities for larger fish, and expanding wild trout fishing opportunities. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 35% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 18% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 49% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 15% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 10% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

41

Region 7 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

81% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 125,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 92,000 residents fish in New York every year. 57% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 29% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 11% listed a panfish species. Black bass, trout, and walleye were the top three preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 87% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 55% wanted to fish inland trout streams; and 41% wanted to fish inland lakes for trout or salmon. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 53% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 59% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Over 40% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, improving facilities at existing fishing access sites, and expanding wild trout fishing opportunities. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 38% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 17% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 49% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 15% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 11% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

42

Region 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

78% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 119,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 88,000 residents fish in New York every year. 55% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 27% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 15% listed a panfish species. Black bass and trout were the top two preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 83% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 42% wanted to fish inland trout streams; 42% wanted to fish the open water of Lake Ontario; and 40% wanted to fish inland lakes for trout or salmon. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 49% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 54% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Over 40% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, and improving facilities at existing fishing access sites. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 42% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 13% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 47% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 12% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 11% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

43

Region 9 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

80% of license buyers in this region fished New York waters in the past three years. Approximately 126,000 anglers live in this region (i.e., fished in the past three years). Approximately 93,000 residents fish in New York every year. 55% listed a warmwater gamefish as their favorite species to fish for; 31% listed a coldwater gamefish; and 11% listed a panfish species. Black bass, trout, and walleye were the top three preferred species to fish for in New York State by residents of this region. 77% of anglers wanted to fish inland lakes for warmwater species; 51% wanted to fish the open water of Lake Erie; 50% wanted to fish inland trout streams; and 45% wanted to fish the Niagara River. On average, anglers were neutral to moderately satisfied with the number and size of fish they caught on their fishing trips in New York during the period in which they were surveyed. 52% were satisfied with Bureau efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats. 59% were satisfied with the quality of the information provided by the Bureau. Over 40% of anglers said the enjoyment of their fishing trips would be increased by increasing the number of fishing access sites, improving facilities at existing fishing access sites, and expanding wild trout fishing opportunities. Over 80% of anglers indicated that among the top five amenities that should be provided at boat launches or fishing access sites were fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities, portable toilets, and trash receptacles. 46% of anglers thought the sale of panfish should be banned; 8% thought it should be allowed to continue; and the remainder had no opinion. 51% of anglers wanted to see the current stocking mix of one and two year old brown trout maintained; 15% wanted more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout stocked; 10% wanted only one year old brown trout; and the remainder had no opinion.

44

LITERATURE CITED Brown, T. L. 1975. The 1973 New York statewide angler study. Cornell University/NYSDEC. 117pp. Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 2009. New York statewide angler survey 2007, Report 1: Angler effort and expenditures. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1990. New York statewide angler survey 1988. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 158 pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1997. New York statewide angler survey 1996, Report 1: Angler effort and expenditures. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 107pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Assessing the relative importance of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler surveys. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5(4):19-29. Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth, and D. L. Kay. 2002. Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environmental Management 29(4):467476. Enck, J. W., and T. L. Brown. 2008. 2007 Statewide deer hunter survey: Opinions about hotbutton issues and trends in characteristics of hunters. HDRU Publ. No. 08-5. Dept. of Nat. Resour., N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 81pp. Kretser, W. A., and L. E. Klatt. 1981. 1976-77 New York angler survey final report. NYSDEC, Survey and Inventory Unit. 214pp.

45

Appendix A:

Questionnaire

46

Appendix B: Additional Tables

58

Appendix Table B-1. Initial sample, number of respondents, and response rate (not adjusted for undeliverable questionnaires), by survey phase and region of residence/license type. Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 # Response # Response # Response Region of Initial n Respondents Rate Initial n Respondents Rate Initial n Respondents Rate Residence

59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state License Type Annual Resident Fishing Short-term Resident Annual Resident Sportsman Short-term Nonresident Annual Nonresident Fishing Annual Nonresident Sportsman Lifetime

790 605 2,493 1,501 989 1,587 2,774 2,182 2,916 1,163

269 143 934 592 380 630 1,208 921 1,213 533

34.1 23.6 37.5 39.4 38.4 39.7 43.5 42.2 41.6 45.8

605 508 1,668 1,369 1,362 1,425 2,244 2,648 2,338 2,833

164 118 495 472 494 486 835 985 887 1,030

27.1 23.2 29.7 34.5 36.3 34.1 37.2 37.2 37.9 36.4

638 496 1,730 1,553 1,424 1,601 2,505 2,824 2,742 1,487

252 162 736 744 642 755 1,280 1,357 1,330 676

39.5 32.7 42.5 47.9 45.1 47.2 51.1 48.1 48.5 45.5

4,775 86

1,680 18

35.2 20.9

6,464 495

2,067 101

32.0 20.4

2,082 37

1,014 9

48.7 24.3

10,523 203

4,394 65

41.8 32.0

6,769 1,801

2,630 585

38.9 32.5

12,950 621

6,040 210

46.6 33.8

771

386

50.1

921

399

43.3

616

344

55.8

189 453

82 198

43.4 43.7

97 453

40 196

41.2 43.3

242 452

121 196

50.0 43.4

Table B-2. Tests for nonresponse bias. Phase 1 Respondents

Nonrespondents

Phase 2 Respondents

Nonrespondents

Phase 3 Respondents

Nonrespondents

Percent Satisfaction with number of fish caught during Phase Very or moderately dissatisfied 26.6 Neutral 24.8 Moderately satisfied 32.6 Very satisfied 16.0

17.8 22.8 40.6 18.8 NS

25.4 16.4 24.6 28.9 36.2 32.8 13.8 21.9 (x2 = 11.1, df = 3, p = .01)

60

Satisfaction with the size of fish caught during Phase Very or moderately dissatisfied 23.4 26.5 21.9 18.7 Neutral 28.8 14.7 30.8 20.3 Moderately satisfied 33.0 41.2 34.4 40.7 Very satisfied 14.8 17.6 12.9 20.3 (x2 = 9.9, df = 3, p = .02) (x2 = 11.7, df = 3, p = .01) Satisfaction with DEC efforts to restore fish populations and protect aquatic habitats Very or moderately dissatisfied 17.6 10.7 16.6 3.7 Neutral 24.4 24.0 27.4 13.7 Moderately satisfied 29.3 38.6 26.2 29.2 Very satisfied 21.0 22.7 19.6 29.2 No opinion/Don’t know 7.7 4.0 10.2 24.2 2 2 (x = 11.2, df = 4, p = .02) (x = 63.5, df = 4, p < .001) Satisfaction with the quality of information DEC Bureau of Fisheries provides Very or moderately dissatisfied 10.2 6.0 9.1 5.0 Neutral 26.6 15.3 27.3 9.4 Moderately satisfied 28.4 44.7 26.6 31.9 Very satisfied 28.2 30.0 28.4 38.7 No opinion/Don’t know 6.6 4.0 8.6 15.0 2 2 (x = 24.4, df = 4, p < .001) (x = 36.0, df = 4, p < .001)

25.4 22.1 26.1 15.1 32.3 34.9 16.2 27.9 (x2 = 11.5, df = 3, p = .01) 20.2 16.7 30.2 9.5 32.6 46.4 17.0 27.4 (x2 = 22.1, df = 3, p < .001) 18.0 13.7 24.1 14.4 31.0 38.8 20.0 18.7 6.9 14.4 2 (x = 20.3, df = 4, p < .001) 10.5 9.3 25.4 7.9 29.4 39.6 28.8 33.1 5.9 10.1 2 (x = 26.4, df = 4, p < .001)

Table B-3. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 1. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 48.8 22.1 6.3 4.1 3.6 84.9 Trout 25.4 17.6 10.5 7.3 4.9 65.7 Walleye 1.0 2.1 3.1 7.9 5.5 19.6 Coho/Chinook Salmon 2.4 1.0 1.4 0.7 1.7 7.2 Steelhead 0.7 3.1 1.7 2.4 1.4 9.3 Yellow Perch 0.7 1.9 10.0 10.2 10.7 33.5 Northern Pike 2.6 3.8 3.8 5.2 2.6 18.0 Lake Trout 3.4 11.1 8.9 5.6 3.9 32.9 Bullhead/Catfish 0.7 2.2 2.6 5.0 4.3 14.8 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 0.2 0.7 2.1 1.7 1.2 5.9 Crappie/Calico Bass 1.4 3.6 2.4 5.0 6.0 18.4 Striped Bass 3.1 3.8 6.0 3.8 2.6 19.3 Sunfish 1.2 4.8 8.9 11.6 11.3 37.8 Muskie 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.7 4.5 Carp 1.2 3.1 3.1 1.0 2.1 10.5 Pickerel 1.0 9.6 14.7 9.4 5.1 39.8 Tiger Muskellunge 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.2 3.1 Shad 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.4 0.7 3.6 No Specific Type 3.1 0.2 1.7 1.4 9.1 15.5

61

Table B-4. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 2. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 37.0 23.2 12.0 5.6 3.2 81.0 Trout 29.3 13.1 4.6 8.5 6.0 61.5 Walleye 0.7 2.1 2.8 6.2 5.2 17.0 Coho/Chinook Salmon 2.4 1.0 3.1 2.8 2.1 11.4 Steelhead 1.0 6.9 1.4 2.1 1.4 12.8 Yellow Perch 1.7 4.8 5.2 7.3 9.7 28.7 Northern Pike 3.1 3.1 5.2 4.1 3.4 18.9 Lake Trout 7.0 9.4 15.0 5.9 2.1 39.4 Bullhead/Catfish 0.0 2.8 6.2 3.1 3.8 15.9 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 1.0 1.4 4.5 1.0 1.0 8.9 Crappie/Calico Bass 1.7 7.3 6.2 6.6 6.2 28.0 Striped Bass 6.0 5.3 8.4 5.3 4.9 29.9 Sunfish 1.0 1.4 4.5 6.6 12.2 25.7 Muskie 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.4 3.0 Carp 3.8 2.1 2.4 4.5 2.4 15.2 Pickerel 0.3 7.9 5.2 8.2 5.5 27.1 Tiger Muskellunge 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.7 2.4 Shad 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.0 3.8 No Specific Type 0.7 0.3 1.0 3.1 6.8 11 .9

62

Table B-5. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 3. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 38.5 22.5 11.0 7.0 4.4 83.4 Trout 33.8 16.9 10.6 7.0 5.1 73.4 Walleye 2.0 4.9 5.2 5.7 4.8 22.6 Coho/Chinook Salmon 2.2 2.4 2.8 1.6 1.5 10.5 Steelhead 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.4 1.8 11.2 Yellow Perch 1.1 4.0 9.3 12.3 11.3 38.0 Northern Pike 1.3 4.7 5.0 4.5 3.7 19.2 Lake Trout 3.3 10.8 8.6 6.8 5.2 34.7 Bullhead/Catfish 1.3 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 19.6 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 0.6 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.0 9.7 Crappie/Calico Bass 1.1 4.3 6.8 7.9 5.2 25.3 Striped Bass 5.3 6.4 7.0 6.6 4.9 30.2 Sunfish 1.5 2.6 5.6 7.6 10.6 27.9 Muskie 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.6 2.8 Carp 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 2.0 4.6 Pickerel 1.0 4.5 6.9 5.3 7.1 24.8 Tiger Muskellunge 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.8 3.0 Shad 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.7 4.5 No Specific Type 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 6.3 10.6

63

Table B-6. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 4. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 33.6 20.9 12.7 7.6 5.9 80.7 Trout 31.7 12.8 8.6 7.2 5.9 66.2 Walleye 9.5 10.5 9.4 10.6 7.6 47.6 Coho/Chinook Salmon 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.3 10.5 Steelhead 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.5 8.6 Yellow Perch 1.4 6.1 10.1 9.1 10.5 37.2 Northern Pike 2.9 10.9 8.5 9.1 7.5 38.9 Lake Trout 3.8 8.2 7.3 7.1 4.7 31.1 Bullhead/Catfish 1.9 4.0 4.7 6.1 6.9 23.6 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 1.2 2.5 3.9 2.8 2.8 13.2 Crappie/Calico Bass 0.9 2.6 3.6 4.5 4.0 15.6 Striped Bass 3.3 6.3 5.9 4.9 4.1 24.5 Sunfish 1.0 2.7 5.6 6.6 8.0 23.9 Muskie 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.1 3.5 Carp 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.6 5.1 Pickerel 0.3 1.1 4.8 4.9 4.6 15.7 Tiger Muskellunge 0.0 0.7 1.2 1.8 1.1 4.8 Shad 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.2 4.2 No Specific Type 2.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 7.0 10.5

64

Table B-7. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 5. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 28.4 18.4 12.1 8.9 7.5 75.3 Trout 34.7 12.4 9.7 9.3 5.2 71.3 Walleye 8.2 9.5 10.5 9.3 8.4 45.9 Coho/Chinook Salmon 1.4 1.8 1.3 2.0 2.9 9.4 Steelhead 0.5 1.4 2.5 1.6 1.4 7.4 Yellow Perch 5.3 9.4 10.4 13.4 9.8 48.3 Northern Pike 3.5 10.5 11.8 11.6 9.4 46.8 Lake Trout 3.5 10.7 10.5 7.2 7.3 39.2 Bullhead/Catfish 3.0 4.9 7.3 6.7 8.6 30.5 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 3.0 5.8 3.7 4.7 3.8 21.0 Crappie/Calico Bass 1.6 2.3 2.7 4.0 4.1 14.7 Striped Bass 0.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.3 8.7 Sunfish 0.4 2.3 3.5 3.3 6.0 15.5 Muskie 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.2 1.7 5.2 Carp 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 1.2 2.7 Pickerel 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 3.9 8.0 Tiger Muskellunge 0.2 0.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 4.3 Shad 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 No Specific Type 1.6 0.3 0.9 0.3 2.8 5.9

65

Table B-8. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 6. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 30.1 20.0 15.2 8.8 7.0 81.1 Trout 26.3 10.5 7.7 8.3 5.5 58.3 Walleye 18.3 16.9 12.5 11.8 6.5 66.0 Coho/Chinook Salmon 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.5 3.2 12.1 Steelhead 0.8 2.2 2.0 1.4 1.7 8.1 Yellow Perch 3.8 10.4 12.5 12.0 12.3 51.0 Northern Pike 5.1 12.7 14.3 12.6 11.0 55.7 Lake Trout 2.4 4.9 4.9 5.5 4.3 22.0 Bullhead/Catfish 3.8 6.6 8.1 9.1 10.2 37.8 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 0.1 1.0 1.4 1.0 2.1 5.6 Crappie/Calico Bass 1.7 2.9 3.7 4.6 4.5 17.4 Striped Bass 0.1 0.9 1.2 2.5 1.8 6.5 Sunfish 0.8 1.9 4.2 5.5 6.1 18.5 Muskie 1.0 1.2 1.7 3.0 3.3 10.2 Carp 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.0 1.7 3.7 Pickerel 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.3 2.1 5.6 Tiger Muskellunge 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.6 1.8 5.7 Shad 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 No Specific Type 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 6.1 8.2

66

Table B-9. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 7. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 32.2 17.6 13.4 8.4 7.3 78.9 Trout 21.4 11.6 8.5 7.9 5.5 54.9 Walleye 19.2 15.4 12.6 9.6 7.1 63.9 Coho/Chinook Salmon 2.7 2.5 2.5 3.7 3.8 15.2 Steelhead 1.5 3.3 2.4 3.2 2.3 12.7 Yellow Perch 5.1 13.1 15.5 12.7 10.0 56.4 Northern Pike 3.3 8.4 8.4 9.6 8.6 38.3 Lake Trout 1.9 5.0 4.9 4.6 5.0 21.4 Bullhead/Catfish 2.6 4.0 6.5 6.8 9.4 29.3 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.7 10.4 Crappie/Calico Bass 1.6 5.0 5.4 7.7 5.7 25.4 Striped Bass 0.7 1.6 2.2 1.7 2.1 8.3 Sunfish 1.8 3.6 5.1 8.5 8.7 27.7 Muskie 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.4 6.4 Carp 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.8 4.2 Pickerel 0.0 0.6 1.7 1.8 2.4 6.5 Tiger Muskellunge 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.5 1.8 5.7 Shad 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 No Specific Type 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 4.4 6.9

67

Table B-10. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 8.

Favorite species Black Bass Trout Walleye Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Yellow Perch Northern Pike Lake Trout Bullhead/Catfish Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Crappie/Calico Bass Striped Bass Sunfish Muskie Carp Pickerel Tiger Muskellunge Shad No Specific Type

#4

#5

Among top 5

7.1 7.3 8.2

4.8 5.8 7.8

83.5 47.7 39.6

3.9 3.1 12.7 10.0 6.4 6.0

3.6 3.4 12.6 9.5 5.4 6.6

3.2 2.9 9.4 8.3 4.8 7.9

17.4 16.6 54.3 44.5 27.5 28.8

2.5 5.5 1.6 7.7 1.4 0.9 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.3

2.5 6.6 1.5 9.0 1.6 2.2 2.7 1.0 0.2 0.7

2.0 6.3 1.0 10.9 1.9 3.3 1.2 1.1 0.1 6.6

8.9 24.7 6.0 35.1 6.2 7.3 6.9 3.3 0.4 9.7

#1

#2

41.8 14.7 6.6

17.7 11.6 7.6

#3 Percent 12.1 8.3 9.4

3.1 2.4 7.3 4.8 5.1 3.2

3.6 4.8 12.3 11.9 5.8 5.1

0.6 2.1 0.4 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.8

1.3 4.2 1.5 4.9 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.3

68

Table B-11. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for residents of Region 9.

Favorite species Black Bass Trout Walleye Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Yellow Perch Northern Pike Lake Trout Bullhead/Catfish Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Crappie/Calico Bass Striped Bass Sunfish Muskie Carp Pickerel Tiger Muskellunge Shad No Specific Type

#5

Among top 5

7.0 6.3 6.3

78.9 52.1 63.2

3.9 6.6 9.9 8.4 5.2 3.8

4.2 3.9 10.8 8.1 4.5 5.0

19.4 32.5 53.9 34.0 20.3 14.8

1.6 8.4 1.9 6.8 3.5 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.7

0.6 7.5 1.8 8.0 3.9 2.1 1.1 1.0 0.1 5.8

4.2 31.6 6.9 23.2 12.6 3.9 2.5 3.3 0.3 9.1

#1

#2

28.0 17.6 21.1

17.7 10.8 15.4

#3 #4 Percent 15.4 10.8 9.2 8.2 11.0 9.4

2.6 6.9 6.2 3.3 2.2 1.0

4.0 8.7 13.4 7.0 3.7 1.9

4.7 6.4 13.6 7.2 4.7 3.1

0.3 2.7 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.8

1.0 5.7 0.8 2.8 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.3

0.7 7.3 1.8 4.6 2.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.5

69

Table B-12. Anglers’ five favorite species to fish for in New York State, for out-ofstate residents. Among #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 top 5 Favorite species Percent Black Bass 24.8 11.7 7.6 7.5 5.4 57.0 Trout 16.9 12.7 13.1 8.5 6.0 57.2 Walleye 6.4 6.5 7.7 7.8 7.8 36.2 Coho/Chinook Salmon 19.3 11.1 8.5 4.3 2.5 45.7 Steelhead 12.5 15.7 8.6 5.4 3.4 45.6 Yellow Perch 1.3 4.0 5.1 8.4 6.8 25.6 Northern Pike 3.1 8.4 7.1 5.4 5.6 29.6 Lake Trout 2.6 6.2 8.4 10.0 7.4 34.6 Bullhead/Catfish 0.2 1.0 1.2 2.1 2.6 7.1 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 5.1 6.6 5.0 5.2 3.7 25.6 Crappie/Calico Bass 0.7 1.9 4.0 4.1 2.9 13.6 Striped Bass 0.7 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.1 11.0 Sunfish 0.8 1.0 2.6 2.6 5.0 12.0 Muskie 0.8 1.8 2.6 2.5 4.3 12.0 Carp 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.8 Pickerel 0.0 0.9 1.8 1.4 1.7 5.8 Tiger Muskellunge 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.1 3.9 Shad 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.1 2.3 No Specific Type 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 4.2 6.6

70

Table B-13. Water body preferences of fishing license holders who have fished in New York State in past 3 years by region of residence. Region 1

Region 2

Water Body Preferences Inland lakes for warm water species Inland trout streams Inland lakes for trout or salmon Lake Ontario—open water Inland streams for warm water species Large warm water rivers

71

Lake Ontario—tributaries for lake run trout and salmon Back country Adirondack ponds Inland streams for lake run trout and salmon St. Lawrence River Lake Erie—open water Niagara River Lake Erie—tributaries for lake run trout and salmon

Mean # of water bodies preferred

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Region 8

Region 9

Out-ofstate

% (and estimated number) of license holders who fished in past 3 years 79.6 (18,103) 55.9 (12,713) 41.7 (9,483) 7.8 (1,774) 26.1 (5,936) 16.1 (3,661) 7.6 (1,728)

77.4 (13,331) 50.5 (8,698) 39.3 (6,769) 4.3 (741) 25.0 (4,306) 25.9 (4,461) 7.9 (1,361)

81.8 (68,223) 64.5 (53,794) 48.7 (40,617) 10.9 (9,091) 29.3 (24,437) 35.2 (29,358) 12.8 (10,675)

83.4 (52,874) 62.0 (39,307) 45.9 (29,100) 14.4 (9,129) 29.2 (18,512) 48.6 (30,811) 12.8 (8,115)

80.3 (44,952) 64.9 (36,331) 59.8 (33,476) 10.3 (5,766) 27.4 (15,338) 26.8 (15,003) 8.8 (4,926)

76.2 (51,799) 56.0 (38,068) 36.4 (24,744) 25.7 (17,470) 28.9 (19,646) 23.1 (15,703) 15.8 (10,740)

86.5 (108,140) 54.5 (68,135) 41.1 (51,382) 29.6 (37,005) 29.6 (37,005) 36.7 (45,882) 20.9 (26,129)

83.3 (98,900) 42.0 (49,865) 40.0 (47,491) 41.6 (49,390) 29.8 (35,381) 16.4 (19,471) 29.4 (34,906)

76.6 (96,857) 49.6 (62,717) 32.5 (41,095) 25.6 (32,370) 29.0 (36,669) 8.0 (10,116) 24.3 (30,726)

46.3 (70,586) 32.3 (49,243) 29.5 (44,974) 31.0 (47,261) 7.4 (11,282) 13.7 (20,886) 35.6 (54,274)

17.9 (4,071) 12.3 (2,797) 3.4 (773) 2.0 (445) 1.1 (250) 2.0 (455)

15.9 (2,739) 18.3 (3,152) 4.9 (844) 3.0 (517) 3.7 (637) 2.7 (465)

18.8 (15,680) 14.1 (11,760) 8.0 (6,672) 1.9 (1,585) 1.6 (1,334) 1.6 (1,334)

32.0 (20,287) 15.8 (10,017) 7.1 (4,501) 1.7 (1,078) 1.0 (634) 1.2 (761)

57.6 (32,244) 26.7 (14,947) 10.0 (5,598) 1.7 (952) 1.0 (560) 1.5 (840)

35.6 (24,200) 11.5 (7,817) 45.6 (30,998) 1.5 (1,020) 1.2 (816) 0.7 (476)

21.6 (27,004) 22.5 (28,129) 26.3 (32,880) 2.8 (3,500) 1.8 (2,250) 1.5 (1,875)

16.4 (19,471) 27.4 (32,531) 21.1 (25,051) 7.2 (8,548) 3.8 (4,512) 3.7 (4,393)

10.3 (13,024) 17.0 (21,496) 9.2 (11,633) 51.1 (64,613) 44.7 (56,521) 36.5 (46,152)

10.5 (16,008) 20.9 (31,863) 12.6 (19,209) 9.0 (13,721) 5.7 (8,690) 8.4 (12,806)

2.6

2.6

3.2

3.5

3.7

3.6

3.7

3.6

4.1

2.6

Table B-14. Water body preferences of fishing license holders who have fished in New York State in past 3 years by participation consistency. Consistent Intermittent % (and estimated number) of license holders who Water Body Preferences fished in past 3 years

Inland lakes for warm water species Inland trout streams Inland lakes for trout or salmon Lake Ontario—open water Inland streams for warm water species Large warm water rivers Lake Ontario—tributaries for lake run trout and salmon Back country Adirondack ponds Inland streams for lake run trout and salmon St. Lawrence River Lake Erie—open water Niagara River Lake Erie—tributaries for lake run trout and salmon

79.3 (449,325) 55.2 (312,771) 43.0 (243,644) 27.7 (156,952) 28.3 (160,352) 26.9 (152,419) 24.6 (139,387)

65.3 (174,918) 39.6 (106,076) 31.9 (85,450) 19.9 (53,306) 18.0 (48,216) 16.1 (43,127) 16.6 (44,466)

23.4 (132,588) 21.6 (122,389) 19.2 (108,790) 13.0 (73,660) 10.4 (58,928) 9.5 (53,828)

15.8 (42,323) 15.7 (42,055) 11.1 (29,733) 8.3 (22,233) 6.4 (17,144) 5.7 (15,268)

3.8

Mean # of water bodies preferred

72

2.6

Table B-15. Mean angler satisfaction with the number and size of fish caught on their fishing trips in New York State during the survey period for which they responded, by region of residence, participation consistency, gender, age, and type of license purchased. Number of fish caught Size of fish caught Mean* Overall 3.3 3.3 Region of residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Out-of-state

3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.5

3.3 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6

Participation consistency Consistent Intermittent

3.3 3.2

3.4 3.3

Gender Male Female

3.3 3.2

3.3 3.2

Age 16-44 45-54 55-64 64+

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2

3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3

Type of License Lifetime 3.2 3.3 Resident—annual 3.2 3.3 Resident—sportsman 3.3 3.3 Resident—short-term 3.2 3.0 Nonresident—annual 3.5 3.6 Nonresident—sportsman 3.5 3.6 Nonresident—short-term 3.5 3.6 *Measured on a 5-point scale where 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.

73

Table B-16. Angler preference for actions DEC Bureau of Fisheries might take to increase enjoyment of angler fishing trips by region of residence. Would increase enjoyment of fishing trips Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Out-ofActions DEC Bureau of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 state Fisheries might take Percent

74

Related to the fishing experience: Increase the number of fishing access sites Improve facilities at existing fishing access sites Provide more information on fishing opportunities in New York Make fishing regulations easier to understand Related to the fish: Expand fishing opportunities for larger fish Expand wild trout fishing opportunities Make more waters open to yearround catch and release fishing Make more waters open to yearround harvest fishing Stock fewer but larger fish if possible

52.1

52.6

52.9

48.5

44.8

38.6

44.3

42.9

48.0

31.9

49.9

50.9

47.0

44.4

37.6

39.6

42.7

43.5

47.4

30.6

45.8

51.4

42.4

33.6

31.0

30.4

31.7

33.7

36.2

28.7

31.2

34.4

30.7

30.9

31.6

34.1

34.2

30.2

32.9

27.7

49.1

49.7

48.4

46.9

43.5

38.2

38.6

36.3

38.9

43.7

48.0

51.2

50.7

46.9

49.9

40.5

40.3

34.1

40.1

35.6

57.1

45.6

42.4

37.2

33.0

30.5

32.3

34.6

33.1

33.7

29.2

35.0

32.7

30.0

28.0

24.7

26.6

24.6

26.4

19.1

20.1

27.4

19.8

19.1

17.6

17.1

14.6

13.9

13.0

14.8

Table B-17. Anglers’ opinion on the sale of panfish and their use of the panfish resource by region of residence. Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Region 8

Region 9

Out-ofstate

% (and estimated number) of license holders who fished in past 3 years Fish for panfish in 2007 Yes No Panfish fishing method Ice fishing only Open water only Ice fishing and open water

75

Sell panfish in 2007 Yes No Opinion on sale of panfish Ban the sale Continue to allow sale No opinion

52.0 (11,826) 48.0 (10,916)

40.6 (6,993) 59.4 (10,231)

58.2 (48,540) 41.8 (34,862)

54.8 (34,742) 45.2 (28,656)

56.8 (31,797) 43.2 (24,183)

58.5 (39,767) 41.5 (28,211)

68.3 (85,387) 31.7 (39,631)

71.2 (84,534) 28.8 (34,193)

65.6 (82,948) 34.4 (43,497)

30.2 (46,041) 69.8 (106,413)

1.4 (166) 87.2 (10,312) 11.4 (1,348)

3.1 (217) 78.4 (5,482) 18.5 (1,294)

4.5 (2,184) 66.3 (32,182) 29.2 (14,174)

8.2 (2,849) 64.8 (22,513) 27.0 (9,380)

15.3 (4,865) 41.6 (13,228) 43.1 (13,704)

7.0 (2,784) 61.2 (24,337) 31.8 (12,646)

5.7 (4,867) 66.0 (56,355) 28.3 (24,164)

2.4 (2,029) 73.7 (62,302) 23.9 (20,204)

3.3 (2,737) 71.7 (59,474) 25.0 (20,737)

7.3 (3,361) 78.2 (36,004) 14.5 (6,676)

0.0 (0) 100.0 (11,826)

0.7 (49) 99.3 (6,944)

0.4 (194) 99.6 (48,346)

0.4 (139) 99.6 (34,603)

3.1 (986) 96.9 (30,811)

2.1 (835) 97.9 (38,932)

1.3 (1,110) 98.7 (84,277)

0.7 (592) 99.3 (83,942)

0.4 (332) 99.6 (82,616)

0.8 (368) 99.2 (45,673)

45.3 (10,302) 4.9 (1,114) 49.8 (11,326)

31.8 (5,477) 10.6 (1,826) 57.6 (9,921)

40.7 (33,945) 9.0 (7,506) 50.3 (41,951)

37.7 (23,901) 12.0 (7,608) 50.3 (31,889)

35.0 (19,593) 18.5 (10,356) 46.5 (26,031)

34.9 (23,724) 18.1 (12,304) 47.0 (31,950)

38.0 (47,507) 16.8 (21,003) 45.2 (56,508)

41.7 (49,509) 13.0 (15,434) 45.3 (53,783)

45.8 (57,912) 8.0 (10,116) 46.2 (58,418)

38.0 (57,932) 8.3 (12,654) 53.7 (81,868)

Table B-18. Anglers’ opinion on the sale of panfish by whether or not they fished for panfish in 2007, by region of residence. Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Region 8

Region 9

Outofstate

Percent Fished for panfish in 2007 Opinion on sale of panfish Ban the sale 53.1 41.2

49.4

46.2

42.1

42.8

43.3

46.6

53.2

53.9

9.9

12.9

19.7

21.1

18.2

13.4

8.2

8.0

48.1

40.7

40.9

38.2

36.1

38.5

40.0

38.6

38.1

Did not fish for panfish in 2007 Opinion on sale of panfish Ban the sale 35.0 24.8

27.2

26.5

24.8

23.4

25.0

27.8

29.2

30.2

Continue the sale No opinion

Continue the sale No opinion

5.0 41.9

10.7

5.1

10.9

7.2

10.8

16.7

14.0

13.5

12.0

7.5

8.3

59.9

64.3

65.6

62.7

58.5

62.6

61.5

60.2

63.3

61.5

76

Table B-19. Anglers’ preference for the brown trout stocking program, overall and by region of residence. Brown trout stocking preferences Stock only one year old brown trout Stock current mix of one and two year old brown trout Stock more two year old and fewer one year old brown trout No opinion

Overall

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

9.3 (77,607) 48.6 (405,559)

6.1 (1,387) 51.6 (11,735)

10.1 (1,740) 41.1 (7,079)

7.9 (6,589) 51.1 (42,618)

9.5 (6,023) 52.0 (32,967)

10.1 (5,654) 52.6 (29,445)

9.8 (6,662) 48.9 (33,241)

10.6 (13,252) 48.7 (60,884)

16.9 (141,028)

22.5 (5,117)

21.5 (3,703)

22.7 (18,932)

17.5 (11,095)

17.8 (9,964)

15.5 (10,536)

25.2 (210,290)

19.8 (4,503)

27.3 (4,702)

18.3 (15,262)

21.0 (13,314)

19.5 (10,916)

25.8 (17,538)

Region 8

Region 9

Out-ofstate

11.2 (13,297) 47.3 (56,158)

9.9 (12,518) 50.8 (64,234)

6.8 (10,367) 43.7 (66,622)

15.4 (19,253)

12.1 (14,366)

15.4 (19,472)

18.6 (28,356)

25.3 (31,630)

29.4 (34,906)

23.9 (30,220)

30.9 (47,108)

% (and estimated number) of license holders who fished in past 3 years

77

Table B-20. Angler preferences for amenities at DEC boat launches and fishing access sites in New York State, by region of residence. Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 #1

Amenity Fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities Portable toilets Trash receptacles Fish cleaning station Boat washing station Used fishing line receptacle Information kiosks Septic pump out facility

Among top 5

#1

Among top 5

#1

Among top 5

43.5

88.2

46.7

85.0

Percent 38.8 82.4

16.7 18.2 3.2 2.7 4.9 3.9 0.2

80.6 88.9 41.8 27.5 57.7 59.5 10.1

15.0 15.0 4.5 2.4 2.1 4.5 0.3

85.0 93.0 51.6 20.6 62.0 53.7 12.2

18.8 20.9 4.9 4.9 3.8 2.1 0.8

84.0 93.6 50.5 28.9 59.2 54.5 13.2

#1

Among top 5

#1

Among top 5

36.6

84.0

32.7

77.2

20.9 14.6 6.6 7.0 3.3 4.9 0.9

86.0 92.0 49.1 40.9 48.6 51.8 13.6

24.8 13.7 4.8 8.4 3.5 4.6 0.7

84.7 90.7 46.4 41.8 52.7 49.4 13.8

78

Table B-20. (cont.) Region 6 #1

Among top 5

#1

Among top 5

40.1

84.1

41.3

84.5

21.2 15.8 5.7 4.5 3.4 3.4 0.8

86.6 93.7 58.5 31.1 51.3 50.8 13.9

21.6 14.2 5.7 5.3 4.3 2.7 0.7

87.2 93.1 58.2 34.0 53.2 49.8 11.4

Amenity Fishing piers or other shore fishing opportunities Portable toilets Trash receptacles Fish cleaning station Boat washing station Used fishing line receptacle Information kiosks Septic pump out facility

Region 7

Region 8 #1

Among top 5

Region 9

Out-of-state

#1

Among top 5

#1

Among top 5

Percent 42.1 85.8

47.0

88.4

22.2

69.3

21.8 14.0 5.9 4.6 3.3 2.4 0.9

18.8 10.0 10.3 3.2 1.9 2.0 0.6

86.6 92.0 66.1 28.7 49.9 49.1 11.8

26.5 17.7 16.5 4.4 3.6 3.3 1.0

89.0 91.4 63.5 32.8 52.8 49.7 13.1

88.8 92.5 54.8 30.1 53.7 52.1 13.8

79

`

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 ____________________________________

REPORT 3: ESTIMATED ANGLER EFFORT AND EXPENDITURES IN NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES

June 2009

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Fisheries 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233

`

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 __________________________________________________

REPORT 3: ESTIMATED ANGLER EFFORT AND EXPENDITURES IN NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES by Nancy A. Connelly and Tommy L. Brown

`

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Shaun Keeler and Steve Hurst of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Bureau of Fisheries were our primary contacts throughout the study and headed up the Bureau Angler Survey Team. They provided invaluable help and support for the project. We also would like to thank the other members of the Bureau Angler Survey Team (Melissa Cohen, Steve LaPan, Bill Culligan, Dan Bishop, Phil Hulbert, and Bill Schoch) for their efforts in questionnaire design and analysis planning. NYSDEC consultant, Scott Houde, deserves recognition for the many hours he spent on sample selection. NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries staff member, Casey Festa, is recognized for the many hours spent coding water bodies and checking data for the report. We thank Human Dimensions Research Unit staff member, Karlene Smith, who assisted with sample selection, mailings, and construction of tables for this report. We also thank Margie Peech for typing the many tables in this report. The Survey Research Institute at Cornell University implemented the surveys, conducted the nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, and scanned the completed questionnaires. This study was funded by the NYSDEC, Bureau of Fisheries using Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration funds under contract C00278.

i

INTRODUCTION To efficiently manage New York’s freshwater fisheries, comprehensive information is needed periodically on the fishing patterns, preferences, and attitudes of anglers as well as the economic impacts of New York’s fisheries. Such information is most effectively obtained from a statewide mail survey. New York has conducted four such surveys, in 1973 (Brown 1975), in 1976-77 (Kretser and Klatt 1981), in 1988 (Connelly et al. 1990), and in 1996 (Connelly et al. 1997). This is the third in a series of four reports that will document the results of a fifth statewide angler survey. The survey was conducted in three phases over the course of 2007-08 and focused on resident and nonresident fishing experiences in New York during the calendar year 2007. The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) at Cornell University conducted the study for the Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. The purpose of this report is to provide fisheries managers, local government leaders, tourism planners, county extension specialists, and others estimates of fishing effort and expenditures that occurred within each county in New York State. Estimates of the number of days fished in each county in 2007 (by phase and in total), as well as at-location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled to the fishing site and satisfaction with the fishing experience are presented. This information is useful for planning and marketing purposes. Dissimilar to previous statewide angler surveys, which were conducted using a single annual mailing, the 2007 survey was implemented at three different times during the calendar year. By using a three-wave approach, we hoped to reduce the amount of recall bias associated with angler trip recollection. Past research (Connelly et al. 2000) has shown that both nonresponse bias and recall bias affect estimates of fishing effort. By reducing the recall period from one year to 3-5 months, we hoped to reduce recall bias, and by conducting nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, we hoped to be able to estimate that bias. In addition, we conducted a smaller annual survey similar to previous annual statewide angler surveys to measure the degree of recall bias, provide for trend comparisons, and offer feedback on the improved estimates versus the increased cost of a three-wave approach. The results of this effort did not uncover any significant recall bias. Therefore, results presented in this report can be compared with the results of past angler surveys. For more detailed information on the comparisons and to examine general trends in fishing over time, see Report #4 in this series (Connelly and Brown 2009).

METHODS

For each phase, a random sample of 17,000 was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish during the phase. Lifetime licenses holders aged 16 or older at the time the survey was implemented were included in the random drawing. Other license types that permitted fishing included annual resident fishing and sportsman, annual nonresident fishing and sportsman, and short-term (1-day, 7-day) resident and nonresident fishing licenses.

1

The mail survey for each phase was implemented as soon as possible after the phase period ended. The first phase covered the period from Jan. 1 to May 31, 2007. The surveys were sent out on May 31, 2007 with up to three follow-up mailings sent to nonrespondents over the course of the following month. Phase 2 covered the period from June 1 to Sept., 30, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Oct. 18, 2007. Phase 3 covered the period from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Jan. 7, 2008. A telephone follow-up to 200 nonrespondents was implemented after each phase, for a total of 600 nonrespondent interviews. Questions were asked on fishing effort and satisfaction. Past research has found that nonrespondents fished less than respondents (Connelly et al. 1990, 1997). Nonrespondent data allows us to adjust overall fishing estimates to account for any nonresponse bias. Returned mail questionnaires were scanned and entered into SPSS (a statistical analysis package for the social sciences). Yearly effort and at-site expenditure totals were calculated by adding data from the three phases. Confidence intervals were calculated at the 95% level. Estimates of angler effort were reported by phase and in total if the 95% confidence limit was less than 50% of the estimate. A large confidence interval could be due to a small sample size, large variability among angler responses, or both. For example, the number of anglers fishing in Allegany County was large enough for estimates of angler effort in Phases 2 and 3, but the variability was too great for an estimate in Phase 1. Estimates where the confidence limit was more than 50% of the estimate were considered too variable/imprecise to be useful. However, an exception was made in certain counties where the confidence interval for at-location expenditures exceeded the 50% level in order to present an idea of the magnitude of expenditures in that county. The results presented in this report (angler effort and expenditures) for each county were broken down by media markets. The media markets represent multi-county areas served by the mass media (Fig. 1). Some counties have overlapping media market areas. This analysis assigns each county to the single metropolitan media area that it draws most strongly from in terms of local television coverage (http://carolina.cablemediasales.com), and to a lesser extent newspaper coverage (Brown 1981). As a result, this analysis provides a good indication of which media areas fisheries-related promotional materials should be directed toward. Response rates and undeliverable rates differed based on where people lived. Response rates were lower and undeliverable rates were higher in the New York City and Long Island areas than in central and western New York. This is typical of mail surveys in New York State (Connelly et al. 2002, Enck and Brown 2008). Without weighting the data to account for these differences, estimates of fishing effort would likely be biased downward in locations in and near New York City, and slightly overestimated elsewhere. Therefore, respondents from regions with lower response rates (and higher undeliverable rates) were given more weight, and those in regions with higher response rates were given less weight, corresponding to delivery and response rates.

2

Figure 1. Major media regions in New York State.

Nonrespondents who were contacted by telephone were considered to be representative of all nonrespondents. Checks of license type at least partially confirmed this assumption. Comparisons of respondents and nonrespondents indicated that only days fished during phase 2 differed significantly. Thus, nonresponse adjustments were made only for effort estimates in phase 2. Examination of the expenditure data did not reveal a significant response bias as had been found in previous surveys (Connelly et al. 1990, 1997), perhaps due to the shorter recall period. Therefore, the expenditure data were not weighted in expansions of sample data. However, atlocation expenditure estimates exceeding $400 per day per person were considered outliers and were not used in the expenditure estimates. Estimates of effort by species were derived from the question asking for the approximate number of days spent primarily fishing for each species at each water body fished. The question was worded in such a way that the number of days fished by species should add to the total days fished. A number of anglers either misunderstood the question and likely reported catch instead

3

of days or perhaps indicated they were fishing primarily for several species on the same day. Only respondents whose species days equaled total days were used in the estimate of mean days fished by species. However, the mean days by species was expanded to the total estimate of days for a particular species using all respondents who indicated that they fished for that species.

RESULTS Mail Survey Response and Adjustments for Nonresponse Bias Of the 17,000 questionnaires mailed out during each phase, between 700 and 1,100 were undeliverable and between 6,000 and 8,000 completed questionnaires were returned. This resulted in adjusted response rates ranging from 38% for phase 2 to 49% for phase 3, and a total of 20,775 useable questionnaires. Analysis of the nonrespondent telephone follow-up surveys showed that nonrespondents were just as likely to have fished during the phase and fished approximately the same number of days during the phase as respondents. The exception was days fished in phase 2, in which respondents fished more than nonrespondents (17.3 vs. 12.8 days). As noted previously in the methods section, data were weighted for this bias in phase 2 analysis. Organization of Results All New York counties were analyzed separately with the exception of the five New York City boroughs, where insufficient sample size prevented analysis by county or in total. Information on angler effort and at-location expenditures is presented first in total for the county and then broken down by residence areas of the anglers. This allows for comparisons between local use and more regional or out-of-state use. The breakdown by media areas also provides a good indication of where fisheries-related promotional materials should be directed. Table 1 highlights expenditures made by anglers in each county. Tables 2 – 58, which are arranged alphabetically by county, provide our best estimates of angler use and expenditures in 2007. Each expansion estimate presented in a table represents the best point estimate of that number. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are presented for most estimates. Totals shown in a particular table may vary slightly from an addition of subtotals because of rounding and because the sample size for individual item estimates may vary. In each case, the totals shown in the tables are more accurate estimates of population parameters than would be obtained by summing the media region estimates.

4

Table 1. Estimated angler expenditures in 2007 at the location fished, by county. County At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits, + Oswego $42,623,006 $6,356,767 Jefferson 35,314,663 7,265,748 St. Lawrence 17,861,105 3,325,360 Chautauqua 15,353,656 3,885,661 Warren 13,804,053 3,405,864 Essex 12,671,592 2,260,533 Erie 11,948,376 4,195,948 Wayne 11,813,163 4,288,335 Delaware 11,103,441 3,816,900 Sullivan 8,497,470 1,602,159 Hamilton 8,453,778 1,806,286 Franklin 8,155,041 3,161,866 Niagara 7,958,787 1,821,698 Orleans 7,474,578 3,507,519 Onondaga 7,447,320 2,315,793 Monroe 6,352,776 1,688,386 Oneida 5,963,461 1,454,153 Cayuga 5,320,561 2,092,613 Ulster 4,974,835 1,221,008 Ontario 4,601,270 1,709,795 Schuyler 4,444,750 2,834,355 Saratoga 4,195,037 1,379,872 Clinton 4,114,136 1,374,820 Fulton 3,342,104 1,856,191 Herkimer 3,340,667 1,655,644 Yates 3,125,575 1,259,533 Tompkins 3,116,975 1,402,016 Livingston 2,926,172 1,232,173 Allegany 2,693,420 1,922,665 Cattaraugus 2,679,471 784,455 Orange 2,640,623 616,967 Steuben 2,351,841 1,119,187 Greene 2,282,449 1,015,414 Suffolk 2,266,565 713,881 Otsego 2,226,708 844,496 Seneca 1,988,608 831,739 Dutchess 1,910,731 729,939 Washington 1,907,259 771,006 Lewis 1,787,825 601,502 Westchester 1,619,114 526,441 Madison 1,618,089 745,777

5

Table 1. Estimated angler expenditures in 2007 at the location fished, by county. County At Location Expenditures Confidence Limits, + Broome 1,271,391 496,420 Columbia 1,251,140 935,119 Wyoming 1,250,094 357,024 Putnam 1,231,362 294,915 Rockland 809,398 470,316 Montgomery 780,264 667,730 Albany 708,109 221,278 Rensselaer 678,709 345,187 Tioga 588,562 263,472 Chenango 580,206 239,802 Chemung 558,117 262,348 Schenectady 521,331 674,157 Schoharie 476,730 390,059 Genesee 307,838 329,628 Nassau 270,439 116,508 Cortland 238,404 145,122

6

Table 2. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Albany County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

154,386 37,121 Total Reside in County 97,804 31,746 Outside County but within Media Region 52,815 20,282 Other NYS Media Regions 4,276 1,183 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Total Confidence Limits, +

41,598 *

20,362 *

87,991 54,419

29,753 25,795

24,797 16,631

8,835 7,336

$708,109 $292,758

$221,278 $120,554

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

3,192 *

1,183 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

7 Total Fished Primarily For Striped Bass (freshwater only) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

Number

33.2 26.7 11.6 3.1 12.0 13.4

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 44.6 29.4 17.3 30.4 17.6 5.5 0.0 5.1 11.7 12.3 8.8 17.3

Mean distance traveled = 21 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 27.3 29.6 23.2 1.3 11.2 7.4

Table 3. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Allegany County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

277,004 65,167 Total Reside in County 138,268 58,060 Outside County but within Media Region 87,164 21,158 Other NYS Media Regions 37,486 12,776 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

* *

* *

111,853 38,269

28,139 16,794

59,567 43,301

13,031 19,659

$2,693,420 *

$1,922,665 *

22,026

5,976

52,380

20,014

12,758

3,371

*

*

* *

* *

18,926 *

8,896 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

8 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Crappie (calico bass) No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

52.9 14.2 9.5 3.4 2.4 6.7 10.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 62.9 38.6 6.1 21.5 2.4 14.0 2.7 5.3 5.8 0.2 4.3 12.4 15.8 8.0

Mean distance traveled = 51 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 62.2 14.8 13.5 1.1 0.6 0.3 7.5

Table 4. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Broome County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

214,658 51,580 Total Reside in County 173,820 49,258 Outside County but within Media Region 23,930 9,658 Other NYS Media Regions 11,909 5,361 Out of State 5,291 2,331 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

* *

* *

97,243 81,048

26,383 24,565

31,660 22,737

9,399 8,138

$1,271,391 *

$496,420 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

9 Total Fished Primarily For Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Crappie (calico bass) Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

26.5 22.7 19.7 6.7 2.8 2.3 11.9 7.4

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 30.2 18.0 7.4 37.5 36.2 10.3 10.9 2.9 1.3 2.5 1.7 1.4 8.0 16.2 4.3 11.2

Mean distance traveled = 23 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 42.4 19.0 3.6 7.0 7.6 7.0 9.5 3.9

Table 5. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Cattaraugus County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

371,051 75,867 Total Reside in County 176,339 63,014 Outside County but within Media Region 156,224 34,982 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State 18,988 9,186 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

68,198 20,818

13,872 6,188

228,398 130,005

70,339 60,636

74,456 *

24,815 *

$2,679,471 *

$784,455 *

37,223

11,295

78,972

28,001

40,028

17,667

$1,561,582

$550,832

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

10 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Steelhead Trout Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

41.6 13.3 9.2 8.8 4.5 6.6 16.1

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 53.0 39.6 13.2 7.5 5.3 11.7 5.4 11.2 3.2 6.3 6.3 7.8 13.6 15.9

Mean distance traveled = 41 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 37.3 31.0 4.9 4.5 0.2 3.1 19.0

Table 6. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Cayuga County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

11

348,456 57,898 Total Reside in County 125,455 31,920 Outside County but within Media Region 106,941 31,969 Rochester Media Region 41,337 18,851 Other NYS Media Regions 43,723 20,498 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

69,741 *

20,119 *

213,475 71,098

50,922 26,031

65,240 26,935

18,824 10,488

$5,320,561 $548,663

$2,092,613 $ 266,979

25,110

7,865

62,700

30,233

19,131

6,793

$1,032,253

$502,394

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

4,220 *

1,247 *

* *

* *

7,194 1,210

3,282 470

* *

* *

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Lake Trout Northern Pike Bluegill/Sunfish Bullheads, Catfish Coho/Chinook Salmon No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

29.4 12.1 9.8 9.0 6.5 5.3 4.2 1.0 13.5 9.1

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 8.9 38.8 21.9 8.5 16.1 6.3 6.2 9.5 10.4 5.5 4.9 6.7 8.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 8.8 16.2 14.8 6.0

Mean distance traveled = 57 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 20.7 13.6 14.6 10.1 5.5 1.2 5.6 5.5 9.9 13.3

Table 7. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Chautauqua County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

776,189 94,898 Total Reside in County 368,264 62,686 Outside County but within Media Region 241,406 54,295 Other NYS Media Regions 29,742 14,653 Out of State 137,673 38,844 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

259,332 151,061

50,931 40,969

386,278 40,015

73,505 71,234

130,580 25,477

31,760 368,264

$15,353,656 $2,400,669

$3,885,661 $674,223

73,165

23,364

133,550

47,471

34,692

12,188

$5,644,775

$1,980,631

* 23,996

* 10,047

7,494 99,665

3,426 37,084

* 14,012

* 5,720

$968,841 *

$314,674 *

12

Total Fished Primarily For Walleye Steelhead Trout Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Crappie (callico bass) Bluegill/Sunfish Muskie No Specific Species Other

27.9 15.2 13.5 10.1 8.9 6.0 4.3 3.6 5.1 5.5

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 21.3 33.0 18.7 6.8 8.7 18.8 14.0 9.3 12.4 6.8 11.8 3.2 2.3 6.8 1.1 4.8 3.6 6.2 6.1 4.3

Mean distance traveled = 69 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 25.8 33.2 7.1 4.7 8.4 2.6 1.0 5.0 4.6 7.6

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 8. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Chemung County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

110,079 27,889 Total Reside in County 86,770 22,168 Outside County but within Media Region * * Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

19,282 *

8,415 *

57,497 42,691

20,837 14,826

33,300 30,010

16,517 14,475

$558,117 *

$262,348 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

13

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Carp Bluegill/Sunfish Lake Trout No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

41.4 19.8 8.1 6.8 2.8 2.5 15.9 2.7

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 43.4 40.1 20.5 21.4 5.6 2.2 0.0 9.2 0.0 1.5 6.6 0.0 16.6 24.8 7.3 0.8

Mean distance traveled = 27 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 42.4 16.5 19.8 6.7 6.7 4.5 0.0 3.4

Table 9. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Chenango County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

130,038 32,744 Total Reside in County 59,726 21,473 Outside County but within Media Region 25,052 7,337 Other NYS Media Regions 26,599 8,242 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

58,991 *

21,174 *

30,333 *

10,905 *

$580,206 *

$239,802 *

13,050

5,867

*

*

5,646

2,546

$140,456

$48,483

4,407 *

1,625 *

10,722 *

4,183 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

14

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Pickerel Walleye Crappie (calico bass) No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

41.3 21.6 5.6 4.5 3.6 3.1 11.3 8.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 56.8 37.9 6.7 29.9 11.0 1.5 3.5 7.5 4.6 1.5 3.0 1.2 8.2 14.4 6.2 6.1

Mean distance traveled = 44 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 27.0 25.5 6.5 0.0 6.5 6.8 9.6 18.1

Table 10. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Clinton County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

204,949 46,030 Total Reside in County 134,786 40,545 Outside County but within Media Region 14,413 7,189 Other NYS Media Regions 32,871 7,282 Out of State 20,609 7,347 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

93,939 49,999

23,465 18,569

42,968 30,875

15,828 14,309

$4,114,136 *

$1,374,820 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

5,349 *

2,064 *

20,466 17,012

6,200 6,667

7,056 *

3,212 *

$1,581,756 $1,913,972

$777,176 $867,826

15

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Yellow Perch Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Northern Pike Walleye Lake Trout No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

29.8 28.3 15.5 6.1 4.0 3.9 3.0 3.6 5.8

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 10.9 50.0 45.2 14.7 29.7 6.2 4.1 4.3 0.0 7.6 3.0 2.6 0.6 3.0 1.5 3.4 5.0 8.2

Mean distance traveled = 159 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 15.5 31.3 13.4 13.2 2.5 8.1 7.0 7.2 1.8

Table 11. Number of angler days, at –location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Columbia County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

126,360 27,847 Total Reside in County 71,036 22,093 Outside County but within Media Region 9,944 4,072 Other NYS Media Regions 33,460 9,061 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

36,877 26,639

14,437 12,794

79,211 40,444

23,568 17,811

10,272 *

3,395 *

$1,251,140 *

$935,119 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

21,575 *

8,125 *

5,321 *

1,778 *

* *

* *

16 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Striped Bass (freshwater only) Yellow Perch Crappie (calico bass) No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

49.6 22.2 6.0 2.9 0.8 12.0 6.5

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 54.4 49.9 6.4 28.8 8.6 3.3 10.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 15.2 15.6 2.8

Mean distance traveled = 47 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 30.0 28.2 17.1 0.0 6.1 16.3 2.3

Table 12. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Cortland County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

87,017 38,546 Total Reside in County * * Outside County but within Media Region * * Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

54,888 *

27,228 *

* *

* *

$238,404 *

$145,122 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

17

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish Northern Pike Walleye Crappie (calico bass) No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

45.3 15.8 9.1 5.5 4.0 3.1 2.0 10.9 4.3

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 53.8 39.8 0.0 21.6 17.0 5.3 4.3 7.2 0.0 6.3 7.1 0.7 0.0 0.7 17.8 11.6 0.0 6.8

Mean distance traveled = 25 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 55.6 13.1 13.9 0.7 0.0 7.4 9.2 0.0 0.1

Table 13. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Delaware County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

18

405,486 76,942 Total Reside in County 89,315 40,027 Outside County but within Media Region 50,373 19,481 New York City Media Region 136,477 52,424 Other NYS Media Regions 39,181 16,940 Out of State 90,664 29,446 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

109,516 *

31,991 *

243,595 *

68,066 *

52,376 *

16,237 *

$11,103,441 *

$3,816,900 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

35,458

13,098

*

*

6,639

2,584

*

*

3,699 *

779 *

* 44,783

* 17,623

* *

* *

* *

* *

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) No Specific Species Other

82.2 7.5 6.3 4.0

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 84.8 81.9 5.2 7.0 3.8 8.2 6.2 2.9

Mean distance traveled = 85 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Number

Oct.-Dec. 78.0 15.0 2.4 4.6

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 14. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Dutchess County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

267,852 59,707 Total Reside in County 228,320 56,678 Outside County but within Media Region 31,188 11,292 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Total Confidence Limits, +

64,903 51,160

25,005 24,621

141,858 123,295

43,551 40,349

* *

* *

$1,910,731 $1,265,791

$729,939 $472,694

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

19 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Striped Bass (freshwater only) No Specific Species Other

Number

46.0 21.4 14.9 9.7 8.0

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 66.6 38.2 5.9 27.8 12.7 14.0 8.8 9.3 6.0 10.7

Mean distance traveled = 26 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 42.3 23.1 19.2 11.6 3.8

Table 15. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Erie County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

1,019,877 148,239 Total Reside in County 798,596 126,741 Outside County but within Media Region 177,827 72,569 Other NYS Media Regions 33,152 14,828 Out of State 14,881 4,106 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

248,909 202,069

68,083 65,823

583,195 444,609

125,888 103,498

187,773 151,918

38,623 31,917

$11,948,376 $7,677,641

$4,195,948 $3,834,820

27,331

12,489

*

*

*

*

*

*

* 2,460

* 1,158

* 10,081

* 3,853

* 2,340

* $1,460,398

* $721,452

* 819

20 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Steelhead Trout Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

29.1 16.7 14.1 10.4 10.3 3.0 8.4 8.0

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 23.5 36.1 5.0 23.5 21.6 3.6 16.6 7.7 14.8 8.9 6.4 1.4 5.2 10.3 6.9 8.5

Mean distance traveled = 42 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 15.0 11.0 36.6 10.8 8.8 3.5 6.6 7.7

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 16. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Essex County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

21

421,928 80,725 Total Reside in County 129,657 66,905 Outside County but within Media Region * * Albany Media Region 137,231 30,441 New York City Media Region 27,819 5,816 Other NYS Media Regions 42,270 13,900 Out of State 56,599 12,827 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

67,732 5,579

20,380 1,907

296,977 *

76,402 *

57,219 *

16,242 *

$12,671,592 $316,299

$2,260,533 $138,212

4,843 *

2,164 *

* 87,307

* 23,998

* 15,445

* 4,329

* $3,359,296

* $1,009,150

*

*

19,762

5,152

4,424

1,449

$1,522,784

$613,422

1,457 *

33,557 38,169

13,789 10,867

2,488 5,324

977 1,187

$2,627,104 $3,637,957

$1,276,341 $1,091,425

6,225 *

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Northern Pike Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

46.9 24.0 9.3 3.2 2.4 1.8 6.5 5.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 55.4 44.7 10.3 28.0 6.2 10.2 8.2 1.7 3.8 0.7 6.8 0.8 2.6 8.0 6.7 5.9

Mean distance traveled = 136 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 47.9 19.8 8.6 5.0 9.2 1.0 3.4 5.1

Table 17. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Franklin County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

325,710 58,102 Total Reside in County 88,868 23,255 Outside County but within Media Region 31,808 13,074 Other NYS Media Regions 164,095 47,822 Out of State 36,071 10,550 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

45,577 14,069

14,939 6,767

230,692 54,873

50,216 18,676

* *

* *

$8,155,041 *

$3,161,866 *

2,422

1,026

*

*

5,473

1,360

*

*

27,466 *

12,554 *

115,160 33,869

41,121 10,472

* *

* *

* *

* *

22 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Lake Trout Walleye Yellow Perch Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

39.1 20.5 14.5 5.9 4.4 3.1 2.1 6.8 3.6

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 51.4 37.4 4.1 24.3 19.8 13.5 3.1 7.2 4.6 3.5 1.1 2.6 5.8 1.2 6.4 7.0 3.7 3.3

Mean distance traveled = 146 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 35.6 17.8 14.4 2.3 8.7 7.4 2.9 6.2 4.7

Table 18. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Fulton County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

215,848 40,584 Total Reside in County 96,883 26,558 Outside County but within Media Region 59,852 20,099 Other NYS Media Regions 45,978 14,836 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

36,624 18,019

11,222 7,368

151,443 68,662

38,085 24,954

27,780 *

8,406 *

$3,342,104 *

$1,856,191 *

*

*

43,705

19,149

10,449

5,020

*

*

* *

* *

26,486 *

12,247 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

23

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Northern Pike Yellow Perch Lake Trout Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

24.1 21.7 11.9 6.4 6.1 4.8 4.0 13.2 7.7

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 10.8 29.7 10.0 21.8 28.3 9.6 17.7 4.7 7.9 2.8 6.4 4.3 6.6 3.5 10.1 14.3 2.2 9.3

Mean distance traveled = 53 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.2 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 10.9 36.6 2.9 0.8 22.0 5.8 3.1 11.5 6.4

Table 19. Number of angler days, at –location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Genesee County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

48,407 19,823 Total Reside in County 13,788 4,172 Outside County but within Media Region * * Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

22,870 8,185

7,619 3,508

* *

* *

$307,838 *

$329,628 *

*

*

8,988

3,924

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

24

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Bluegill/Sunfish Coho/Chinook Salmon Northern Pike Steelhead Trout Lake Trout Carp No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

42.0 25.8 8.9 7.1 6.5 2.4 1.6 1.6 2.7 1.5

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 49.9 43.5 0.5 35.0 20.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 12.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.8 1.1

Mean distance traveled = 40 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.8 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 32.2 33.4 0.0 25.8 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 20. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Greene County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

25

109,755 22,211 Total Reside in County 43,498 14,992 Outside County but within Media Region 8,199 3,805 New York City Media Region 41,524 12,775 Other NYS Media Regions 6,870 2,348 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

34,916 *

12,800 *

1,614

225

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

56,031 *

17,293 *

18,808 5,557

5,521 2,187

$2,282,449 *

$1,015,414 *

*

*

1,930

666

*

*

*

*

22,605

10,391

*

*

*

*

2,924 *

1,273 *

* *

* *

1,685 *

835 *

* *

* *

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Striped Bass (freshwater only) Walleye Shad No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

42.8 23.5 17.1 3.0 2.0 8.0 3.6

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 47.9 41.1 8.9 27.2 22.3 18.1 5.9 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 13.6 8.8 0.0

Mean distance traveled = 61 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 38.6 39.4 4.2 6.5 0.0 6.4 4.9

Table 21. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Hamilton County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

26

343,307 67,016 Total Reside in County * * Outside County but within Media Region 121,519 27,440 New York City Media Region 35,098 7,451 Syracuse Media Region 43,424 20,897 Utica Media Region 54,532 20,844 Other NYS Media Regions 30,140 6,883 Out of State 24,565 7,009 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

209,390 *

37,340 *

43,428 *

9,257 *

$8,453,778 *

$1,806,286 *

25,164

9,921

75,995

24,421

20,361

7,627

$2,679,029

$1,050,832

*

*

21,738

5,118

3,061

962

$1,077,772

$338,799

* *

* *

* 35,743

* 16,558

* 5,324

* 2,347

* $780,589

* $344,255

4,385 *

1,537 *

18,985 20,864

6,083 6,903

6,769 *

2,830 *

* *

* *

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Northern Pike Yellow Perch Walleye No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

33.9 24.4 13.5 4.9 3.3 2.0 9.3 8.6

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 42.3 32.2 8.3 32.6 18.6 9.9 6.3 4.8 6.3 1.9 0.0 2.0 6.4 10.6 11.8 6.0

Mean distance traveled = 135 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 24.7 18.1 20.5 2.7 4.1 6.0 9.2 14.7

Table 22. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Herkimer County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

260,864 58,677 Total Reside in County 137,560 46,014 Outside County but within Media Region 44,176 14,822 Other NYS Media Regions 56,773 15,626 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

53,222 *

21,057 *

156,156 92,610

50,301 40,397

51,485 *

21,667 *

$3,340,667 $345,265

$1,655,644 $171,743

16,605

7,786

18,624

8,836

*

*

*

*

9,253 *

3,464 *

31,455 *

10,007 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

27 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Bluegill/Sunfish Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

45.7 16.1 9.1 5.0 4.6 7.6 11.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 63.2 39.1 7.6 19.9 6.7 9.8 8.3 4.6 6.2 3.9 1.4 11.2 6.6 11.5

Mean distance traveled = 90 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 47.8 13.3 9.7 2.9 5.0 2.9 18.4

Table 23. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Jefferson County. Angler Days At Location Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

28

958,002 101,482 Total Reside in County 311,269 60,803 Outside County but within Media Region 147,526 30,801 Binghamton Media Region 61,323 30,497 Buffalo Media Region 33,669 9,575 Rochester Media Region 139,552 44,004 Utica Media Region 54,855 19,133 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State 155,505 30,156 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

197,765 82,877

39,120 24,646

626,093 168,119

89,111 50,299

134,144 60,273

28,765 23,654

$35,314,663 $2,073,867

$7,265,748 $867,212

48,282

17,768

76,044

24,008

23,200

7,525

*

*

* 8,072

* 4,017

* 22,534

* 8,585

* 3,063

* 1,358

* $3,034,396

* $1,460,484

15,141 10,263

7,394 3,328

109,967 36,597

42,506 18,228

* *

* *

$4,285,658 $1,183,937

$1,176,015 $443,171

10,519 8,140

3,321 3,516

* 134,615

* 29,401

* 12,751

* 5,715

* $13,328,819

* $5,192,534

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Yellow Perch Walleye Bullheads, Catfish Coho/Chinook Salmon Trout (book, brown, rainbow) Steelhead Trout No Specific Species Other

35.1 17.1 11.9 7.3 3.4 3.3 2.3 2.1 7.1 10.4

Mean distance traveled = 136 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 7.2 20.7 20.8 11.2 13.0 0.0 7.4 6.4 3.0 10.3

45.0 16.4 9.8 5.9 0.7 2.9 0.4 0.0 8.7 10.2

Number

Oct.-Dec. 30.0 15.0 8.4 8.0 1.7 9.8 3.4 5.9 6.0 11.8

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 24. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Lewis County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

144,042 44,768 Total Reside in County * * Outside County but within Media Region 33,128 12,833 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

88,309 *

36,720 *

14,055 8,874

4,957 3,379

*

*

22,130

11,015

1,206

* *

* *

* *

* *

3,897 *

29

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Walleye Lake Trout No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

46.8 18.2 8.3 7.5 4.5 5.3 9.5

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 60.1 37.0 2.1 26.0 12.3 7.4 10.0 7.4 4.1 4.3 0.0 8.6 11.4 9.3

Mean distance traveled = 65 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

$1,787,825 *

$601,502 *

443

*

*

1,773 *

* *

* *

Oct.-Dec. 69.4 16.8 1.6 0.3 6.7 0.0 5.2

Table 25. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Livingston County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

193,817 40,843 Total Reside in County 79,535 27,209 Outside County but within Media Region 57,279 23,677 Buffalo Media Region 20,650 5,435 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

40,276 *

16,221 *

106,473 47,024

31,535 21,983

47,068 *

20,262 *

$2,926,172 *

$1,232,173 *

*

*

*

*

7,434

3,147

*

*

*

*

10,661

3,079

*

*

*

*

2,837 *

1,197 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

30 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Northern Pike Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Lake Trout Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

28.8 26.4 7.9 7.3 7.1 4.7 2.0 7.9 7.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 9.7 35.8 47.0 20.5 12.7 4.0 9.7 5.8 12.5 8.0 2.6 3.4 0.0 1.0 2.4 11.5 3.4 10.0

Mean distance traveled = 47 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 29.4 22.0 12.8 8.5 0.4 9.5 5.9 4.5 7.0

Table 26. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Madison County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

318,907 67,197 Total Reside in County 144,148 43,236 Outside County but within Media Region 93,350 40,327 Other NYS Media Regions 77,506 25,816 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

136,846 84,904

43,857 36,549

146,447 40,925

47,568 16,312

* *

* *

$1,618,089 $485,138

$745,777 $218,688

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

22,778 *

9,761 *

* *

* *

12,251 *

5,340 *

* *

* *

31

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

30.6 19.4 16.6 7.8 6.9 7.2 11.5

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 29.6 31.2 21.8 17.7 7.9 24.8 9.8 6.0 7.6 6.9 7.1 7.9 16.2 5.5

Mean distance traveled = 25 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 32.3 16.8 16.7 7.3 3.9 4.8 18.2

Table 27. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Monroe County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

661,323 115,355 Total Reside in County 527,566 109,260 Outside County but within Media Region 51,284 18,090 Buffalo Media Region 41,923 18,204 Other NYS Media Regions 33,575 11,765 Out of State 7,459 2,470 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

140,117 105,505

36,000 34,460

397,866 331,773

106,547 101,285

123,340 90,288

25,664 22,174

12,055 7,474

5,000 2,568

* *

* *

* 5,745

* 2,161

15,237 *

6,825 *

5,845 4,012

* 2,178

* 937

32

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Trout Bluegill/Sunfish Landlocked Atlantic Salmon No Specific Species Other

21.6 20.8 15.3 7.7 5.6 3.1 2.2 12.5 11.2

1,442 1,619

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 23.5 22.2 4.8 28.4 30.2 7.9 0.2 9.1 10.5 1.8 6.8 2.5 0.0 1.8 12.1 15.2 11.9 11.1

Mean distance traveled = 38 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

$6,352,776 $3,715,411

$1,688,386 $1,303,738

* *

* *

$797,630 *

Oct.-Dec. 17.7 14.2 22.3 11.5 12.4 1.0 5.8 4.2 10.9

$381,534 *

Table 28. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Montgomery County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

83,528 30,873 Total Reside in County 23,107 7,260 Outside County but within Media Region * * Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

* 13,642

* 5,584

* *

* *

$780,264 *

$667,730 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

33

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Carp Northern Pike Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

39.1 21.3 6.3 5.9 3.2 3.1 12.4 8.6

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 0.0 35.6 32.8 26.3 34.5 4.7 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 9.4 1.5 0.0 17.0 23.3 7.1

Mean distance traveled = 23 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 58.5 8.5 0.0 4.5 10.0 4.0 8.0 6.5

Table 29. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Nassau County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

62,550 23,153 Total Reside in County * * Outside County but within Media Region 17,045 8,371 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

* *

* *

* 1,452

* 267

$270,439 *

$116,508 *

3,929

1,715

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

34

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Carp Bluegill/Sunfish Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

31.4 26.2 9.0 7.6 2.7 11.4 11.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 34.0 29.4 35.4 26.4 0.0 10.5 2.1 7.3 6.5 0.0 18.1 8.7 3.9 17.7

Mean distance traveled = 13 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.2 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 35.4 0.0 24.8 24.0 7.5 8.3 0.0

Table 30. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Niagara County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

522,507 83,569 Total Reside in County 349,751 70,808 Outside County but within Media Region 107,444 21,386 Other NYS Media Regions 28,906 13,821 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

90,422 *

30,598 *

291,163 209,594

69,171 57,377

140,922 96,617

35,538 31,853

$7,958,787 $1,794,768

$1,821,698 $786,963

29,382

11,592

43,394

14,687

34,668

10,358

$2,372,927

$920,996

* 3,911

* 1,907

* *

* *

* 5,831

* 1,548

$1,203,087 *

$308,064 *

35

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Trout Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Lake Trout Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

21.9 20.3 15.1 6.7 5.6 4.8 3.2 11.5 10.7

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 6.0 28.8 15.7 23.9 26.9 6.0 7.4 3.5 4.4 7.6 12.9 3.3 9.0 0.9 11.6 11.9 6.1 14.1

Mean distance traveled = 77 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 17.9 15.8 26.4 12.9 2.4 2.8 4.4 10.7 6.7

Table 31. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Oneida County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

667,075 100,533 Total Reside in County 413,352 70,872 Outside County but within Media Region 15,862 6,959 Syracuse Media Region 132,147 45,055 Other NYS Media Regions 62,005 27,848 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

171,367 103,062

42,210 31,422

385,416 239,217

85,803 57,623

110,292 71,073

31,035 26,742

$5,963,461 $2,447,337

$1,454,153 $888,835

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

31,907

14,249

*

*

27,049

12,721

*

*

* *

* *

29,564 *

13,299 *

5,598 *

2,026 *

$1,268,648 *

36 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

33.5 26.9 15.5 5.3 7.8 11.0

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 40.1 32.7 30.4 20.9 2.3 22.9 10.5 3.4 6.4 9.3 10.3 10.8

Mean distance traveled = 45 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 26.3 42.2 10.4 3.7 4.7 12.7

$399,952 *

Table 32. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Onondaga County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

629,994 89,056 Total Reside in County 452,251 70,216 Outside County but within Media Region 105,667 44,878 Other NYS Media Regions 59,341 27,497 Out of State 15,793 4,367 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

186,701 152,782

43,189 40,403

315,507 209,365

69,473 50,248

127,786 90,104

35,200 27,804

$7,447,320 $3,200,234

$2,315,793 $1,165,208

*

*

*

*

18,137

7,666

*

*

2,337 894

* 12,742

* 4,088

* *

* *

* *

* *

5,295 1,922

37

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

30.5 24.5 20.4 5.3 3.2 6.3 9.8

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 14.0 41.0 36.3 18.0 18.9 18.6 9.2 2.4 5.3 2.6 1.8 9.4 14.5 8.0

Mean distance traveled = 41 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 28.5 23.3 27.0 6.8 1.4 5.4 7.6

Table 33. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Ontario County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

333,391 61,388 Total Reside in County 119,487 41,096 Outside County but within Media Region 124,488 40,996 Buffalo Media Region 16,782 4,978 Other NYS Media Regions 68,211 17,616 Out of State 6,323 2,785 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

98,842 28,369

26,372 12,732

176,930 *

52,763 *

57,620 *

16,999 *

$4,601,270 *

$1,709,795 *

*

*

*

*

15,802

7,292

*

*

5,005

1,850

9,010

4,431

2,766

1,313

*

*

24,509 *

7,950 *

27,583 *

12,468 *

* *

* *

* $191,400

38 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Lake Trout Walleye Bluegill/Sunfish Crappie (calico bass) No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

29.5 14.9 14.4 11.9 5.5 4.7 2.4 9.5 7.3

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 11.4 41.2 19.4 11.3 26.6 8.8 9.2 10.7 3.7 7.1 7.4 3.4 5.5 1.2 7.2 13.0 9.6 3.3

Mean distance traveled = 42 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 24.4 18.0 10.7 20.0 3.7 4.3 0.7 2.7 15.5

* $90,403

Table 34. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Orange County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

486,106 90,249 Total Reside in County 337,735 68,147 Outside County but within Media Region 113,652 52,901 Other NYS Media Regions 4,558 1,793 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

151,253 80,369

50,926 26,091

266,178 209,264

69,159 57,677

68,675 *

27,721 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

39

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Striped Bass (freshwater only) Bluegill/Sunfish Shad Pickerel No Specific Species Other

36.2 22.3 9.2 4.0 3.3 2.7 8.7 13.6

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 25.6 40.6 33.5 18.8 6.4 10.4 5.3 3.5 6.0 2.6 1.8 1.9 7.6 10.6 13.8 11.6

Mean distance traveled = 21 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Number

$2,640,623 $1,540,994

$616,967 $474,822

$831,321

$342,062

* *

Oct.-Dec. 42.4 11.5 11.0 2.9 0.0 7.7 3.5 21.0

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

Table 35. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Orleans County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

199,269 60,359 Total Reside in County * * Outside County but within Media Region * * Rochester Media Region 27,963 11,104 Other NYS Media Regions 8,095 2,881 Out of State 43,898 11,568 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

18,880 *

7,263 *

123,720 *

58,420 *

56,669 *

13,329 *

$7,474,578 *

$3,507,519 *

4,630

2,115

*

*

13,027

4,801

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

917 *

452 *

* 18,518

* 8,970

4,618 16,667

2,277 4,936

$249,619 * *

40 Total Fished Primarily For Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Trout Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Yellow Perch Lake Trout Carp No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

27.9 17.7 12.2 10.9 8.3 3.4 2.5 0.6 9.5 7.1

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 17.7 31.0 50.8 11.4 0.9 15.3 5.9 6.9 0.0 10.4 6.2 2.3 10.0 1.3 6.1 0.0 0.3 11.4 2.1 10.0

Mean distance traveled = 140 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.8 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 24.5 20.4 9.1 21.2 6.6 4.7 2.7 0.0 8.4 2.4

$99,787 * *

Table 36. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Oswego County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

41

1,235,768 128,866 Total Reside in County 440,679 81,129 Outside County but within Media Region 213,423 45,431 Albany Media Region 43,207 13,218 New York City Media Region 75,778 34,644 Utica Media Region 84,575 33,337 Other NYS Media Regions 109,987 47,678 Out of State 271,279 40,369 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

348,510 160,512

76,351 48,864

533,479 191,127

91,289 56,441

353,779 89,040

49,428 31,759

$42,623,006 $3,470,069

$6,356,767 $1,713,917

*

*

86,936

26,643

72,229

24,046

$2,905,469

$994,316

*

*

17,997

8,625

11,054

2,755

*

*

* 19,942

* 7,327

* *

* *

24,920 24,357

11,413 11,601

$5,426,948 *

$1,383,140 *

* 54,030

* 16,132

46,040 111,718

18,094 32,920

29,685 105,531

10,547 16,903

$3,383,198 $22,423,454

$1,043,882 $4,933,648

Total Fished Primarily For Coho/Chinook Salmon Steelhead Trout Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Yellow Perch Other

35.3 19.8 10.2 6.8 6.6 5.6 4.3 11.3

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 8.3 43.2 38.9 4.8 4.2 18.8 13.6 4.3 8.2 7.5 1.5 6.2 8.8 2.7 16.5 12.5

Mean distance traveled = 153 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 50.1 23.6 3.1 4.0 3.7 8.8 2.2 4.5

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 37. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Otsego County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

248,895 55,245 Total Reside in County 147,293 45,121 Outside County but within Media Region 24,636 8,004 Albany Media Region 25,622 8,163 Other NYS Media Regions 45,601 17,899 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Total Confidence Limits, +

83,279 *

41,459 *

122,019 69,011

34,879 21,594

43,597 18,716

10,796 6,972

$2,226,708 *

$844,496 *

2,768

1,262

13,963

6,556

*

*

$161,600

$69,938

*

*

*

*

5,181

2,540

*

*

14,340 *

7,156 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

42 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Lake Trout Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

Number

30.7 15.5 14.9 13.3 8.9 3.0 10.4 3.4

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 43.3 26.9 14.5 15.2 11.1 16.4 9.9 15.6 10.4 7.1 2.4 2.3 4.2 13.7 4.2 2.8

Mean distance traveled = 50 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 17.2 18.0 17.8 13.2 11.1 6.3 12.9 3.5

Table 38. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Putnam County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Total Jan.-May June-Sept. Oct.-Dec. Total Residence Number Confidence Number Confidence Number Confidence Number Confidence Number Confidence Areas Limits, + 216,330 85,642 Total Reside in County * * Outside County but within Media Region 81,444 27,538 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

72,622 *

* *

Limits, + * *

* *

Limits, + * *

$1,231,362 *

Limits, + $294,915 *

*

*

26,908

8,874

*

*

$405,308

$116,438

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

43

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Walleye Yellow Perch Landlocked Atlantic Salmon No Specific Species Other

Limits, + 29,395 *

42.0 29.7 5.9 3.7 1.2 1.2 5.4 10.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 42.5 44.9 24.7 31.2 6.6 4.7 7.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 6.9 4.7 10.0 14.5

Mean distance traveled = 35 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 31.6 35.3 8.2 6.6 6.3 6.2 4.5 1.3

Table 39. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Rensselaer County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

123,741 37,228 Total Reside in County 82,685 32,409 Outside County but within Media Region 37,808 17,223 Other NYS Media Regions 1,774 531 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

52,903 29,816

20,613 13,399

16,229 8,471

6,002 3,687

$678,709 *

$345,187 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

44

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Striped Bass (freshwater only) Walleye Yellow Perch Pickerel No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

33.5 23.3 11.3 5.2 4.4 3.9 11.0 7.4

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 29.9 37.8 21.0 24.6 12.0 12.5 3.8 5.8 9.0 0.0 2.7 4.8 13.2 9.2 8.4 5.3

Mean distance traveled = 21 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 31.4 26.6 5.2 7.9 3.3 5.2 9.3 11.1

Table 40. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Rockland County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

118,587 30,275 Total Reside in County 90,201 24,488 Outside County but within Media Region * * Other NYS Media Regions 5,606 395 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

52,767 31,206

21,023 11,603

50,743 *

20,169 *

* *

* *

$809,398 *

$470,316 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

45

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Striped Bass (freshwater only) Yellow Perch Carp Pickerel No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

36.6 28.9 5.0 3.9 2.6 2.3 10.7 9.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 19.3 59.6 32.9 26.0 10.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.4 0.0 5.2 0.0 15.1 0.0 6.2 14.4

Mean distance traveled = 29 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.0 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 20.1 24.7 2.5 12.0 1.6 0.0 31.2 7.9

Table 41. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Saratoga County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

359,514 73,021 Total Reside in County 190,583 61,746 Outside County but within Media Region 142,507 35,191 Other NYS Media Regions 22,765 6,136 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

71,826 *

33,405 *

238,584 131,482

63,644 56,220

49,104 26,038

12,872 9,294

$4,195,037 *

$1,379,872 *

*

*

86,161

24,563

21,448

8,489

*

*

5,084 *

1,936 *

16,249 *

5,716 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

46

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Northern Pike Walleye Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

41.2 22.8 6.7 5.6 2.9 10.7 10.1

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 15.5 50.4 34.8 20.8 12.9 4.0 4.5 4.6 8.0 1.4 15.9 8.9 8.4 9.9

Mean distance traveled = 44 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 34.3 15.2 11.0 11.8 2.8 11.5 13.4

Table 42. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Schenectady County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

46,379 22,560 Total Reside in County * * Outside County but within Media Region 8,936 3,415 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

* *

* *

11,994 8,375

4,143 3,658

$521,331 *

$674,157 *

*

*

3,122

1,210

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

47

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Pickerel Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

57.1 11.5 5.1 4.8 4.0 1.4 1.0 13.8 1.4

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 30.6 60.8 0.0 9.4 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.3 18.5 1.6 20.4 0.0 10.2 0.0 20.4 15.7 0.0 2.0

Mean distance traveled = 13 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 54.4 19.8 8.8 2.2 6.6 0.0 1.1 7.0 0.1

Table 43. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Schoharie County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

102,657 29,248 Total Reside in County 70,535 22,751 Outside County but within Media Region 17,310 7,064 Other NYS Media Regions 15,494 7,340 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

20,647 7,914

8,388 2,835

1,499 * *

48

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Yellow Perch Walleye Bullheads/Catfish Bluegill/Sunfish No Specific Species Other

41.8 26.9 12.0 8.0 4.6 1.5 2.3 3.0

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

70,220 56,974

27,485 22,123

11,790 *

5,447 *

$476,730 *

$390,059 *

541

*

*

4,800

2,241

*

*

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 11.8 52.2 40.8 21.8 8.1 13.8 20.5 3.5 0.0 6.5 4.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 7.2 2.2

Mean distance traveled = 32 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 32.1 33.0 8.3 12.8 1.4 5.5 6.9 0.0

Table 44. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Schuyler County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

293,215 64,627 Total Reside in County 118,016 47,187 Outside County but within Media Region * * Binghamton Media Region 113,875 31,855 Other NYS Media Regions 22,106 8,518 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

167,553 *

52,995 *

60,052 *

16,510 *

$4,444,750 *

$2,834,355 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

20,218

8,140

66,362

29,485

27,295

8,897

*

*

* *

* *

15,308 *

7,450 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

49 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Crappie (calico bass) Bluegill/Sunfish Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

Number

23.6 23.5 13.6 8.2 5.0 3.1 2.6 10.9 9.5

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 10.2 32.7 43.6 13.8 8.0 15.3 15.9 3.2 8.2 4.4 5.8 2.2 5.8 1.0 0.3 15.3 2.2 12.1

Mean distance traveled = 39 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 13.0 28.5 15.2 13.7 3.1 2.6 3.6 10.1 10.2

Table 45. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Seneca County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

142,507 38,661 Total Reside in County 73,262 31,653 Outside County but within Media Region * * Other NYS Media Regions 43,129 17,723 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Number

Jan.-May Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

75,582 *

27,779 *

* *

* *

$1,988,608 *

$831,739 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

7,486 *

2,496 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

50

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small and largemouth) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Northern Pike Bluegill/Sunfish Bullheads, Catfish Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Crappie (calico bass) No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

26.8 15.4 13.9 11.0 5.3 4.8 4.1 2.4 11.4 4.8

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 12.4 30.1 14.4 17.7 28.7 7.6 4.8 7.9 2.4 8.5 6.3 6.0 9.6 3.5 0.7 1.4 14.2 13.4 6.5 3.9

Mean distance traveled = 61 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.4 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 33.2 11.4 13.7 23.6 0.9 0.9 0.4 6.1 4.6 5.2

Table 46. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in St. Lawrence County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

644,098 95,613 Total Reside in County 296,659 70,288 Outside County but within Media Region 69,452 14,329 Rochester Media Region 42,337 18,430 Other NYS Media Regions 176,946 56,799 Out of State 64,022 14,102 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

155,631 83,768

56,679 39,388

391,197 153,002

73,067 54,011

97,270 59,888

24,302 21,721

$17,861,105 $2,066,717

$3,325,360 $1,029,802

22,854

7,862

38,345

11,347

8,254

3,843

$2,229,139

$877,772

*

*

*

*

3,195

973

$1,744,645

$737,378

* *

* *

113,901 54,857

40,493 13,529

22,628 4,840

6,419 2,099

$6,675,677 $4,823,033

$1,950,093 $1,917,104

51 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Walleye Northern Pike Crappie (calico bass) Yellow Perch Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

33.5 12.8 10.7 9.3 6.6 6.2 3.3 7.6 10.0

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 11.7 43.2 19.2 10.5 14.0 8.8 15.7 6.3 9.6 5.4 11.9 4.3 5.3 2.7 2.6 10.5 10.0 8.3

Mean distance traveled = 149 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 29.5 12.0 12.9 10.8 6.4 4.8 2.7 4.0 16.9

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 47. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Steuben County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

297,393 82,744 Total Reside in County 228,917 77,370 Outside County but within Media Region 18,051 6,594 Other NYS Media Regions 40,449 11,058 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

59,922 39,896

18,053 16,251

186,040 151,657

79,287 74,579

51,430 37,364

15,305 12,647

$2,351,841 $807,096

$1,119,187 $365,346

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

13,602 *

6,247 *

20,862 *

8,409 *

* *

* *

* *

* *

52

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish Walleye No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

34.6 24.6 10.8 5.8 3.0 2.8 9.7 8.6

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 45.3 29.4 8.9 32.6 10.0 11.4 11.9 2.4 6.0 1.5 2.4 1.6 7.9 12.8 7.6 8.3

Mean distance traveled = 41 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 41.2 14.2 9.8 10.9 4.8 7.6 0.5 11.0

Table 48. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Suffolk County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

294,692 59,261 Total Reside in County 234,139 53,418 Outside County but within Media Region 37,862 14,443 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

80,724 68,225

24,037 22,570

172,379 130,257

51,154 45,440

41,589 35,657

17,815 16,712

$2,266,565 $1,427,826

$713,881 $684,925

10,033

2,984

*

*

*

*

$559,898

$229,066

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

53

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Pickerel No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

44.8 22.6 5.8 4.9 5.6 16.3

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 46.0 42.4 16.9 23.0 8.0 6.1 5.5 4.0 1.5 8.7 22.1 15.8

Mean distance traveled = 26 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 52.6 31.9 0.0 7.6 0.9 7.0

Table 49. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Sullivan County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

514,652 73,820 Total Reside in County 229,397 57,491 Outside County but within Media Region 201,715 31,785 Other NYS Media Regions 29,569 8,422 Out of State 56,020 22,680 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

173,055 93,385

46,510 39,140

284,007 117,016

55,107 41,103

57,591 18,997

15,794 9,158

$8,497,470 $1,266,618

$1,602,159 $615,480

60,499

19,043

118,513

23,384

22,702

10,041

$5,025,059

$1,286,736

* 9,226

* 3,823

15,848 *

6,858 *

5,144 *

1,729 *

$983,363 $1,564,808

$463,288 $593,118

54

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Pickerel Shad No Specific Species Other

57.6 15.3 5.8 3.9 2.5 4.9 10.0

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 58.6 59.0 8.7 19.1 3.6 6.6 5.1 3.3 6.0 0.1 5.1 4.6 12.9 7.3

Mean distance traveled = 74 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 47.8 16.2 8.4 3.5 3.7 5.7 14.7

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 50. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Tioga County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

124,160 34,459 Total Reside in County 75,913 28,749 Outside County but within Media Region 30,209 12,828 Other NYS Media Regions 7,758 1,993 Out of State 10,454 3,794 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

* *

* *

70,931 44,938

27,928 22,448

34,574 *

16,817 *

$588,562 *

$263,472 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

6,110 *

1,839 *

* *

* *

* $66,300

* $28,667

55

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Walleye Bullheads, Catfish Yellow Perch No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

32.2 16.5 15.8 13.5 1.3 12.3 8.4

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 61.4 34.0 9.2 17.7 11.7 7.4 8.3 18.4 5.0 1.0 1.9 14.2 2.5 7.3

Mean distance traveled = 25 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 12.7 18.1 35.2 6.1 0.0 14.1 13.8

Table 51. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Tompkins County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

200,791 41,738 Total Reside in County 109,133 32,342 Outside County but within Media Region 24,757 8,221 Binghamton Media Region 45,164 18,963 Other NYS Media Regions 15,451 6,956 Out of State 6,112 2,027 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, + 57,490 *

24,257 *

*

*

13,283

6,127

* *

* *

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

90,651 46,054

28,220 19,241

52,650 *

18,902 *

$3,116,975 *

$1,402,016 *

8,533

4,049

14,841

7,076

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

961 *

422 *

* *

* *

56 Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Steelhead Trout No Specific Species Other

36.0 17.5 14.6 9.9 7.4 2.6 7.7 4.3

Total Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 54.9 24.2 7.0 26.7 10.4 19.8 4.9 13.8 10.6 3.7 0.0 1.0 9.4 7.3 2.8 3.5

Mean distance traveled = 46 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.3 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 35.8 13.0 10.4 8.5 10.1 8.3 6.7 7.2

Table 52. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Ulster County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

391,641 59,740 Total Reside in County 256,061 47,739 Outside County but within Media Region 114,339 32,666 Other NYS Media Regions 16,497 7,269 Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

125,320 85,208

36,206 29,512

182,916 110,137

37,653 27,631

83,404 60,717

28,987 25,389

$4,974,835 $2,027,267

$1,221,008 $680,295

*

*

62,764

21,571

*

*

$2,260,781

$906,541

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

57

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Striped Bass (freshwater only) Lake Trout No Specific Species Other

44.3 20.1 12.9 6.4 4.1 12.1

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 46.5 46.8 10.4 23.2 24.7 8.3 2.3 5.8 3.6 2.8 12.5 13.1

Mean distance traveled = 42 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Number

Oct.-Dec. 35.7 28.1 5.3 13.8 7.7 9.4

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 53. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Warren County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

455,734 65,806 Total Reside in County 110,129 40,986 Outside County but within Media Region 178,892 37,773 New York City Media Region 71,077 18,920 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State 58,793 11,271 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

90,545 *

20,447 *

312,225 79,122

60,877 38,849

52,965 14,747

14,365 7,367

$13,804,053 *

$3,405,864 *

47,341

13,325

108,507

33,616

23,044

10,920

$3,309,469

$1,450,268

12,350

3,732

48,890

17,995

9,837

4,496

$3,726,569

$1,724,040

* *

* *

* 47,130

* 8,773

* *

* *

* $4,016,814

* $1,497,763

58 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Northern Pike No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

36.5 21.9 12.8 5.6 4.4 6.5 12.2

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 12.1 45.8 32.9 18.3 15.4 10.6 17.6 1.7 10.2 2.9 2.0 7.4 9.8 13.3

Mean distance traveled = 99 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.7 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 23.8 24.7 21.3 8.1 3.1 9.0 10.0

Table 54. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Washington County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

211,932 48,604 Total Reside in County 124,103 43,244 Outside County but within Media Region 68,253 17,424 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

72,972 *

29,766 *

117,525 70,106

37,415 32,273

21,435 6,292

8,744 2,862

$1,907,259 *

$771,006 *

18,442

6,857

34,999

13,794

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* 10,592

* 4,091

* *

* *

* *

* *

59

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Black Bass (small or largemouth) Bullheads, Catfish Yellow Perch Bluegill/Sunfish Lake Trout Northern Pike Walleye No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

41.9 13.7 8.2 5.1 4.7 4.3 4.1 3.0 11.0 3.8

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 36.7 46.9 6.9 17.0 12.3 7.1 10.6 0.9 3.9 6.0 9.9 1.6 6.6 1.6 2.5 2.9 6.6 11.8 4.0 4.2

Mean distance traveled = 47 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 32.6 18.7 0.5 9.5 0.0 0.5 9.7 5.6 21.5 1.4

Table 55. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Wayne County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

488,680 81,670 Total Reside in County 229,589 61,156 Outside County but within Media Region 92,705 29,656 Buffalo Media Region 48,707 19,827 Syracuse Media Region 30,905 9,159 Other NYS Media Regions 29,271 10,669 Out of State 56,480 25,574 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

139,019 72,979

41,149 32,888

276,441 127,890

67,013 49,540

73,219 28,720

22,044 14,291

$11,813,163 *

$4,288,335 *

* *

* *

49,291 38,334

20,851 19,158

* *

* *

* *

* *

18,584

8,106

6,669

3,150

*

*

*

*

6,530 *

2,987 *

12,038 *

6,010 *

* 7,980

* 1,864

* *

* *

60 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Coho/Chinook Salmon Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Steelhead Trout Bluegill/Sunfish Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

25.1 18.2 17.9 6.8 6.2 4.7 3.6 7.6 9.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 8.0 36.2 7.5 23.6 39.4 7.8 5.8 3.8 9.0 3.8 5.7 4.8 8.2 2.1 5.4 9.4 11.0 8.5

Mean distance traveled = 88 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 15.5 18.3 15.2 20.0 10.2 2.4 0.5 4.7 13.2

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

Table 56. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Westchester County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

283,891 50,797 Total Reside in County 169,568 41,051 Outside County but within Media Region 70,535 20,569 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State 13,915 6,504 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

84,761 44,499

21,048 15,512

152,432 103,731

43,194 37,457

46,699 21,338

16,479 6,446

$1,619,114 $666,656

$526,441 $247,866

30,831

12,029

19,703

8,746

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

* 6,236

* 1,775

* *

* *

* *

* *

61

Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Striped Bass (freshwater only) Lake Trout Steelhead Trout No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

32.0 31.2 9.5 9.2 1.8 5.4 10.9

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 20.9 40.1 40.8 29.7 6.9 10.6 7.3 7.1 1.9 0.0 1.3 7.2 20.9 5.3

Mean distance traveled = 24 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.6 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 25.6 18.6 10.8 19.4 7.4 7.0 11.2

Table 57. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Wyoming County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

206,197 43,507 Total Reside in County 86,947 32,554 Outside County but within Media Region 87,278 18,521 Other NYS Media Regions * * Out of State * * *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

57,187 21,219

15,594 8,677

125,536 *

38,627 *

* *

* *

$1,250,094 $326,640

$357,024 $148,767

35,002

12,926

46,116

12,573

*

*

$603,965

$216,178

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

62

Total Fished Primarily For Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Bluegill/Sunfish Yellow Perch Black Bass (small or largemouth) Northern Pike Walleye Crappie (calico bass) No Specific Species Other

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

47.9 10.7 9.6 8.2 7.1 6.6 2.6 5.0 2.4

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 48.8 46.1 8.1 12.8 23.5 2.2 0.9 11.5 7.0 8.1 2.1 8.2 6.0 1.5 0.8 7.9 2.8 1.7

Mean distance traveled = 39 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

* *

Oct.-Dec. 55.3 5.6 15.3 8.2 2.1 8.6 0.0 0.0 4.9

* *

Table 58. Number of angler days, at–location expenditures, species fished for, distance traveled, and satisfaction with the fishing experience for anglers fishing in Yates County. At Location Angler Days Expenditures Residence Areas

Number

Total Confidence Limits, +

173,144 35,056 Total Reside in County 64,259 21,377 Outside County but within Media Region * * Rochester Media Region 39,471 19,539 Other NYS Media Regions 51,905 15,913 Out of State 9,889 4,206 *Confidence limit more than 50% of estimate.

Jan.-May Number Confidence Limits, +

June-Sept. Number Confidence Limits, +

Oct.-Dec. Number Confidence Limits, +

Number

50,647 21,730

17,094 9,195

80,754 *

26,183 *

41,743 *

15,849 *

$3,125,575 *

$1,259,533 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

29,318 5,778

13,084 2,786

* *

* *

* *

* *

63 Total Fished Primarily For Black Bass (small or largemouth) Lake Trout Yellow Perch Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) Bullheads, Catfish No Specific Species Other

Total Confidence Limits, +

31.3 21.6 12.9 8.5 3.6 12.4 9.8

Jan.-May June-Sept. Percent of Days 7.9 44.5 22.3 13.3 23.7 8.0 14.6 5.9 10.1 0.8 9.0 18.9 12.4 8.6

Mean distance traveled = 70 miles Avg. satisfaction level = 3.5 (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied)

Oct.-Dec. 34.0 36.7 9.4 6.2 1.0 3.8 8.9

LITERATURE CITED Brown, T. L. 1975. The 1973 New York statewide angler study. Cornell University/NYSDEC. 117pp. Brown, T. L. 1981. A market segmentation of New York’s Great Lakes anglers. Research Report, New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany. 46pp. Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 2009. New York statewide angler survey 2007, Report 4: Survey method comparison and analysis of trends in fishing effort. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 25pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1990. New York statewide angler survey 1988. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 158 pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1997. New York statewide angler survey 1996, Report 1: Angler effort and expenditures. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 107pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Assessing the relative importance of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler surveys. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5(4):19-29. Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth, and D. L. Kay. 2002. Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environmental Management 29(4):467476. Enck, J. W., and T. L. Brown. 2008. 2007 Statewide deer hunter survey: Opinions about hotbutton issues and trends in characteristics of hunters. HDRU Publ. No. 08-5. Dept. of Nat. Resour., N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 81pp. Kretser, W. A., and L. E. Klatt. 1981. 1976-77 New York angler survey final report. NYSDEC, Survey and Inventory Unit. 214p.

64

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 ____________________________________

REPORT 4: SURVEY METHOD COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN FISHING EFFORT

July 2009 (revised)

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Fisheries 625 Broadway Albany, New i York 12233

NEW YORK STATEWIDE ANGLER SURVEY 2007 __________________________________________________

REPORT 4: SURVEY METHOD COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN FISHING EFFORT

by Nancy A. Connelly and Tommy L. Brown

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Shaun Keeler and Steve Hurst of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Bureau of Fisheries, were our primary contacts throughout the study and headed up the Bureau Angler Survey Team. They provided invaluable help and support for the project. We also would like to thank the other members of the Bureau Angler Survey Team (Melissa Cohen, Steve LaPan, Bill Culligan, Dan Bishop, Phil Hulbert, and Bill Schoch) for their efforts in questionnaire design and analysis planning. NYSDEC consultant, Scott Houde, deserves recognition for the many hours he spent on sample selection. NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries staff member, Casey Festa, is recognized for the many hours spent coding water bodies and checking data for the report. We thank Human Dimensions Research Unit staff member, Karlene Smith, who assisted with sample selection, mailings, and construction of tables for this report. We also thank Margie Peech for typing the tables and formatting this report. The Survey Research Institute at Cornell University implemented the surveys, conducted the nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, and scanned the completed questionnaires. This study was funded by the NYSDEC, Bureau of Fisheries using Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration funds under contract C00278.

EDITOR’S NOTE (Revisions / Corrections) The June, 2009 Report 4 was modified in July, 2009. Changes were made to Tables 8 and 9 to clarify the estimated angler days and at-location expenditures for the Delaware River (main stem). Some of the yearly totals listed earlier in these tables included estimated angler days and expenditures for the West Branch Delaware River and East Branch Delaware River (note that these are listed separately in Report 1 for year 2007). In addition, the number of estimated angler days for black bass (From 3-phase) in Table 3 of this report was adjusted (it was previously incorrectly entered).

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 METHODS .....................................................................................................................................1 Questionnaire Design..................................................................................................................1 Sample Selection.........................................................................................................................2 Mail Survey Implementation ......................................................................................................2 Nonrespondent Telephone Follow-up.........................................................................................2 Analysis and Data Weighting .....................................................................................................2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................3 Mail Survey Response and Adjustments for Nonresponse Bias................................................3 Degree of Recall Bias .................................................................................................................4 Trends in Fishing Effort and Expenditures.................................................................................5 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................9 Evidence of Recall Bias ..............................................................................................................9 Costs Versus Benefits of Reducing the Recall Period for the Statewide Angler Survey ............................................................................................................................12 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................13 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire .......................................................................................................15 APPENDIX B: Additional Tables .................................................................................................23

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Page 2007 statewide angler survey response rates……………………………………… Differences in estimates of angler effort by water body between two survey methodologies………………………………...…………………………………… Differences in estimates of angler effort by species fished for between two survey methodologies……………………………………………………………... Indicator variables that might explain differences in estimates of fishing effort between two survey methodologies……………………………………………… Estimated number of angler days for Great lakes and inland waters, 1996 and 2007………………………………………………………………………………. Estimated number of angler days fished by DEC region, 1996 and 2007……….. Estimated number of angler days fished by species sought, 1996 and 2007…….. Estimated number of angler days for major New York waters 1973, 1976-77, 1988, 1996, and 2007…………………………………………………………….. Estimated at-location expenditures, total and average per day, for major New York waters in 1996 and 2007…………………………………………………….

iv

4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11

INTRODUCTION To efficiently manage New York’s freshwater fisheries, comprehensive information is needed periodically on the fishing patterns, preferences, and attitudes of anglers as well as the economic impacts of New York’s fisheries. Such information is most effectively obtained from a statewide mail survey. New York has conducted four such surveys, in 1973 (Brown 1975), in 1976-77 (Kretser and Klatt 1981), in 1988 (Connelly et al. 1990), and in 1996 (Connelly et al. 1997). This is the last in a series of four reports that document the results of a fifth statewide angler survey. The survey was conducted in three phases over the course of 2007-08 and focused on resident and nonresident fishing experiences in New York during the calendar year 2007. A comparative 12-month recall survey also was conducted at the end of 2007. The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) at Cornell University conducted the study for the Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. The study had multiple objectives. Those addressed in this report include: 1. Examine the degree of recall bias by comparing the results of the three-phase survey with the 12-month recall survey. 2. Examine the costs and benefits of the three-phase methodology. 3. Examine trends in angler effort and expenditures in New York State. Dissimilar to previous statewide angler surveys, which were conducted using a single annual mailing, the 2007 survey was implemented at three different times during the calendar year. By using a three-wave approach, it was hoped that the amount of recall bias associated with angler trip recollection could be reduced. Past research (Connelly et al. 2000) has shown that both nonresponse bias and recall bias affect estimates of fishing effort. By reducing the recall period from one year to 3-5 months, it was hoped that recall bias would be reduced, and by conducting nonrespondent telephone follow-ups, it was hoped that that bias could be estimated. In addition, a smaller 12-month recall survey similar to previous annual statewide angler surveys was conducted to measure the degree of recall bias, provide for trend comparisons, and offer feedback on the improved estimates versus the increased cost of a three-wave approach.

METHODS Questionnaire Design The Bureau of Fisheries Angler Survey Team met numerous times to go over questions from past surveys and develop new ones to address issues of current interest and management needs. Core questions on fishing effort and expenditures were retained from past surveys to allow for trends comparisons. The 12-month recall survey contained only the core questions. Appendix A shows the exact content and wording of the 12-

1

month recall questionnaire. The three-phase questionnaires were identical in question wording for the sections on fishing effort and expenditures compared with the 12-month recall questionnaire, except for the dates of fishing effort. Sample Selection For each phase, a random sample of 17,000 was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish during the phase. For the 12-month recall survey, a random sample of 6,000 was drawn from all license holders eligible to fish in 2007 (the 12-month period). Lifetime licenses holders aged 16 or older at the time the survey was implemented were included in the random drawing. Other license types that permitted fishing included annual resident fishing and sportsman, annual nonresident fishing and sportsman, and short-term (1-day, 7-day) resident and nonresident fishing licenses. Mail Survey Implementation The mail survey for each phase was implemented as soon as possible after the phase period ended. The first phase covered the period from Jan. 1 to May 31, 2007. The surveys were sent out on May 31, 2007 with up to three follow-up mailings sent to nonrespondents over the course of the following month. Phase 2 covered the period from June 1 to Sept., 30, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Oct. 18, 2007. Phase 3 covered the period from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2007, and the first mailing of the survey was sent out on Jan. 7, 2008. For the 12-month recall survey, the questionnaire was sent out Jan. 11, 2008 and covered the period from Jan. 1, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2007. Nonrespondent Telephone Follow-up A telephone follow-up to 200 nonrespondents was implemented after each phase and after the 12-month recall survey, for a total of 800 nonrespondent interviews. Questions were asked on fishing effort. Past research has found that nonrespondents fished less than respondents (Connelly et al. 1990, 1997). Nonrespondent data allows us to adjust overall fishing estimates to account for any nonresponse bias. Analysis and Data Weighting Returned mail questionnaires were scanned and entered into SPSS (a statistical analysis package for the social sciences). Locations fished, as written in by anglers, were matched to the Bureau of Fisheries database of water bodies and assigned unique identifiers (FIN codes [Fisheries Index Numbers]). An explanation of the matching process can be found in Appendix B of Report 1 (Connelly and Brown 2009a). Yearly

2

effort totals were calculated by adding data from the three phases. Confidence intervals were calculated at the 95% and 80% levels. Response rates and undeliverable rates differed based on where people lived (Appendix Table B-1). Response rates were lower and undeliverable rates were higher in the New York City and Long Island areas than in central and western New York. This is typical of mail surveys in New York State (Connelly et al. 2002, Enck and Brown 2008). Without weighting the data to account for these differences, estimates of fishing effort would likely be underestimated in locations in and near New York City, and slightly overestimated elsewhere. Therefore, respondents from regions with lower response rates (and higher undeliverable rates) were given more weight, and those in regions with higher response rates were given less weight, corresponding to delivery and response rates. Nonrespondents who were contacted by telephone were considered to be representative of all nonrespondents. Checks of license type at least partially confirmed this assumption. Comparisons of respondents and nonrespondents indicated that only days fished during Phase 2 and in the 12-month recall survey differed significantly. Thus, nonresponse adjustments were made only for effort estimates in phase 2 and in the 12month recall survey. Estimates of effort by species were derived from the question asking for an estimate of the number of days spent primarily fishing for each species at each water body fished. The question was worded in such a way that the number of days fished for each species should add to the total days fished. A number of anglers misunderstood the question and likely reported catch instead of days or perhaps indicated they were fishing primarily for several species on the same day. Only respondents whose sum of days by species equaled total days were used in the estimate of mean days fished by species. However, the mean days by species was expanded to the total estimate of days for a particular species using all respondents who indicated that they fished for that species.

RESULTS Mail Survey Response and Adjustments for Nonresponse Bias Of the 17,000 questionnaires mailed out during each phase, between 700 and 1,100 were undeliverable and between 6,000 and 8,000 completed questionnaires were returned (Table 1). For the 12-month recall survey, 391 questionnaires were undeliverable and 2,238 completed questionnaires were returned. This resulted in adjusted response rates for all surveys between 38% and 49%. Analysis of the nonrespondent telephone follow-up surveys showed that nonrespondents were just as likely to have fished during the survey period and fished approximately the same number of days as respondents. The exceptions were for days fished in phase 2, in which respondents fished more than nonrespondents (17.3 vs. 12.8 3

Table 1. 2007 statewide angler survey response rates. Phase 1 Phase 2 (Jan.-May) (June-Sept.) Initial sample size 17,000 17,000 Undeliverable 800 1,103 Undeliverable rate 4.7% 6.5% Responses 6,823 6,018 Response rate adjusted for undeliverables 42.1% 37.9%

Phase 3 (Oct.-Dec.) 17,000 751 4.4% 7,934 48.8%

Annual (Jan.-Dec.) 6,000 391 6.5% 2,238 39.9%

days), and in the 12-month recall survey, where respondents fished more than nonrespondents (26.0 vs. 19.9 days). As noted previously in the methods section, data were weighted for these biases. Comparisons between respondents and nonrespondents for all questions asked on the nonrespondent survey and covered in this report can be found in Appendix Table B-2. Degree of Recall Bias Past research suggests that recall bias would result in higher estimates for the 12month recall survey than for the three-phase survey. Estimates of fishing effort derived from the three-phase survey did not differ significantly very often from the 12-month recall survey, and when differences occurred, no consistent pattern could be found. For the overall statewide estimate of fishing effort, the estimate from the three-phase survey was slightly larger than from the 12-month recall survey (the opposite of what was expected) but the difference was not significant at the 95% or 80% confidence levels (Table 2). (Sometimes in applied research a wider confidence interval [80%] is considered acceptable because management decisions often do not require the certainty associated with the 95% level.) For most of the water bodies, with a sufficient sample size in the smaller 12-month recall survey (n > 40) for comparisons, the differences were not significant between the two survey methods. The difference was significant for several water bodies at the 80% confidence level, but only for Lake Erie at the 95% level. In comparing estimates from the two methods for days spent fishing by species, there were several cases in which the three-phase estimates were significantly higher than the 12-month recall estimates (Table 3). This occurred primarily with coldwater gamefish (trout and salmon), but also with walleye. In an effort to explain why the differences between some estimates were positive and some negative (although most did not differ statistically), other variables were examined that might influence the degree of recall bias. Table 4 compares the difference between the two survey estimates (Column 1) with possible explanatory variables (Columns 2-5), but does not reveal any strong relationships. For example, if a water body attracts mostly anglers who travel a long distance to get to the fishing site or who spend more money while at the site, then the fishing experience might be more

4

Table 2. Differences in estimates of angler effort by water body between two survey methodologies. Angler Days From 12Significant Significant Water Body From 3-Phase

Month

% Diff.*

Statewide 18,763,714 17,312,485 8.4 Lake Erie 657,821 336,164 95.7 Chautauqua Lake 413,961 256,311 61.5 St. Lawrence River 651,455 461,152 41.3 Niagara River 369,449 273,575 35.0 Lake Ontario (and Bays) 1,553,223 1,280,005 21.3 Oneida Lake 786,401 707,191 11.2 Mohawk River 219,735 202,806 8.3 Black Lake 219,659 209,589 4.8 Salmon River 332,827 337,223 -1.3 Hudson River 470,731 483,232 -2.6 Seneca Lake 340,290 362,084 -6.0 Lake George 289,011 308,837 -6.4 Cayuga Lake 295,920 384,401 -23.0 Lake Champlain 277,759 458,072 -39.4 * Three-phase estimate minus12-month recall estimate. **NS = Not Significant ***Sign.=Significant

at 95%

NS** Sign.*** NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

at 80%

NS Sign. Sign. Sign. NS Sign. NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Sign.

memorable for those anglers and recall bias might be less (as appears to be the case for the Salmon River). But anglers who fished the Niagara River or Cayuga Lake, for example, traveled shorter distances and spent less money, but the difference in estimates between the two survey methodologies was 35% for one and -23% for the other. No consistent pattern, as measured by correlation, could be found. Another possible explanation for the differences might be if the recall bias in the 12-month recall survey were less for water bodies in which more of the fishing took place during the latter part of the year compared with water bodies where more fishing took place earlier in the year, but this was not borne out in a consistent pattern. For the Salmon River, 48% of fishing effort took place in the fall phase and the difference between the two survey estimates is almost zero, supporting the above statement. Conversely, at Black Lake, very little fishing effort occurred in the fall phase, yet the estimates from the two survey methods were almost identical. Trends in Fishing Effort and Expenditures On the assumption that data from the three-phase survey is the most accurate data representing fishing effort in 2007, and that little significant evidence of recall bias could be found, data from the three-phase survey was used for trend comparisons.

5

Table 3. Differences in estimates of angler effort by species fished for between two survey methodologies. Angler Days From 12Significant Significant Species Groups Warmwater gamefish Coldwater gamefish Panfish Marine/anadromous Carp Nonspecific or unclassified

From 3-Phase

Month

% Diff.*

7,145,740 5,747,765 3,328,521 444,458 167,971

6,449,932 4,745,007 2,967,986 370,546 240,338

10.8 21.1 12.1 19.9 (30.1)

1,326,627

1,446,883

(8.3)

Species Walleye 2,212,317 1,548,030 42.9 Pickerel 325,727 232,913 39.8 Coho/chinook salmon 700,250 529,365 32.3 Striped bass (freshwater only) 401,720 306,600 31.0 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow) 3,784,604 2,964,218 27.7 Yellow perch 1,816,026 1,426,190 27.3 Other 177,110 146,419 21.0 Crappie (calico bass) 698,243 583,784 19.6 Lake trout 954,511 887,817 7.5 Steelhead trout 788,035 737,892 6.8 Bluegill/sunfish 944,978 910,258 3.8 Black bass (small or largemouth) 4,613,610 4,466,226 3.3 Muskie 127,029 138,898 (8.5) Landlocked Atlantic salmon 262,773 290,495 -9.5 Shad 54,687 60,660 -9.8 No specific species 1,132,624 1,278,330 -11.4 Northern pike 847,385 1,004,225 -15.6 Tiger muskie 82,094 99,029 -17.1 Bullheads/catfish 578,396 793,248 -27.1 Carp 167,971 240,338 -30.1 * Three-phase estimate minus12-month recall estimate. **NS = Not Significant ***Sign.=Significant

6

at 95%

NS** Sign.*** NS NS NS

at 80%

Sign. Sign. NS NS NS

NS

NS

Sign. NS NS

Sign. NS Sign.

NS

NS

Sign. NS NS NS NS NS NS

Sign. Sign. NS NS NS NS NS

NS NS

NS NS

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table 4. Indicator variables that might explain differences in estimates of fishing effort between two survey methodologies. From three-phase survey Water body Statewide Lake Erie Chautauqua Lake St. Lawrence River Niagara River Lake Ontario (and Bays) Oneida Lake Mohawk River Black Lake Salmon River Hudson River Seneca Lake Lake George Cayuga Lake Lake Champlain

% difference in fishing effort between methodologies*

Average miles traveled

8.4 95.7 61.5 41.3 35.0

59 66 136 53

21.3 11.2 8.3 4.8

118 53 24 215

-1.3 -2.6 -6.0 -6.4 -23.0 -39.4

190 32 50 112 53 116

Most popular fish

Walleye Walleye Bass Bass Coho/Chinook Salmon Walleye Bass Bass Coho/Chinook Salmon Striped bass Lake trout Bass Bass Bass

Correlation with % Difference -0.1468 * Three-phase estimate minus12-month recall estimate.

Average atlocation expenditure

% fishing effort occurring in Oct.Dec.

$20.42 $24.30 $35.59 $10.11

18.1 19.1 11.3 14.6 23.3

$39.45 $15.46 $ 8.10 $56.27

17.1 21.1 22.4 10.8

$56.40 $12.79 $16.37 $48.81 $19.24 $20.54

48.1 16.5 24.0 11.5 18.3 16.8

-0.0843

-0.1305

The statewide angler survey estimated that 18.7 million days were spent fishing New York’s freshwaters in 2007, which is quite similar to the 1996 estimate of 18.6 million days. These estimates are both lower than the peak of 20.8 million days estimated in the 1988 survey. All of these estimates are higher than the 16 million days estimated in the 1970s. Comparisons are possible between the 1996 and 2007 surveys for Great Lakes and inland waters (Table 5), by DEC region fished (Table 6), by most species (Table 7). Differences were generally not significant between years for the Great Lakes, inland waters, and most DEC regions. The exception is Region 2 (New York City) where there appears to be a decrease in fishing effort, even taking into account the large confidence intervals around each estimate. This could in part be an artifact of the careful attention paid to respondents who indicated that they fished in “New York” when coding the 2007

7

Table 5. Estimated number of angler days for Great Lakes and inland waters, 1996 and 2007. Angler Days 1996 2007 Confidence Confidence Number Limits, + Number Limits, + Inland Waters 15,565,140 562,010 15,248,702 485,034 Great Lakes 4,061,790 237,480 3,563,072 216,275

Table 6. Estimated number of angler days fished by DEC region, 1996 and 2007. Angler Days 1996 2007 Region Fished Confidence Confidence Number Limits, + Number Limits, + 1 383,960 72,991 360,103 64,018 2 102,440 68,280 29,319 19,520 3 2,033,540 163,400 2,252,597 185,104 4 1,404,410 142,750 1,410,128 127,697 5 2,496,870 176,040 2,530,014 192,222 6 2,810,760 202,550 2,674,411 191,275 7 3,147,300 244,780 3,275,457 214,999 8 3,179,500 268,710 2,916,539 221,890 9 3,028,480 225,390 3,163,369 245,088 survey. In some cases, anglers wrote “New York” as the county location fished. The computer program assigned them to “New York County,” but examination of these questionnaires revealed that some were likely referring to “New York State” and so were not counted in the Region 2 results. We do not believe this type of check was done for the 1996 survey, and this, therefore could account for some of the differences in effort between the two years. Effort associated with most of the major species has increased between 1996 and 2007 (Table 7). (Note: Several species of trout had to be grouped together in order to make comparisons across years.) Walleye and yellow perch effort appear to have increased the most. Bass effort has remained unchanged, but continues to be the most frequently sought species in the state. Trends in angler effort by major water bodies can be traced back as far as the first statewide angler survey in 1973 (Table 8). While effort on some water bodies has remained relatively constant between 1996 and 2007 (e.g., Lake Erie, Salmon River), none of the major water bodies appears to have had level effort over the entire period (1973 to 2007). For example, Lake Ontario (and bays) increased rapidly into the 1980’s and has gradually declined between 1996 and 2007. 8

Table 7. Estimated number of angler days fished by species sought, 1996 and 2007. Angler Days 1996 2007 Species Sought Confidence Confidence Number Limits, + Number Limits, + Black Bass (small or largemouth) 4,627,280 215,840 4,613,610 265,493 Trout (brook, brown, rainbow, steelhead)* 4,044,620 309,340 4,572,639 316,038 Walleye 1,667,020 121,890 2,212,317 199,508 Yellow Perch 1,162,410 112,850 1,816,026 176,354 Lake Trout 762,050 92,070 954,511 100,865 Bluegill/Sunfish 647,600 71,970 944,978 117,242 Northern Pike 784,680 72,320 847,385 85,879 Coho/Chinook Salmon 604,190 64,560 700,250 74,832 Crappie (calico bass) 540,750 68,140 698,243 170,134 Bullheads, Catfish 511,540 65,560 578,396 83,513 Landlocked Atlantic Salmon 291,230 46,890 262,773 41,514 *Several categories had to be combined from the original data to create a comparable trout category.

At-location expenditures, with 1996 estimates adjusted to 2007 constant dollars, have generally decreased, dramatically in some cases, between 1996 and 2007 (Table 9). For example, estimates of expenditures along the St. Lawrence River decreased from $45 million (in constant dollars) in 1996 to $23 million in 2007. Smaller decreases were seen among the top water such as Lake Ontario, the Salmon River, and Chautauqua Lake. A few waters have seen an increase in spending due primarily to an increase in fishing effort (e.g., Hudson River), or an increase in both the amount spent per day and fishing effort (e.g., Black Lake).

DISCUSSION Evidence of Recall Bias Past research, including work done with the previous statewide angler survey, has generally shown that longer recall periods result in overestimates of fishing effort (Hiett and Worrall 1977, Tarrant et al. 1993, Westat Inc. 1989). For example in the last statewide angler survey, mean days fished was 17.6 days for anglers responding to the 12-month recall survey compared to 15.4 days for anglers responding to quarterly phone interviews (Connelly et al. 2000). However in the current survey, comparisons of overall fishing effort were not significantly different, even at the 80% confidence level.

9

Table 8. Estimated number of angler days for major New York waters 1973, 1976-77, 1988, 1996, and 2007. Angler Days Waterway 1973 1976-77 1988 1996 2007 Lake Ontario (and Bays) 664,000 1,027,000 2,568,610 1,730,350 1,553,223 St. Lawrence River 596,000 702,800 716,440 921,790 651,455 Lake Erie 697,000 663,000 945,500 609,340 657,821 Salmon River 126,000 178,100 329,090 344,230 332,827 Oneida Lake 693,000 703,400 782,400 573,060 786,401 Chautauqua Lake 283,000 417,700 438,980 460,090 413,961 Lake George 152,000 192,800 298,600 337,020 289,011 Niagara River 534,000 515,700 525,490 477,690 369,449 Hudson River 144,000 116,600 232,110 276,520 470,731 Delaware River (main stem) * ** 163,219 146,160 128,344 Seneca Lake 274,000 399,800 350,130 455,500 340,290 Cayuga Lake 214,000 274,200 365,210 291,900 295,920 Lake Champlain 309,000 335,000 482,170 273,310 277,759 Mohawk River/Barge Canal * 274,800 284,840 258,430 219,735 Keuka Lake 87,000 144,800 178,140 260,670 178,340 Black Lake 148,000 111,500 188,940 173,860 219,659 Beaver Kill * 137,700 126,050 81,520 114,285 Genesee River 62,000 94,810 151,580 147,790 143,952 Saratoga Lake 138,000 141,600 145,410 120,120 148,840 Susquehanna River 149,700 142,200 146,510 176,440 174,897 Oswego River * 79,440 159,580 146,460 159,089 Cattaraugus Creek * ** 102,180 102,590 147,905 *Comparable data not available from the 1973 study. **Comparable data not available from the 1976-77 study. (Sources: Brown 1975, Kretser and Klatt 1981, Connelly et al. 1990, 1997.)

Furthermore, the direction of the difference, even though not significant, was not in the expected direction, based on past research. Differences that were significant between the two survey methodologies did not follow any patterns that could be discerned. In some cases, like Lake Champlain, the three-phase estimate of effort was lower than the 12-month recall estimate. In others, such as fishing effort associated with coldwater gamefish, the three phase estimate was higher than the 12-month recall estimate. The most troubling difference was in estimates for Lake Erie (658,000 in the three-phase versus 336,000 in the 12-month recall). The two samples were examined for anomalies (e.g., did one sample live closer to the lake than the other), but did not find any evidence of those types of differences. While it is believed that the level of recall bias has been reduced by shortening the recall period, other researchers have suggested that telescoping bias may play a role in 10

Table 9. Estimated at-location expenditures, total and average per day, for major New York waters in 1996 and 2007. At-Location Expenditures 1996 2007 Waterway Lake Ontario (and Bays) St. Lawrence River Lake Erie Salmon River Oneida Lake Chautauqua Lake Lake George Upper Niagara River Lower Niagara River Hudson River Delaware River (main stem) Seneca Lake Cayuga Lake Lake Champlain Mohawk River Keuka Lake Black Lake Beaver Kill Genesee River Saratoga Lake Susquehanna River Oswego River Cattaraugus Creek

(adjusted to 2007 constant dollars)

Total $69,321,250 45,125,530 12,365,020 20,074,050 10,064,050 16,422,240 20,000,690 1,609,540 2,598,560 3,307,380 3,270,184 11,927,610 7,189,310 6,441,180 1,969,180 6,544,940 7,125,370 3,815,970 995,280 2,243,420 1,095,260 3,741,790 1,132,970

Avg./Day $40.06 48.96 20.29 58.32 17.56 35.69 59.35 6.49 12.14 11.96 22.37 26.19 24.63 23.56 7.62 25.11 40.99 46.81 6.73 18.68 6.20 25.54 11.05

Total $54,253,280 23,187,420 13,435,690 18,771,740 12,154,610 10,059,120 14,107,010 1,056,830 2,801,005 6,021,200 3,687,358 5,569,010 5,692,930 5,704,090 1,778,760 3,154,050 12,359,810 4,334,869 994,260 1,879,360 1,174,550 2,293,825 1,142,100

Avg./day $34.93 35.59 20.42 56.40 15.46 24.30 48.81 6.11 14.38 12.79 28.73 16.37 19.24 20.54 8.10 17.69 56.27 37.93 6.91 12.63 6.72 14.42 7.72

angler estimates as well (Sudman and Bradburn 1974). Telescoping bias refers to the reporting of angler days in a time period other than the one in which they occurred. Because anglers were asked about a relatively short time period in the three-phase survey, they might have been more likely to report a trip during that period that actually took place outside the period. This could result in a slightly larger estimate of fishing effort using the three-phase approach. This is less likely to occur with the 12-month recall survey, and the larger concern of recall decay is thought to outweigh it. No evidence of significant recall bias from this study could be found that we think warrants some adjustment of the three-phase data in order to compare it with previous statewide angler surveys. Therefore, in the trend analysis data from the three-phase survey was compared with past statewide angler surveys. Without having done this comparative study, it would not have been known if the differences between 1996 and 2007 were due to methodological differences in how the studies were conducted or true changes in fishing effort. 11

Costs Versus Benefits of Reducing the Recall Period for the Statewide Angler Survey There are a variety of benefits and costs associated with reducing the recall period on such an important survey as the statewide angler survey. These benefits and costs do not all have to do with reducing recall bias. However, that is presumed to be the primary benefit. Previous literature has suggested that any reduction in recall period will result in more accurate estimates (Pollock et al. 1994). Therefore: Benefits of Three-phase Survey 1. More accurate estimates of fishing effort and expenditures (recognizing that no estimates are perfect and these estimates may be impacted by telescoping bias for example, as discussed earlier). 2. The phased data provides for seasonal usage estimates. For example, readers of Report 1 (Connelly and Brown 2009a) can look at data for a specific water body and see what time of year usage was greatest and what species were sought during that period. Costs 1. Expense. The cost of conducting the three-phase survey was estimated at 2.4 times as much as if a 12-month recall survey of comparable size (n=17,000) had been conducted. (Three phases are not three times as much because they share some planning and analysis time.) 2. It is not possible to estimate the number of anglers fishing a water body or for a particular species over the course of a year. Estimates of the number of anglers fishing during a phase can be calculated. However, one cannot sum the number of anglers across phases for a year long estimate because many anglers fish in more than one time period. 3. Report 2 (Connelly and Brown 2009b) examines anglers’ preferred species to fish for. It is not possible with this methodology to see if anglers actually fished for their preferred species at some time during the year. They may have been surveyed during a time period when fishing for their preferred species was not likely to have occurred. 4. Confidence limits for a yearly estimate cannot be calculated if there is a very small sample size in one phase, even though angler effort in the other phases is sufficient. In summary, it was somewhat surprising that no evidence of significant recall bias was found. This was the primary justification for switching from an annual to a threephased survey approach. (Without this study, though, it would not be known that this was the case.) Seasonal usage estimates were a benefit that was not fully recognized when the decision was made to change survey methodologies and is a benefit to be considered for using the three-phase approach in the future. Some difficulties can surface with the three-phase approach, including providing opportunity for telescoping bias (as described above) as well as preventing calculation of some estimates as a result of having a small sample size in one of the three phases, which might not happen with an annual survey. The primary disadvantage of the three-phased approach remains its higher

12

implementation cost. Fisheries managers will need to consider both the benefits and costs associated with the phased survey approach when they plan for the next statewide angler survey.

LITERATURE CITED Brown, T. L. 1975. The 1973 New York statewide angler study. Cornell University/NYSDEC. 117pp. Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 2009a. New York statewide angler survey 2007, Report 1: Angler effort and expenditures. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 104pp. Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 2009b. New York statewide angler survey 2007, Report 2: Angler characteristics, preferences, satisfaction, and opinion on management topics. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 79pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1990. New York statewide angler survey 1988. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 158 pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1997. New York statewide angler survey 1996, Report 1: Angler effort and expenditures. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 107pp. Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Assessing the relative importance of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler surveys. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5(4):19-29. Connelly, N. A., B. A. Knuth, and D. L. Kay. 2002. Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environmental Management 29(4):467-476. Enck, J. W., and T. L. Brown. 2008. 2007 Statewide deer hunter survey: Opinions about hot-button issues and trends in characteristics of hunters. HDRU Publ. No. 08-5. Dept. of Nat. Resour., N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 81pp. Hiett, R. L., and J. W. Worrall. 1977. Marine recreational fishermen’s ability to estimate catch and to recall catch and effort over time. Research Report HSR-RR-77/13cd. Human Sciences Research, McLean, VA. Kretser, W. A., and L. E. Klatt. 1981. 1976-77 New York angler survey final report. NYSDEC, Survey and Inventory Unit. 214p.

13

Pollock, K. H., C. M. Jones, and T. L. Brown. 1994. Angler survey methods and their applications in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 25, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Sudman, S., and N. M. Bradburn. 1974. Response effects in surveys. Aldine, Chicago, IL. Tarrant, M. A., M. J. Manfredo, P. B. Bayley, and R. Hess. 1993. Effects of recall bias and nonresponse bias on self-report estimates of angling participation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:217-222. Westat, Inc. 1989. Investigation of possible recall/reference period bias in National Surveys of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Westat, Rockville, MD.

14

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire

15

APPENDIX B: Additional Tables

23

Table B-1. Initial sample, number of respondents, and response rate (not adjusted for undeliverable questionnaires), by survey phase and region of residence. Region Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 12-Month Recall of Residence

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Outofstate

Initial n

# Respondents

Response Rate

Initial n

# Respondents

Response Rate

Initial n

# Respondents

Response Rate

Initial n

# Respondents

Response Rate

790 605 2,493 1,501 989 1,587 2,774 2,182 2,916

269 143 934 592 380 630 1,208 921 1,213

34.1 23.6 37.5 39.4 38.4 39.7 43.5 42.2 41.6

605 508 1,668 1,369 1,362 1,425 2,244 2,648 2,338

164 118 495 472 494 486 835 985 887

27.1 23.2 29.7 34.5 36.3 34.1 37.2 37.2 37.9

638 496 1,730 1,553 1,424 1,601 2,505 2,824 2,742

252 162 736 744 642 755 1,280 1,357 1,330

39.5 32.7 42.5 47.9 45.1 47.2 51.1 48.1 48.5

219 211 650 479 500 596 856 954 802

73 58 224 183 172 217 342 375 300

33.3 27.5 34.5 38.2 34.4 36.4 40.0 39.3 37.4

1,163

533

45.8

2,833

1,030

36.4

1,487

676

45.5

733

289

39.4

Table B-2. Tests for nonresponse bias. Phase 1 Respondents

Phase 2

Nonrespondents

Respondents

Phase 3

Nonrespondents

Respondents

12-Month Recall

Nonrespondents

Questions Percent Fish in NYS Jan. 1 2007 through current phase No 48.1 49.0 24.6 33.0 28.7 42.8 Yes 51.9 51.0 75.4 67.0 71.3 57.2 NS* (X2=7.3, df=1, p=.01) (X2=18.9, df=1, p