ATTITUDES AND ATTRIBUTES OF ANGLERS
WHO FISH FOR TROUT IN MI CHI GAN
by
Jan ice Lee Fenske
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
School of Natural Resources
The University of Michigan
December 1983
Committee members
Dr. James S. Diana, Chairman
Dr. W. C. Latta
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my thanks to Dr. James S. Diana
of the University of Michigan for chair ing my Master's
committee, review ing this manuscript, and giving guidance
throughout my Master's program. I would also like to thank
Dr. W. C. Latta of the Institute for Fisheries Research,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Dr. Latta was
instrumental in obtaining the funding for this project, gave
invaluable advice throughout the study, and reviewed the
manuscript.
This study would not have been possible without the
assistance of the many people at the Institute for Fisheries
Research and the Lansing staff of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. My appreciation is also extended to
Grace M. Zurek for typing the final draft.
Special thanks goes to my sister, Karen A. Fenske, for
technical advice on all aspects of this research and for her
moral support.
Finally, I want to thank my husband, Kelley D. Smith,
for his patience, encouragement, and understanding.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT © © º © © © © tº O tº ©
I NTRODUCTI ON Q © o e G e ©
METHODS O º tº º O © © e © Q ©
RESULTS © © © O © © © Q © © O gº © ſº Q
Statistical Description of Sample
Comparison of Fishing Types . . . .
Specific Analysis of Stream Anglers
Comparison of Regions . . . . .
Salmon Snagging . . . . . .
CONCLUS I ON © o © Q g O © © © © © e
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX © © & © C © O © © © © O O { } ©
i i
Table
10.
LIST OF TABLES
Response by numbers of questionnaires
returned and percent of total returned to
each of the four mailings . .
Percentage of respondents who fished for
trout in Michigan in the 1981 season by
license type and total . . . . .
Stratification of trout anglers into the
three types of trout fishing and all
combinations of the three by number and
percent of the total respondents .
Percentage of trout anglers who fished a
specific area by type of license purchased
Percentage of trout anglers who fished for
other fish species by type of license
purchased and total . . . . . .
Percentage of trout anglers by their main
motivation for fishing and by the type of
trout fishing in which they participated
Percentage of trout anglers by their ranking
of fishing quality and by the type of trout
fishing in which they participated . . .
Average number of days trout anglers spent
fishing during the 1981 season, the average
dollars spent per day, and the average miles
traveled per trip stratified by the type of
trout fishing in which they participated
Percentage of trout anglers in each age
bracket by the type of trout fishing in which
they participated, compared to the general
population in Michigan . . . . . .
Percentage of trout anglers in each
occupation by type of trout fishing in which
they participated compared to the general
United States population
Page
1 1
13
14
16
18
19
1 1 .
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Percentage of trout anglers in each income
bracket in 1981 by the type of trout fishing
in which they participated, compared to the
general United States population . . . . .
Percentage of trout anglers residing in each
region by the type of trout fishing in which
they participated . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers who considered
either size or number of trout caught most
important. Size was defined in terms of
length and weight separately . . . . . . . .
Ranking by stream anglers of factors
important to a fishing trip in order from
most important to least important . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers desiring the
quantity of stream for each of three special
regulations (artificial lures only, flies
only, and slotted size limit) to be
increased, decreased, stay the same, or
having no opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers who have fished
each of the three special regulations
(artificial lures only, flies only, and
slotted size limit) and the percentage of
anglers who have not fished these sections
but plan to do so in the future . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers indicating
of ten, sometimes, seldom, or never as the
frequency in which they would participate in
two proposed special regulations (catch-and-
release and inverted size limit) . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers in each
occupation by region of residence . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers in each income
bracket by region of residence . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers stratified by
their main motivation for fishing and by
region of residence . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentage of stream anglers indicating their
favorite species of trout to catch by region
of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i v
20
22
23
25
26
28
29
31
32
33
35
22.
23.
24.
Percentage of stream anglers choosing a
stream in a given region as their favor ite
stream to fish by region of residence . . . . 36
Response of trout anglers (percent) to a
question concerning their opinion on the
amount of area where salmon snagging should
be legal. Results are given by type of
license purchased and for the entire sample . 38
Stratification of trout anglers (percent) to
a question concerning their opinion on the
amount of area where salmon snagging should
be legal by type of trout fishing in which
they participated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
ABSTRACT
A questionnaire was used to determine the attitudes and
attributes of anglers who fished for trout in Michigan. In-
formation was collected for the 1981 fishing season on many
a spects of trout fishing, with the main emphasis on anglers'
opinions of various special trout stream regulations.
Of the three types of trout fishing -- Great Lakes,
inland lakes, and streams -- available in Michigan, fishing
for Great Lakes trout and salmon had the highest
participation rate. These anglers were also the most
sat is fied, spent the most money, and traveled the far the st.
Trout fishing in in land lakes had the lowest participation
rate and the least sat is fied anglers. Trout stream anglers
fished an average of four different streams, and found
numbers of trout caught and size of trout caught to be of
equal importance. When ranking the variables important to
fishing in order of decreasing importance, trout stream
anglers placed numbers and size of fish caught fifth and
sixth, respectively. At the top of the list were nearness
to public facilities and ease of access to the stream.
The special trout stream regulations receiving the most
support were artific ial lures only and flies only. These
also had the highest participation rate. The slotted size
limit regulation, which was only in effect on a section of
one stream, received less interest and participation. Of
the two regulations which were not in effect at the time of
the survey, only moderate support was shown for the catch-
and-release fishery and even less for the inverted size
limit regulation.
There was a wide distribution in response to a question
concerning the amount of area which should be open to salmon
snagging, ranging from no legal areas to legal everywhere.
In general, the data indicated that the majority of salmonid
anglers support having at least some areas open to snagging
in Michigan.
INTRODUCTION
Fishery management practices have historically focused
on increasing yield (Hampton and Lackey 1975, Ditton et
al. 1978). However, as more in formation is gathered
concerning the desires of sport anglers, it has become
evident that many other factors are also important to angler
sat is faction (Duttweiler 1976, Driver and Knopf 1976, Smith
1980). In many cases, managers of fishery resources have
failed to recognize these other factors. In a nationwide
survey designed to define both angler desires and managers'
objectives, Hampton and Lackey (1975) found a definite
difference between the two. In their study, 77% of the
responding fisheries managers indicated increasing yield was
their primary goal. Anglers on the other hand ranked
factors other than yield as relatively more important to
their sat is faction with a fishing experience.
It can be difficult to discover the recreational goals
of the average sport angler, since of ten the only vocalized
desires are those of organized, narrow- interest groups.
Surveys are a useful tool in obtaining unbiased estimates of
public opinion (McFadden et al. 1964, Duttweiler 1976, Carl
1982). The in formation learned can then be used by managers
to incorporate angler desires into management practices.
Michigan has three types of trout fishing: (1) fishing
for trout and salmon in the Great Lakes, including fishing
rivers for anadromous species; (2) fishing for trout in
inland lakes; and (3) fishing for trout in streams. The
main objective of this study was to describe the attitudes
and attributes of anglers who fish for trout in Michigan.
The state of Michigan has a very popular sport trout
fishery. The responsibility for managing this resource lies
with the Fisheries Division of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. In formation concerning the population of
trout anglers is needed in order to assist the Fisheries
Division in making management decisions that reflect the
desires of trout anglers.
In particular, three specific areas were explored. The
first was the opinions and attributes of anglers who
participated in the three types of trout fishing. Angler
motivation, sat is faction, participation, and experience were
identified along with demographic data such as age,
occupation, and income. Secondly, trout stream anglers were
compared for differences in relation to their region of
residence. And finally, trout anglers' opinions on the
issue of salmon snagging in Michigan streams were
determined.
METHODS
The target population for the survey was all anglers
who had fished for trout in Michigan during the 1981 fishing
season. In order to include a majority of trout anglers in
the survey, three distinct license groups were sampled.
These were as follows: (1) anglers who purchased a trout
stamp; (2) anglers who purchased daily fishing permits; and
(3) anglers 65 years and older who purchased senior resident
annual fishing licenses. Three groups not required to have
a license were missed. These were: (1) spouses of anglers
with senior licenses; (2) anglers who fished for trout
exclusively on private lakes; and (3) anglers 16 years of
age and younger.
In order to increase precision (Shaeffer et al. 1979),
the sample drawn was proportionally stratified according to
the three license types. Sample size was determined by
return rates of the Michigan Fisheries Division Annual Sport
Fishing Survey (Jamsen 1971) and consideration of the cost
of materials, postage, and personnel for processing data. A
total sample size of 2,800 license holders was used,
comprised of 2,000 anglers who purchased trout stamps, and
400 each of daily fishing permit and senior resident fishing
license holders.
There are two types of survey questions, closed-ended
questions where the answer choices are provided and open-
ended questions where choices are not provided. The
questionnaire used consisted mostly of close-ended questions
since these are preferable when data are wanted on
participation rates and intensity of feelings (Dillman
1978). A few open-ended questions were used when the
specific in formation wanted was too long to list, for
example the number of years fished. The questionnaire also
ended with an open-ended question. This was to increase
response rate by allowing anglers to express their specific
C On Ce Iſ In S .
The survey was made with a mailed questionnaire. (See
Appendix for a copy of the questionnaire used.) After
development, the questionnaire was pretested on two groups.
First, colleagues were asked to review the questions for
clarity and accuracy. Then face-to-face interviews were
conducted on a sample of anglers in order to ident ify
possible areas of misunderstanding which might not be
recognized in a mailed survey.
In Michigan, all three groups of license holders are
listed in a computer file after purchase of their license.
A stratified random sample of 2,800 names and addresses was
taken from the file. Questions included in the survey
pertained to the 1981 fishing season (1 April 1981 to 31
March 1982), and mailings took place in May through July
1982. To increase response rate (Dillman 1978), four repeat
mailings were conducted: (1) the initial questionnaire; (2)
a reminder post card; (3) another questionnaire; and (4) a
final reminder post card. Each mailing, after the initial
one, was sent only to non-respondents. Two other methods
suggested by Dillman (1978) were also used to increase
response rate. An introductory note was included on the
questionnaire which identified the group conducting the
survey, stated the purpose of the survey, stressed the
importance of returning an answered questionnaire, and
thanked the respondents for their help. Also, a return
envelope with postage guaranteed was included.
Except where specified in the discussion, statistical
tests were only used to analyze the data in the comparison
between regions of residence of trout stream anglers, since
this is the only section where the factors were independent.
The chi-square test for statistical independence (Ever it t
1977) was used an all qualitative variables, and the one-way
analysis of variance on all quantitative variables (Neter
and Wasserman 1974). All multiple comparisons were made
using the Scheffé method and the level of significance was
set at 0.05.
RESULTS
Statistical Description of Sample
The rate of response to the survey was not uniform
between each of the four mailings (Table 1); after the first
reminder post card, response declined significantly.
However, the last mailing still generated 10.5% of the total
response, which indicated a fifth mailing might have been
worthwhile. Of the 2,800 questionnaires mailed, only 119
(4%) were undeliverable. Overall, 1,687 anglers responded,
accounting for 63% of the delivered questionnaires. The
response rate varied according to the type of license.
Sixty-seven percent of the trout stamp holders returned the
survey, 64% of the seniors, but only 43% of the purchasers
of daily fishing permits.
Not all the anglers sampled fished for trout or salmon
in the 1981 fishing season. The percent who did participate
in this sport differed for each of the three license types
(Table 2). The majority of daily permit holders (71.2%) did
fish for trout. However, 11% of those who purchased trout
Table 1. Response by numbers of questionnaires returned
and percent of total returned to each of the
four mailings.
Date Number Per C ent
Initial mailing” 5— 19-81 552 32. 7
1st follow-up” 6 – 7–8 1 583 34.6
2nd follow-up” 6-30-8 1 375 22.2
3rd follow-up” 7–30–81 177 10.5
a Questionnaire.
b
Postcard.
Table 2. Percentage of respondents who fished for trout in
Michigan in the 1981 fishing season by license
type and total.
License type
Trout stamps Seniors Daily permits Total
(n = 1262) (n=242) (n = 153) (n = 1657)
Yes 89.3 37. 2 71 .. 2 80 - 0
NO 10. 7 62.8 28.8 20. 0
stamps never made use of their license. In addition, a
majority (63%) of the seniors were not trout anglers.
All further analysis and discussion refers only to the
target population, that is, the responding anglers who
fished for salmonids in Michigan in the 1981 fishing season
(hence for thcalled trout anglers). The 1981 fishing season
was 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1982 for Great Lakes trout and
salmon fishing, and 25 April 1981 to 30 September 1981 for
trout in land lakes and trout streams.
As ment ioned earlier, there are three types of trout
angling in Michigan, and an angler could have fished in any
combination of the three during the fishing season. All
possible combinations and the percentages of anglers that
fished each combination (Table 3) show that Great Lakes
fishing for trout and salmon was the most popular type, with
a participation rate of 84.0% of all trout anglers. This
was followed by trout stream fishing (52.6%) and finally
fishing for trout in inland lakes (33.6%). The data also
indicate that few anglers fish one type exclusively,
especially inland lakes and streams. Only 3.7% and 8.5% of
the trout anglers surveyed exclusively fished in land lakes
or streams, respectively.
The percentage of anglers who fished each of the three
types was different for the three kinds of licenses (Table
4). Since these anglers did not necessarily fish a given
type exclusively, the percentages do not total 100. These
data indicate that daily fishing permits were most of ten
purchased for Great Lakes fishing, since only 12.8% and
22.0% of such license holder's fished in land lakes and
streams, respectively.
In formation was also collected concerning anglers'
participation in trout fishing outside of Michigan.
Overall, 15.5% of the trout anglers also fished for trout in
other states or provinces in the 1981 fishing season. If
daily permit holders, who were most of ten from out of state,
were excluded, this reduced to 13.1%. However, over half of
Table 3. Stratification of trout anglers into the
three types of trout fishing and all
combinations of the three by number and
percent of the total respondents.
Area fished Number Percent
Great lakes 1 1 14 84. 0
In land lakes 4.46 33.6
Trout Streams 698 5.2. 6
Great lakes and
inland lakes 83 6. 3
Great lakes and
tr Out Stream S 261 19.7
In land lakes and
tr Out Streams 52 3. 9
All three 265 20. 0
Great lakes only 4.90 37. 0
In land lakes only 42 3. 7
Trout streams only 1 13 8 . 5
Table 4. Percentage of trout anglers who fished a
specific area by type of license purchased.
License type
Trout stamps Seniors Daily permits
Area fished (n = 1127) (n=90) (n = 1 0.9)
Great lakes 84.6 74. 4 85. 3
In land lakes 35. 8 31 - 1 12. 8
Trout Streams 56. 1 46.7 22.0
10
the daily permit holders (57.6%) fished for trout or salmon
only in Michigan. For Michigan resident trout anglers, the
five most common other states or provinces fished were
Ontario (15.9%), Wisconsin (11.4%), Indiana ( 10.8%),
Pennsylvania (9.1%), and Wyoming (6.8%). Many of these
states or provinces border on Michigan.
Most of the trout anglers also fished for species other
than salmonids. Only 14.3%, of the trout anglers sampled,
fished for trout exclusively (Table 5). This figure varied
by the license type purchased. The difference was greatest
for daily permit holders, 57.0% of whom fish only for trout .
Apparently, Michigan's salmonid program attracts large
numbers of visiting anglers.
Comparison of Fishing Types
As previously ment ioned, there are three types of trout
angling available in Michigan. They differ in the physical
characteristics of the environment as well as the type of
equipment necessary to participate in each. They also
differ to some extent in the salmonid species available.
The first type is Great Lakes trout and salmon fishing
(hence forth called Great Lakes anglers). This was defined
to the respondent to include both open-water fishing in the
Great Lakes and fishing in streams and river mouths for
anadromous species during spawning runs. A second type is
fishing for trout in in land lakes (hence for th called in land
lake anglers). Finally, the third type is fishing for trout
in trout streams (hence forth called stream anglers). In
this section the results from anglers who participated in
these three types of trout fishing are compared and
contrasted. Again, it must be remembered that these three
groups are not independent and the refore were not tested
statistically.
Anglers were asked if their main reason for fishing
was: (1) to catch fish to eat; (2) for relaxation; (3) for
11
Table 5. Percentage of trout anglers who fished for other
fish species by type of license purchased and
total.
License type
Trout Daily
Species stamps Seniors permits Total
Per ch 70. 8 68.2 3 1.0 67. 6
Ba SS 65. 3 56. 8 27. 0 61 .. 8
Bluegill, sun fish,
rock bass, or crappie 65. 3 54 - 5 29. 0 61 .. 8
Walleye 52. 0 42.0 18 - 0 48. 7
Pike or muskie 5.2. 6 30 - 7 18 - 0 48.5
Smelt 27. 3 19. 3 5. 0 25. 0
Catfish or
bullhead 16.9 1 1 .. 4 9. 0 15.9
Suckers 16. 3 12. 5 0.0 14. 8
Carp 5. 2 3.4 1 - 0 4. 7
None 10. 6 1 1 .. 4 57. O 14. 3
12
excitement and challenge; and (4) other. The number of
anglers who choose "other" was so few that this was omitted
as a response category (Table 6). More in land lake anglers
caught fish to eat (39.8%) than the other two types. Great
Lakes anglers were least likely to fish for relaxation
(20.3%). Also, the largest percentage of those fishing for
excitement and challenge (48.6%) were Great Lakes anglers,
compared to 34.1% for inland lake anglers, and 37.0% for
stream anglers.
In an attempt to measure angler sat is faction with the
quality of fishing, respondents were asked to rate fishing
as excellent, good, average, or very poor. Great Lakes
anglers were the most satisfied with their sport with 58.9%
indicating fishing was better than average (Table 7).
In land lake anglers were the least sat is fied; 38.8% found
fishing to be poor to very poor.
When comparing the favorite species of salmonid to
catch, anglers had different choices depending on the type
of trout fishing in which they participated. The two most
favored species of Great Lakes salmonid were steelhead trout
(Salmo gairdner i ) (25.7%) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) (25.0%), followed by brown trout (Salmo
trutta), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), and coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) (12.4%, 11.4%, and 10.7%,
respectively). In land lake trout anglers preferred rainbow
trout (39.7%) over brook trout (Salvelinus font inal is)
(16.7%), brown trout (15.1%), and lake trout (8.7%).
Anglers who fished streams chose brown trout most of ten
(40.4%), with similar numbers preferring rainbow trout
(19.0%) and brook trout (17.1%). Many anglers had no
species preference: 14.8% of the Great Lakes anglers, 19.8%
of inland lake anglers, and 23.5% of stream anglers.
There was not a large difference in average number of
years of experience in Michigan for anglers from each
fishing type. Great Lakes anglers had fished an average of
12.6 years, while inland lake anglers had fished 16. 7 years,
13
Table 6. Percentage of trout anglers by their main
motivation for fishing and by the type of
trout fishing in which they participated.
Type of fishing
Great In land Tr Out
lakes lakes Stream S
(n = 1 0 1 0) (n = 399) (n = 643)
To catch fish
to eat 31 - 1 39.8 34.2
For relaxation 20.3 26. 1 28. 8
For excitement
and challenge 48.6 34. 1 37. 0
14
Table 7. Percentage of trout anglers by their ranking
of fishing quality and by the type of trout
fishing in which they participated.
Type of fishing
Great In land Tr O U t
lakes lakes St r ea In S
(n = 1074) (n=434) (n = 673)
Excellent 14 .. 7 1 .. 6 4.5
Good 44.2 18.4 29 - 0
Average 29. 6 4 1.2 44.6
POO r 9 - 0 34. 1 19 - 5
Very poor 2. 5 4. 7 2.4
15
and stream anglers 17.8 years. The somewhat lower figure
for Great Lakes anglers most likely resulted from the
limited opportunity to fish for salmon in Michigan prior to
1970 (Rybicki 1973). The percentage of anglers who fished
for trout outside of Michigan during the 1981 fishing season
also did not vary much between the three types of trout
anglers (16.1%, 16.7%, and 15.0% for Great Lakes, in land
lakes, and stream anglers, respectively).
Anglers were asked if they were currently a member of
any organized fishing or sportsmen group. Again, there was
little difference between the three fishing types in the
percentage of anglers who be long to such groups. Membership
was 21.7% for Great Lakes anglers, 21.2% for in land lakes
anglers, and 22.7% for stream anglers.
In formation was obtained concerning the activities and
expenditures of the trout anglers. The average number of
days the trout anglers spent fishing during the 1981 fishing
season was calculated from these data. Also determined was
the average number of dollars spent per day for food,
lodging, bait, tackle, etc., excluding automobile gas (Table
8). All three types of trout anglers spend about the same
number of days fishing for trout (from 20 to 24), even
though Great Lakes anglers could have fished all 12 months
of the year, whereas there was only a 5-month season for the
other types of trout angling. This is most likely because
the fishing is best for Great Lakes trout and salmon only
during a part of the year. In the 1980 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife - Associated Recreation
(Anonymous 1982), it was estimated that the average number
of days spent fishing per angler in Michigan for any species
of fish was 19 days, in comparison to 21.8 days average in
this survey.
The average amount of money spent per day per angler
was higher for anglers fishing the Great Lakes ($33. 45) than
those fishing in land lakes or streams ($22.58 and $23.47,
respectively). The overall average was $26.50 per day,
16
Table 8.
1981
Sea S.On ,
Average number of days trout anglers spent
fishing during the
the average
dollars spent per day, and the average miles
traveled per trip stratified by the type of
trout fishing in which they participated.
Type of fishing
Great In land Tr Out
lakes lakes Stream S
Average total
number of days 20.4 21.4 23. 6
per angler (n = 280) (n=61) (n = 1.60)
Average dollars
spent per day $33. 4.5 $22.58 $23. 47
per angler (n=926) (n = 30.9) (n = 550)
Average miles
traveled per day 257.2 197. 6 20 1 . 9
per angler (n=957) (n = 323) (n = 590)
17
while the National Survey (Anonymous 1982) found Michigan
anglers (again, fishing for any species of fish) spent only
an average of $15.00 per day. Finally, when the average
miles traveled per angler per trip was compared for the
three types of trout fishing, the Great Lakes anglers
traveled far ther distances on the average (257.2 miles) than
either in land lake anglers (197.6 miles) or stream anglers
(201.9 miles). The age distribution of anglers who fished
for trout during the 1981 fishing season did not differ much
between the three types of trout fishing (Table 9). Also,
these distributions deviated only slightly from the Michigan
population as a whole (Verway 1981). The deviation occurred
mostly in the number of trout anglers in the 17 to 24 age
bracket. This group had poor representation among trout
anglers.
The percentage of anglers in each occupation for the
three trout fishing types were similar, but they differed
from the percentage of the United States population in each
occupation (Table 10). There was higher participation in
trout fishing by professionals, sales workers, craft
workers, and laborers than found in the general population.
On the other hand, fewer clericals and service workers
fished for trout. This was also indicated in the sex
distribution of the trout anglers. Only 2.5% of the trout
anglers were female, and clerical and service workers are
most of ten women. A lower percent participation than the
general population was also found for students and the
unemployed. All three types of trout fishing have similar
participation rates by retirees, 14.5%, 13.9%, and 12.4% for
Great Lakes, inland lakes, and streams, respectively.
Income distributions for the three trout fishing types
were very similar (Table 11). When income levels of the
trout anglers were compared to the same levels of the United
States population in 1980 (Anonymous 1981) income groups
under $10,000 were under represented. Also, the middle to
18
Table 9. Percentage of trout anglers in each age bracket
by the type of trout fishing in which they
participated, compared to the general population
in Michigan.
Type of fishing
Great In land Tr Out
Age in lakes lakes Stream S Michigan
years (n = 1 0 1 7) (n=431) (n = 673) population
17-24 10. 3 12. 3 12.4 25.5°
25-34 25. 7 29. 2 29. 3 21 .. 5
35-44 24. 1 21 .. 3 21.4 14.6
45-54 14 .. 7 13. 2 14. 0 13.2
55-64 14.9 14.8 14. 4 12. 3
65+ 10. 3 9. 2 8 . 5 12.9
a
b
Michigan Statistical Abstract (Verway 1981).
Includes age 16.
19
Table 10. Percentage of trout anglers in each occupation by
type of trout fishing in which they participated,
compared to the general United States population.
Type of fishing
Great Inland Tr Out
lakes lakes Stream S U. S. a
Occupation (n=892) (n=360) (n=572) population
Professional and
technical 19 - 2 18 . 9 20 - 5 13. 7
Managers and
administrators 9. 1 8. 3 9. 1 9. 6
Sales workers 9.4 9. 7 9.4 5.4
Clerical 2.4 1. 7 2. 3 15.8
Craft 24. 8 27 - 2 25. 2 1 1 . 0
Operatives
(except transport) 9. 6 8 . 6 9. 2 9. 0
Transport
operatives 4.5 3. 1 3 - 1 3.0
Laborers
(except farm) 7. 2 8. 3 7.5 3. 9
Farmers, farm
managers and laborers 2.4 1.2 1 - 9 2.4
Service workers 3. 8 3. 3 3. 5 10.4
Private household
workers 1 .. 4 1.2 1. 0 0. 9
Students 2. 6 3. 3 3. 7 6. 5
Unemployed 2. 5 4.4 2.6 6. 5
Armed forces 1 - 1 0.8 1.0 1 - 9
* Statistical Abstract of the United States (Anonymous
1980).
20
Table 1 1. Percentage of trout anglers in each income
bracket in 1981 by the type of trout fishing
in which they participated, compared to the
general United States population.
Type of fishing
Great In land Trout
lakes lakes St r ea ſnS U. S.
Income (n=942) (n = 372) (n=584.) population*
0-4,999 5. 0 6. 7 5. 3 12.4
5,000-9,999 6.4 7. 0 7.7 1 1 .. 5
10,000- 14, 999 1 1 .. 5 1 1 .. 3 12. 5 10 - 1
15,000-19,999 1 1. 4 16.4 15. 4 11. 7
20,000-29, 999 27. 6 23.9 24. 7 24.8
30,000-39, 999 18.8 18. 0 17. 1 15. 8
40,000-49, 999 10 - 0 7.5 8. 7 8 . 6
50,000-74, 999 6.2 5.4 5.5 4. 2
75,000+ 3. 1 3. 8 3. 1 0. 9
* Statistical Abstract of the United States (Anonymous
1980) .
2 1
upper income groups had a slightly higher representation
than found in the United states population.
An additional comparison was made between regions of
residence. Region I refers to the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, Regions II and III are the northern 33 counties
and southern 35 counties of the Lower Peninsula,
respectively. Categorization of trout anglers into each
fishing type by region and out-of-state indicates that
in land lake and stream anglers (35.3% and 37.1%,
respectively) were the most common types in Regions I and II
(Table 12). More out-of-state anglers fished the Great
Lakes (17.5%) than inland lakes (10.6%) or streams (8.6%).
Specific Analysis of Stream Anglers
Stream anglers were asked additional questions
concerning their activities and attitudes. During the 1981
fishing season stream anglers fished an average of four
(+0.5) different trout streams. The most popular trout
stream was the Au Sable River, with 11.5% of the anglers
choosing this as their favorite stream to fish. Jamsen
(1981) also found the Au Sable River attracts the most
anglers. The second in popularity was the Mani stee River
(5.7%), followed by Pere Marquette (4.6%), and the Little
Manistee (4.2%). The fact that all of these percentages are
fairly low indicates there is a wide distribution of favored
streams among anglers. This should be kept in mind by
fisheries managers so that certa in streams do not receive
unwarranted attention in management practices.
Questions were asked to determine whether stream
anglers would prefer to catch one large trout or more small
trout (Table 13). Size was described both by length and
weight of the fish; a large trout was defined as 12 inches
or 0.75 pound and small trout were defined as five trout, 8
inches long, or 0.25 pound each. There was no difference in
the response between the length and weight questions. A
22
Table 12. Percentage of trout anglers residing in
each region by the type of trout fishing
in which they participated.
Type of fishing
Great In land Trout
lakes lakes St reaſil S
(n = 1 1 1 0) (n=444) (n = 695)
Region I 7. 9 13.7 14. 1
Region II 17. 1 21. 6 23.0
Region III 57.5 54 - 1 54.2
Out-of-state 17. 5 10. 6 8 . 7
23
Table
13.
Percentage of stream anglers who considered
either size or number of trout caught most
important. Size was defined in terms of
length and weight separately.
Length Weight
(n = 675) (n = 675)
Many small trout 45. 0 43. 3
One large trout 38.5 39 . 8
No opinion 16. 5 16.9
24
somewhat larger percentage of stream anglers would rather
catch many small trout (45.0%) than one large trout (38.5%).
A number of anglers (16.4%) had no preference between the
two choices.
Many variables are involved in the determination of a
satisfying fishing trip. Stream anglers were given a list
of possible variables important to fishing and asked to
respond to each on a scale of one to five, from most
important to not at all important (Table 14). Both the
Kruskal-Wall is and Median statistical tests (Siegel 1956)
found the order of the results to be significantly different
from random (P<0.001). Notable are the positions of the two
variables, number and size of fish caught (ranks five and
six, respectively). Although these are the two main
objectives of most fisheries managers (Hampton and Lackey
1975), anglers did not rank these as the most important
factors to a fishing trip. These results also indicate that
trout stream anglers were not looking so much for natural
beauty and solitude as they were for conveniences such as
easy access to the stream and close food and lodging.
Another objective of this survey was to determine
stream anglers' opinions of five special trout regulations.
Three of these regulations were in existence at the time of
the survey, two concerning fishing tackle restrictions and
one dealing with legal length. These were as follows:
artificial lures only, flies only, and slotted size limit
(anglers could keep only the fish between 8 to 12 inches and
over 16 inches in length). To measure the amount of support
for these three regulations, anglers was asked whether the
number of a reas having each of these regulations should be
increased, decreased, or stay the same (Table 15). For all
three types of regulations there were a large number of
stream anglers with no opinion. This was especially true
for the slotted size limit regulation, which was in effect
for the first time in 1981 and only on one section of one
river. Some support for all three types of special
25
Table 14. Ranking by stream anglers of factors important to
a fishing trip in order from most important to
least important.
Rank Factor
1. Nearness to public facilities - food,
lodging, etc.
2. Nearness to home.
3. Ease of access to stream.
4. Competition with canoes and other recreational
activity present.
5. Number of fish caught.
6. Size of fish caught.
7. Crowding from other anglers.
8. Natural beauty of the area.
26
Table 15. Percentage of stream anglers desiring the
quantity of stream for each of three special
regulations (artificial lures only, flies
only, and slotted size limit) to be increased,
decreased, stay the same, or having no opinion.
Regulation
Artificial Flies Slotted
lures only only size limit
Quantity (n=684) (n = 688) (n = 668)
Increased 14.5 14.4 21.4
Decreased 21.8 24.6 20. 7
Stay the same 42. 4 4 1.0 29. 1
No opinion 21 .. 3 20. 0 28. 8
27
regulations was expressed by stream anglers, over half of
whom wanted the areas to stay the same or increase. Stream
anglers were also asked if they had fished a reas with these
regulations and, if not, did they plan to in the future
(Table 16). If participation can be used as a measure of
support for these regulations, the results in Table 16 again
indicated stream anglers are in favor of having such
regulations. The percent of all stream anglers who fished
these special regulation waters was 39.9% for artificial
lures only, 34.4% for flies only, and 21.2% for slotted size
limit. Another 18.4%, 17.3%, and 20.8% (respectively) of
the anglers had not fished these sections but intend to in
the future.
Angler opinion was sought on two additional special
regulations which were not in effect in 1981. The first of
these was a catch-and-release fishery where all fish must be
returned to the water. The second was an inverted (maximum)
size limit. An example of such a regulation would be a
requirement that all trout over 12 inches in length must be
returned to the water. Stream anglers were asked the
frequency with which they would participate in each of these
two special regulations (Table 17). In general, there
appeared to be only moderate support for these two
regulations. For the catch-and-release regulation, only
36.9% would fish such a regulation of ten or sometimes. The
inverted size limit had somewhat less support with only
31.3% responding of ten or sometimes. Since a random sample
was taken of all stream anglers, including those who only
rarely fish, these responses may not only indicate attitudes
toward a special regulation, but also reflect the frequency
with which respondents fish.
Finally, stream anglers were asked if they felt three
of these special regulations, slotted size limit, catch-and-
release, and inverted size limit, would increase the number
of large trout they catch. The percent of anglers who
responded yes was greatest for a catch-and-release fishery
28
Table 16. Percentage of stream anglers who have fished each
of the three special regulations (artificial
lures only, flies only, and slotted size limit)
and the percentage of anglers who have not fished
these sections but plan to do so in the future.
Regulation
Artificial Flies Slotted
lures only only size limit
(n = 674) (n = 649) (n = 664)
Have fished
these sections 39.9 34.4 21.2
Have not fished
these sections but
plan to in future 18.4 17.3 20. 8
29
Table
17. Percentage of stream anglers indicating of ten,
sometimes, seldom, or never as the frequency
in which they would participate in two
proposed special regulations (catch-and-
release and inverted size limit).
Regulation
Catch-and- Inverted
Would fish release size limit
these sections (n = 675) (n = 674)
Of ten 9. 2 5. 8
Sometimes 27.7 25.5
Seldom 25. 8 28. 0
Never 37. 3 40 - 7
30
(48.6%) and nearly equal for slotted and inverted size
limits (38.5% and 36.4%, respectively). Many anglers
responding negatively indicated that hooking mortality would
be too great.
Comparison of Regions
The 1980 census (Verway 1981) showed 3.5%, 8.8%, and
87.8% of Michigan's population lived in Regions I, II, and
III, respectively. The residence of the 1981 stream anglers
reflected the residence of Michigan's population to some
extent. However, Regions I and II get a somewhat higher
participation rate than their populations would suggest
(15.4% and 25.2%, respectively). -
A number of factors were independent of the region of
residence. Included in these were age of the anglers,
membership in sportsmen's groups, average number of days
fished per angler, and sat is faction with the fishing (i.e.,
rating on scale from excellent to very poor -- Table 7).
Also showing no difference between Regions I, II, and III,
and out-of-state was angler response to all five special
regulations.
However, many of the factors examined relating to trout
stream anglers were not independent of the region of
residence. Two of these were occupation and income level
(Tables 18 and 19, respectively). Occupations differed most
radically in the number of professionals from each area.
Out-of-state anglers were composed of 28.6% professionals
and technicals. This percentage was less the far ther north
the region in Michigan, being only 13.7% in Region I, the
Upper Peninsula. Other differences existed in the percent
of laborers and service workers. These two occupations had
the poorest representation among Region III and out-of-state
anglers. The highest percent of retirees were from Region
II (21.6%). Income levels (Table 20) reflected these
differences found in occupations among the regions of
Table 18. Percentage of stream anglers in each occupation
by region of residence.
Region of residence
Out - O f –
- I I I I I I State
Occupation (n = 95) (n = 148) (n = 35.2) (n = 56)
Professional and
technical 13. 14. 2 18. 5 28 . 6
Managers and
administrators 7. 6. 1 9.4 5.4
Sales workers 9. 7.4 7.7 12. 5
Clerical 0. 0. 7 3.4 0.0
Craft 18. 20.3 23. 6 23.2
Operatives
(except transport) 7. 5.4 9. 9 3. 6
Transport
operatives 4. 2. 7 2.8 0.0
Laborers
(except farm) 9. 8 . 1 5.4 5.4
Farmers, farm
managers and laborers 0. 3.4 1 .. 7 0.0
Service workers 6. 4. 1 1. 7 3. 6
Private household
workers 1. O .. 7 0. 9 1 .. 8
Retired 15. 21.6 8 . 0 10. 7
Students 4. 0. 7 4.0 3. 5
Unemployed 1. 2.6 2.8 0.0
Armed forces
32
Table 19. Percentage of stream anglers in each income
bracket by region of residence.
Region of residence
Out - Of -
I I I I I I State
Income (n = 83) (n=127) (n = 3 18) (n = 54 )
O-4, 999 6.0 6. 3 5. 0 3. 7
5,000-9,999 15. 7 1 1 .. 8 5. 3 0.0
10,000- 14, 999 13. 3 17. 4 10. 7 1 1 , 1
15,000-19,999 20.5 17. 4 13.5 14.8
20,000-29, 999 24. 1 28. 3 24.5 16. 7
30,000-39, 999 13. 3 9. 4 20.4 22.2
40,000-49, 999 7. 1 3.9 10.4 13 - 0
50,000+ 0.0 5. 5 10. 2 18.5
33
Table 20. Percentage of stream anglers stratified by their
main motivation for fishing and by region of
residence.
Region of residence
Out - O f –
I II I I I State
(n = 93) (n = 148) (n = 343) (n=57)
To catch fish
t O eat 40. 9 45. 3 30.6 15. 8
For relaxation 26.9 25. 7 29 - 2 36.8
For excitement
and challenge 32.2 29. 0 40.2 47.4
34
residence. Income was lowest for respondents from Region I
and increased progressively in Regions II and III. Out-of-
state stream anglers had higher percents in the higher
income brackets.
There was a difference among the four residence areas
in the average number of years angler's fished for trout in
Michigan. Stream anglers from Region I had fished longer
than any of the others with an average of 25.3 years.
Region II stream anglers had fished an average of 20.3
years, while Region III and out-of-state had the lowest
averages with 16.0 and 10.6 years, respectively. All of
these figures were significantly different from each other
(P<0.05).
The reason indicated for fishing trout in streams and
the favorite species of trout to catch also differed
significantly between the areas of residence (P<0.05).
Anglers from Regions I and II tended to catch fish to eat
(40.9% and 45.3%), whereas more anglers from Region III and
out-of-state fished for the excitement and challenge (40.2%
and 47.4%) (Table 20). Brown trout were the favor ite
species to catch in each area (Table 21). Both brook trout
and rainbow trout became more popular as one moved south in
Michigan: 9.3%, 13.9%, and 20.1% of the stream anglers from
Regions I, II, and III, respectively, chose brook trout and
8.2%, 22.8%, and 20.9% chose rainbow trout.
Anglers from Regions I and II generally chose their
favorite trout stream from within their own region (Table
22). The majority of Region III anglers preferred streams
in Region II, the closest region with good trout streams.
Finally, out-of-state anglers most of ten favored trout
streams most of ten located in both Regions I and II.
Comparison of the average amount of money spent per
stream angler per day among the areas of residence revealed
differences. No significant difference was found between
the dollars spent by stream anglers from Regions I and II
($15.24 and $18. 12, respectively), nor for Region III and
35
Table 21. Percentage of stream anglers indicating their
favorite species of trout to catch by region
of residence.
Region of residence
Out-of-
I II I I I State
Species (n=97) (n = 158) (n = 363) (n = 57)
Rainbow trout 8.2 22.8 20. 9 15. 8
Brook trout 9. 3 13. 9 20. 1 19. 3
Brown trout 75.3 43 - 7 3 1. 1 29.8
No preference 7.2 19. 6 27. 9 35. 1
36
Table 22.
Percentage of stream anglers choosing a stream
in a given region as their favorite stream to
fish by region of residence.
Region of residence
Out-of-
Region of I II I I I State
Stream (n=92) (n = 146) (n = 29.7) (n = 37)
I 97.8 2. 7 10 - 8 35. 1
I I 2.2 95. 2 64. 3 37.8
III 0.0 2. 1 24.9 27. 1
37
out-of-state ($26.48 and $28.34, respectively). However,
Region III and out-of-state anglers spent significantly more
money than anglers from Regions I and II (P<0.05).
The average round trip miles traveled per angler per
trip differed among the areas of residence (Table 9). Once
again stream anglers from Regions I and II (60 and 95 miles,
respectively) traveled significantly fewer miles than those
from Regions III and out-of-state (266 and 310,
respectively). Out-of-state anglers traveled an average of
3 10 miles per trip which implied that out-of-state anglers
came from areas bordering Michigan.
A number of the variables important to fishing (Table
14) had significantly different responses between the areas
of residence. Stream anglers from Region I rated
competition with canoes and other recreation present higher
than did those from Regions II and III. Stream anglers from
Region I also indicated that nearness of public facilities
and ease of access to the stream were more important than
did those from Region III and out-of-state. Finally,
anglers from Region III and out-of-state ranked nearness of
stream to home as a more important variable than both
anglers from Regions I and II. This last response is
probably because anglers from Regions I and II had to travel
the least distance to find an area in which to participate
in their sport.
Salmon Snagging
On the issue of snagging salmon in Michigan streams,
trout anglers were asked if the amount of legal snagging
area should remain the same, be increased, be legal
everywhere, be decreased, or be illegal everywhere.
Responses did not differ much for the various types of
licenses purchased (Table 23). Only daily permit holders
deviated somewhat from the total sample. This deviation was
due to a slightly greater percentage want ing the amount of
38
Table 23. Response of trout anglers (percent) to a question
concerning their opinion on the amount of a rea
where salmon snagging should be legal. Results
are given by type of license purchased and for
the entire sample.
License type
Tr Out Daily
Amount of stamps Seniors permits Total
a e a (n = 1 1 09) (n = 83) (n = 107) (n = 1299)
Remain as is 24.3 21 .. 7 17.8 23. 6
Increase 22.0 18 - 1 29 - 0 22. 3
Legal everywhere 8 . 2 10. 8 3. 7 8 . 0
Decrease 5. 5 8.4 0 - 9 5. 3
Illegal everywhere 29 - 1 27.7 26.2 28.8
No opinion 10. 9 13. 3 22.4 12. 0
39
area increased and a somewhat lower percentage wishing
either snagging to be legal everywhere or to decrease in
a ſea e
A comparison was also made of the response on Snagging
by the three fishing types: Great Lakes, in land lakes, and
streams (Table 24). These groups are not mutually
exclusive. One might expect Great Lakes anglers, which
included those fishing for anadromous species for which
snagging occurred, to favor an increase in legal areas.
However, this was not the case. There was little difference
among the three types of trout anglers in their response to
the various categories.
CONCLUSION
Most individuals who purchased daily fishing permits
were salmonid anglers, and in particular fished the Great
Lakes which indicates Michigan's salmonid program attracts
many visiting anglers. On the other hand, most senior
resident license holders did not of ten fish for trout.
Another group which had a poor trout fishing participation
rate was the angler's 17 to 24 years of age.
Anglers who participated in the three types of trout
fishing could not be distinguished by age, occupation, or
income, because few anglers participated exclusively in one
of the three types of fishing. Since few angler's fished
only one type, management should not concent rate on one at
the expense of the other two. In addition, the average
number of years an angler fished was high for all three
types, indicating managers are working with an experienced
group. Finally, angler membership in sportsmen's clubs was
low for all three types of fishing, which suggests managers
must be careful not to assume sportsmen's clubs represent
the views of all the angling public.
Fishing for Great Lakes trout and salmon had the
highest rate of participation of the three types of trout
40
Table 24. Stratification of trout anglers (percent) to a
question concerning their opinion on the amount
of area where salmon snagging should be legal
by type of trout fishing in which they
participated.
Type of fishing
Great In land Tr Out
Amount of lakes lakes Stream S
a ſ 6 a. (n = 1099) (n=438) (n = 686)
Remain as is 23.0 23.5 24.5
In Crea Se 23.4 20.8 20.8
Legal everywhere 8 . 5 9. 8 8.2
DeC rea Se 5. 3 5. 7 6. 3
Illegal everywhere 29. 5 29. 2 30 - 3
No opinion 10. 3 1 1 - 0 9.9
41
angling. These anglers were also the most sat is fied with
their sport, indicating anglers consider Michigan's Great
Lakes program a real success. In addition, these anglers
spent the most money and traveled the far thest distance to
pursue their sport. Great Lakes trout and salmon anglers'
main reason for fishing was for excitement and challenge and
they preferred chinook and steelhead over all other
salmonids. Managers should keep these species preferences
in mind when they determine quotas for stocking fish in the
Great Lakes.
The fewest number of trout anglers fish in land trout
lakes, and these anglers are the least sat is fied with the
quality of fishing. This suggests the in land trout lake
program needs to be examined. These anglers did choose
rainbow trout as the most preferred species, indicating
managers might consider the use of more rainbow trout in the
in land trout lake program.
The average stream angler fished a number of different
streams during the year. In addition, the list of most
favored streams was lengthy with a wide distribution. Both
of these findings point out that management should not
concent rate its efforts on just a few streams. *
Stream anglers' response to the inquiry as to their
main reason for fishing was fairly equally divided among the
three choices: to catch fish to eat, for relaxation, and
for excitement and challenge. Also, response was equally
divided between anglers who thought size of fish caught was
most important and those who thought number caught was most
important. The implication of both of these points is that
management should not place too much effort on developing
trophy fishing, but rather maintain a well-rounded program.
A ranking of the variables important to fishing by
trout stream anglers revealed number and size of fish caught
were placed fifth and sixth, respectively. Topping the list
was nearness to public facilities and ease of access to the
stream. This does not necessarily mean that size and number
42
of fish caught are not important to anglers. Rather, it
indicates that anglers are fairly sat is fied with the fish,
but find other factors such as public facilities and stream
access to be insufficient. Fisheries managers need to
realize that a successful fishing experience involves many
factors in addition to the fish. In order to increase the
sat is faction of trout anglers, these other factors must be
addressed.
Art if icial lures only and flies only were the two
special trout regulations which had the highest
acceptability to anglers. However, there was no evidence of
a demand for an increase in the amount of area with these
regulations. There was not much support for the slotted
size limit. Although this regulation was in effect in only
a small section of stream, few anglers wanted to see an
increase in area. Surprisingly, 21.2% of stream anglers
indicated they had fished in the area with slotted-size
limits. This either indicates tremendous pressure in the
area, or a misunderstanding of the question. There was also
only moderate support for a catch and release fishery and
even fewer anglers were interested in an inverted size
limit. The overall implications of these findings are that
if f isheries managers feel such regulations would benefit a
certain stream, these benefits will need to be clearly
explained to the anglers in order to gain their support and
cooperation.
Many differences in trout stream anglers did occur
between regions. Occupations and incomes differed as did
the average number of years fished. Also, the preferred
species of trout was not the same and anglers had different
reasons for fishing. Finally, anglers from the various
regions did not rank the variables important to fishing in
the same order. However, all these differences between
regions does not indicate managers should develop programs
specific to a given region. Evidence suggests that anglers,
especially from Region III and out-of-state, travel to the
43
other regions to fish trout streams. Rather, such
differences and in formation are important for managers to
know so that they can more effectively communicate with the
local anglers, thereby gaining support for management
practices and resulting in a more sat is fied angling public.
Anglers who purchased the three types of fishing
licenses showed little difference in the amount of area they
wanted open to snagging. This was also the case when the
opinions of anglers who participated in the three types of
trout fishing were compared. There was a wide distribution
in the responses, varying from no legal areas for snagging
to legal everywhere. This distribution implies that any
change in the snagging areas will result in a large number
of anglers who disagree with the change. There fore, any
changes in the snagging area must be accompanied with a
large scale effort on the part of managers to educate the
anglers with the rationale for such changes. Only when
anglers are convinced of the benefits, will the changes
receive their support.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 1981. Statistical Abstract of the United States
1980. 102nd edition, U. S. Department of Commerce.
Anonymous. 1982. 1980 National survey of fishing, hunting,
and wildlife - associated recreation (Michigan). U.
S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Carl, L. M. 1982. Social impacts of a stream reclamation
project of urban anglers. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 2: 164 - 170.
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the
total design method. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
New York, USA.
Ditton, R. B. , T. J. Mertens, and M. P. Schwartz. 1978 .
Characteristics, participation, and motivations of
Texas charger boat fisherman. United States
National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Fisheries
Review 40 : 8 - 13.
Driver, B. L., and R. C. Knopf. 1976. Temporary escape:
one product of sport fisheries management.
Fisheries 1:21, 24-29.
Duttweiler, M. W. 1976. Use of questionnaire surveys in
forming fishery management policy. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 105:232-239.
Ever i t t , B. S. 1977. The analysis of contingency tables.
John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, New York, New
York, USA.
Hampton, E. L., and R. T. Lackey. 1975. Analysis of angler
preferences and fisheries management objectives with
implications for management. Proceedings of the
Annual Conference Southeast Association Game and
Fish Commissioners 29: 310-3 16.
Jamsen, G. C. 1971. Michigan's mail creel census
methodology. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Research and Development Report 252, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jamsen, G. C. 1981. Michigan's 1980 sport fishery.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Technical
Report No. 1981-5, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
44
45
McFadden, J. T., J. R. Ryckman, and G. P. Cooper. 1964. A
survey of some opinions of Michigan sport fisherman.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
93 : 183 – 19 3.
Neter, J., and W. Wasserman. 1974. Applied linear
statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Incorporated,
Home wood, Illinois, USA.
Rybicki, R. W. 1973. A summary of the salmonid program
(1969-1971). In Michigan's Great Lakes trout and
salmon fishery 1969-1972. Michigan Natural
Resources Fish Management Report No. 5: 1 – 17, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Schaeffer, R. L. , W. Mendenhall, and L. Ott. 1979.
Elementary survey sampling. 2nd edition, Dunbury
Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts, USA.
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the
behavioral sciences. McGraw - Hill Book Company,
Incorporated, New York, New York, USA.
Smith, C. L. 1980. Attitudes about the value of steelhead
and salmon angling. Transaction of the American
Fisheries Society 1.09: 272-28 1.
Verway, D. S. , Editor. 1981. Michigan Statistical
Abstract. 16th edition. Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, USA.
46
APPENDIX
47
TROUT FISHING SURVEY
bear Angier .
The Department of Natural Resources is try 1 ng to c 1 scover trie wants and cp in -
ions of people wro f is n for t rout and salmon in M \ch gan. Y O U have O ee rh Cºn O Sen a S
bart of a careful ly selected sample to g ve us an dea what anglers tr ink . Y O U r
answers are very important to us . Results of this survey w a d managers in
Gec is on making . Please help make t n is survey a success by answer l ng and return l ng
the enclosed duest 1 onna 1 re as soon as poss 1 bi e. We need your duest on na i re back
even if you do not fish for trout and salmon in Michigan Thank you, your help is
9reat l y apprec 1 at ed.
S 1 no erely .
John A. Scott
Ch ef , F ] sner es D 1 v i s 1 on
1. D 1 d you f 1sh for trout and/or salmon in M 1 ch 1 gan in the 198 f isn't ng season
(4 / 1 / 81 - 3/31/82) 7 ( 1) YES ( 2) NO 1 :
5
a ) If yes, how many years have you f 1 shed for trout and/or salmon in
M ch 1 gan? 1 : 6 - 7
2. D 1 d you f is n for trout outs i de M1 ch 1 gan in the last f isn 1 ng season
(4/1/8 1 - 3/31/82) 7 ( 1) YES (2) NO 1 : 8
a ) If yes, name of state (s) or prov 1 no e (s) 1 : 9 – 1 O
3. what kind (s) of f 1sh other than trout or salmon did you f is n for 1 n Michigan in
the 1981 ft shing season (4/1/8 1 - 3/31/82) 7 (C + r cle as many as apply) 1 : 1 1 - 21
(1) perch (2) blueg f l l , sunfish, rock bass, or crapp 1 e
Da SS (4) p 1 ke or musk 1 e
5) wa l l eye (6) cat f 1 sh or bull head
(7) suckers (8) smelt
(9) carp ( 1 O) none
4. D 1 d you fish for Great Lakes trout or salmon in Michigan in the 1981 fish ing
season (4/1/8 1 - 3/31/82) 7 By this we mean both open water f 1 sning in the Great
Lakes and f 1 shing in streams and r 1 ver mouths during spawn 1 ng runs.
( 1) YES (2) NO 1 : 22
If you answered yes above, please answer the follow 1 ng quest ions.
If you answered no , please go on to quest 1 on 5.
a ) what is your favor i te species of Great Lakes trout or salmon to catch?
(C 1 role one ) 1 : 23
( 1) coho sal mon (4) ch 1 nook salmon (8) other
(2) lake trout (5) steel head trout (9) no preference
( 3 ) brown trout
b) What is the ma 1 n reason you fish for Great Lakes trout and salmon? ( C ircle
one ) 1 : 24
( 1) to catch f ish to eat
for relaxation
(3) for excitement and chal lenge
(O) other
c) In general , f ish l ng for Great Lakes trout and salmon is : (Circle one) 1 : 25
( 1) excel lent (2) good (3) average (4) poor (5) very poor
48
5
Please c + r cle the one statement be low which best represents your thought S about
sal mon snagg 1 ng . 1 : 26
(1) Salmon snagging snould rema in as it is . lega i only in a small number of
a r" ea S .
(2) Salmon snagging should be legal in more areas than at present, but not in
a l l .
(3) Salmon snagging should be legal everywhere in Michigan.
(4) Salmon snagging should be legal in fewer areas than at present , but not
completely banned .
(5) Salmon snagg 1 ng should be f l l egal in Michigan.
(9) No op 1 n 1 on .
D d you f { sh for trout in in land lakes in Michigan in the 1981 fish 1 ng season
(4/25/8 1-9/30/81 ) 7 ( 1) YES (2) NO 1 : 27
If you answered yes above, please answer the follow 1 ng Guest ons.
If you answered no , please go on to quest 1 on 7.
a ) which k l nd of trout do you most enjoy catch i ng in 1 n land lakes? (Circle one ) 1 : 28
(2) lake (3) brown (6) ra i noow (7) brook (9) no preference
b) what is the main reason you f is n for trout 1 n in land lakes? (Circle one ) 1 : 29
( 1) to catch f { sh to eat
(2) for relax at 1 on
(3) for the excitement and chal lenge
(O) other
c) In general , f { shing for trout 1 n + n \ and lakes 1 s : (C + r cle one ) 1 : 3O
( 1) excell ent (2) good (3) average (4) poor (5) very poor
D 1 d you fish for trout in Michigan trout streams in the 1981 fishing season
(4/25/8 1-9/30/81 ) 7 (Do not include salmon and steel head f 1 shi ng. )
( 1) YES (2) NO 1 : 3 1
If you answered yes above, please answer the follow 1 ng duest 1 ons.
If you answered no , please go on to duest 1 on 8 .
a ) which k l nd of trout do you most enjoy catching in trout streams? (Circle
one ) 1 : 32
(6) rainbow (7) brook (3) brown (9) no preference
b) What is the main reason you f 1sh for trout in trout streams? (Circle one ) 1 : 33
(1) to catch f ish to eat
(2) for relaxat 1 on
(3) for excitement and chal lenge
(O) other
c) How many different trout streams do you f isn in Michigan? 1 : 34 - 35
d) What is your favor 1 te Michigan trout stream?
Name of stream : & 1 : 36-37
County in which stream is located : 1 : 38 - 39
e) In general , f isn't ng for trout 1 n Michigan trout streams 1 s : (Circle one) 1 : 4C)
(1) excell ent (2) good (3) average (4) poor (5) very poor
49
we need 1 n format i on about the fish 1 ng trips you took last year . P lease f ; } ]
out the follow i ng table for the type of trout f isning trips you took .
ONE DAY TRIPS

GREAT LAKES T ROUT IN IN LAND T ROUT IN TROUT
T ROUT & SAL MON LAKES STREAMS
4/1/8 1 - 3/31/82 4/25/8 1 - 9/3O/8 1 4/25/8 1-9/30/8
Total number of trips 1 : 4 1 - 49
Average round trip
d 1 stance travel ed in 1 : 5C-58
m 1 les
Average amount of
money spent per day
for food, ba i t . 1 : 59-67
tack le , etc . .
(exclude auto gas)
TRIPS LASTING LONGER THAN ONE DAY

Total number of trips 1 : 68 - 73
Average number of
days per trip 1 : 74 - 79
Average round trip
d 1 stance travel ed in 2 : 5 - 16
m 1 les ,-
Average amount of
money spent per day
for food, locg 1 ng. 2 : 17-25
ba i t , tack le , etc. ,
(exclude auto gas)
50
9 .
12.
we would like to know what things are 1 mportant to you when you go fishing.
Please rate each of the following tems by put t i ng a check in the box.

MOST VERY SL I GHT L Y NOT VERY NOT AT ALL
IMPORT ANT IMPORT ANT IMPORT ANT I MPORT ANT IMPORT ANT
( 1) (2) ( 3 ) (4) (5)
Number of f l sh
caught
S 1 ze of f { sh
caught
Crowd 1 ng from
other anglers
Compet it 1 on with
canoes & other
recreat i on a l
act 1 v (ty present
Natural beauty of
the area
Nearness to public
fact l i t t e s - food ,
lodg 1 ng, etc.
Ease of access
to 3 tream
Near rhess to home
Other
If two people went trout f { shing and the first caught 5 trout that were each 8
inches long, while the second person caught 1 trout that was 12 inches long,
which person do you think was more successful ?
(1) the first person
(2) the second person (9) no op 1 n on
If you went trout fish 1 ng for a weekend and caught one 3/4 pound trout on the
f : rst day and f { ve 1/4 pound trout on the second day, which day would you
Cons i Cier more successful ?
(2) the first day (1) the second day (9) no op 1 nt on
On some sections of Michigan trout streams, f isn't ng tackle is restricted to the
use of art if 1 c 1 a l l ures only (for example, spinners, spoons, or f l tes) and the
use of natural ba it is pron 1 bited.
a ) Do you think the number of areas with these regul at 1 ons should be :
(1) + no reased
(3) stay the same
(2) decreased
(9) no op in 1 on
b) Do you ever fish these sect 1 ons? ( 1) YES (2) NO
c) If no, do you plan to fish these sections in the future? ( 1) YES (2) NO
51
13 .
15 .
1 6.
17.
On some sect 1 ons of M ch 1 gan trout streams, f is n i ng tack le is restricted to the
use of f l l es only , and the use of other types of art if 1 c 1 a l l ures and natural
ba its 1 s pron i bited .
a ) Do you think the number of areas with these regulations snould be :
( 1) increased (3) stay the same
(2) decreased (9) no op 1 n 1 on
b) Do you ever f 1 sh these sect tons? ( 1) YES (2) NO
c) If no , do you plan to fish these sections in the future? ( 1) YES (2) NO
On one M 1 chigan trout stream, there is a spec 1 al regul at 1 on requ i r 1 ng you to
throw back the mecſ | Um S 1 2 B trout . That is, you can keep only the t rout between
8 and 12 1 no nes and over 16 inches .
a ) Do you feel this regul at 1 on increases the number of large trout you catch?
( 1) YES (2) NO (9) NO OPINION
b) Do you think the number of areas with this regul at 1 on should be :
( 1) { ricreased (3) stay the same
(2) decreased (9) no op 1 n i on
c) Do you ever f 1 sh in th 1 s area? ( 1) YES (2) NO
d) If no, do you plan to f ish in this sect 1 on in the future? ( 1) YES (2) NO
Suppose certa 1 n sect 1 ons of some Michigan trout streams had spec 1 a 1 regul at 1 ons
of ‘ catch - and - r G 1 ease " . In these areas you would be required to throw back all
of the trout you caught.
a ) How of ten would f { sh these sect 1 ons?
( 1 ) of ten (2) somet 1 mes (3) seldom (4) never
b) Do you feel this regul at 1 on would increase the number of large trout you
catch in these sect 1 ons? ( 1) YES (2) NO (9) NO OPINION
Suppose certa in sect 1 ons of some trout streams had special regul at 1 ons requiring
you to throw back all of the largest trout you caught (for example, trout over
12 inches) but keep the smaller trout .
a ) How of ten would f { sh these sect 1 ons?
( 1) of ten (2) somet 1 mes (3) seldom (4) never
b) Do you feel this regulation would increase the number of large trout you
catch in these sect 1 ons? ( 1) YES (2) N ) (9) NO OPINION
Are you currently a member of any organ tzed fishing or sportsmen group?
(1) YES (2) NO
! - O
: 4 |
: 42
: 43
: 44
: 45
: 46
: 47
: 48
: 49
: 5C)
: 5 1
a ) If yes, which one (s)?
: 52-53
52
18. What is your occupat 1 on? 2 : 54 – 55
19. About what is your yearly household income - your income from all sources before 2 : 56-57
taxes and other deduct ons are made?
( 1) O - $4,999 (6) $3O. OOO - $39, 999
(2) $5, OOO - $9,999 (7) $40, OOO - $49,999
(3) $ 1 O, OOO - $14,999 (8) $50, OOO - $74, 999
(4) $ 15, OOO - $19,999 (9) $75, OOO - $99,999
(5) $2O, OOO - $29,999 ( 1 O.) Over $ 1 OO, OOO
2O. In what county is your permanent address 7 2 : 58-59
County
State
21. What would you like to see done to improve f { shing in Michigan waters?
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
io RENEw -
& . .” - Fº t * ^j p → ,- A -º .
HONE 764-1494