USVI Public Records

Document text

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUHVEY OF HECHEATIONAL BOATING AND FISHING IN THE U. S. VIHGIN ISLANDS for National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U. S,' Department of Commerce Contract No. 03-7- 042 -35140 by DAVID A. OLSEN, PH.D. Princir>a'l 'Investigator'andPI'oj-~¢t Director Forward by Edward L~ Towle, Ph. D. Senior Planner Island Hesources Foundation May, 1979 Subject Acknowledgements List of Tables Introduction TABLE OF CONTENTS Virgin Islands Population Sampling and Hesults Characterization of Hespondents F teet Characterization F teet Utilization Between Is lands Comparison Patterns of Utilization Economic Impact Pub lic Attitude s Summary and Conc lusions Literature Cited Appendix I Tables Appendix II Q.uestionnaires Appendix III Follow-up Questionnaires Page No. i. ii. - vi. 1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 9 9 10 10 - 11 12 13 - 17 17 - 21 21 - 22 22 - 23 24 - 26 27 - 71 72 - 78 79 - 80 FORWARD Virgin Islanders have been blessed with a remarkable environmental inheritance. That inheritance, until recent times, included a unique, culturally cosmopolitan, yet not urban, set of smaU islands, tradition- al values, a rich multi-ethnic history. incredible natural beauty, spec- tacular marine life, dramatic coastlines, c lear water and a salubrious climate. It was not paradise, because poverty, remnants of colonialism and a lack of opportunity limited the development of human resources. Nevertheless, it was a unique insular society in which a balance had been struck between man and nature. Within the past three decades, aU this changed, and Virgin Islanders tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge called "development". We were innocent no more. In less than one generation, our landscape has been scarred, coastal waters degraded, and the social fabric of the community rent by the strains of massive in-migration and tourism. By the early 1970's, the limited coastal zone of the Virgin Islands was well on its way to be- coming a serious environmental problem -- with putrid harbors, conges- tion, declining fisheries, destroyed mangroves, filled in salt ponds and diminished wildlife. Competition among users of the coastal marine resources of the U. S. Virgin Islands also accelerated rapidly over the same period of time, under the impact of a burgeoning tourist industry, local population increases, and commercial shoreline development of unprecedented proportions. Fortunately, other forces were at work in the community, seeking ways to minimize the negative aspects of deve lopment. The Virgin Is lands Planning Office led the battle for a territorial zoning law. The former Division of Environmental Health led the battle for water quality monitor- ing, research and sewage treatment programs. Others sought to design a new regulatory agency, the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, which offered some hope. A system of shore line use permits and earth change permits he lped to a degree, as did the independent actions of citizen groups. More recently, the enactment of a Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Manage- ment program (V. I. Act #4248), and the establishment of a regional Fish- ery Management Council (under U. S. Public Law 94-265) set in motion resource planning and regulatory strategies and processes. Both need reliable quantitative information on traditional and current user practices, numbers and impact regarding the coastal marine environment of the Vir- gin Islands and neighboring island systems, the British Virgin Islands to the east and Puerto Rico to the west. The Virgin Is Lands was not a Lone in confronting these prob Lems and the NationaL Marine Fisheries Service, in its supporting roLe vis a vis the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (based in San Juan), eLected to fund two studies, one covering Puerto Rico and one for the Virgin Islands, to develop quantitative socio-economic profiles of recreationaL boating and fishing in each area. The firm of Clapp and Mayne in San Juan was selected to carry out the Puerto Rico eLement, and the IsLand Resources Foundation was seLected for the smaller Virgin IsLands segment. The document which foLLows represents our finaL report on this stu~y, the first of its .kind ever carried out in the Virgin IsLands. Even before this study was completed, the NationaL Marine Fisheries Service Launched a parallel supporting effort to quantify recreatiom 1 fish- ing catch leve Is by species, frequency, method, etc., in order to assess the annuaL non-commercial "harvest" of fish extracted from natural stocks. The IsLand Resources Foundation is currently carrying out this 12 month survey project in the Virgin IsLands, designed to provide a more solid in- formation base for improved Virgin Islands fisheries deve lopment, man- agement and reguLation. Lastly, I note that not all academicians stay aloof from the sticky questions involved in decision making in marine resource allocation and manage- ment. Dr. David Olsen who served as principal investigator on this project and is the sole author of the report which follows, has resigned from the Island Resources Foundation and taken a position with a Virgin Islands Government agency dealing with marine and coastal zone resource matters in a more direct fashion. Edward L. Towle St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands June, 1979 i. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Susan Olsen who carried out the major portion of the interviewing effort and typed most of the numerous tables; Kathleen Finnerty for final typing of the report; Benjamin Cathey who carried out much of the initial data reduction; and Pauline Venzen. Jim Lang and Myrna George who undertook additional interviewing. Vasudeva Olsen cottected the sportfishing catch records and Mark Marin and Carl Butler of the Virgin Islands Underwater Society provided the exce Uent catch records from their spearfishing tournaments. We also appreciate the hospitality and cooperation of the St. Croix Yacht Club. and particularly the St. Croix Diving Club. George Tyson. Dr. Klaus de Albuquerque formerly of the CoUege of the Virgin Islands. and Clare Hatchette he lped with design of the study and data ana lysis. The final product was greatly enhanced by the advice and assistance of Dr. Jerome McElroy of the Cottege of the Virgin Islands and by Mike Justin of the National Marine Fisheries Service who both provided invalu- able advice and furnished difficult to obtain literature. Our thanks to all. Dr. David A. Olsen Principal Investigator and Dr. E. L. Towle President Island Resources Foundation ii. LIST OF TABLES (A PPENDIX I) Table No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Ethnic makeup of the U. S. Virgin Islands population from various sources of information compared to the response results from the present survey. Summary of data acquisition activities for socio-econ- omic survey of the Virgin Islands recreational fishing community. Results of a subjective ethnic ana lysis of the boating registration list furnished by the Virgin Is lands Depart- ment of Conservation and Cultural Affairs. Summary of information from Virgin Islands Department of Cons~rvation and Cultura 1 Affairs boating registra- tion list as of January 1, 1978. Frequency distribution of reported incomes (in percent to total) for respondents born in the continental United States and outside the United States; and for direct interviews and mail respondents. Average respondent incomes (in U. S. $) for recreation- al fishing survey. Birth places of respondents (in percentages) of sample according to data source compared to the Virgin Is- lands population from various sources (Table 1). Proportion of the respondents answering the question- naire from records. Percent of respondents who keep records. Average age in years of respondents to recreational fishing survey. Average length of respondent residence in Virgin Is- lands (in years); non-resident responses deleted. Page No. 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 31 32 iii. TABLES - cont. Table No. Page No. 12. 13. 14. Summary of respondent birth places. Household size of respondents to recreational fishing survey (total number of persons' (fp household). Type of housing where survey respondents live. 32 33 33 15. Employment patterns of respondents to recreational survey. 34 16. Fleet value (D. S. $) summary of the Virgin Islands re- creational fleet. 34 17. Percentcof respondent fleet classified as sailboats or power boats. 35 18. Frequency distribution of respondent recreational fleet length (feet). 35 19. Summary of vessel age for recreational fleet. 36 20. Summary of purchase date for Virgin Islands recreation- al fleet. 37 21. Type of fuel used by Virgin Islands recreational fleet. 38 22. Ntarhber of ebginesused.in Virgin Islands recreation- al fleet~. 38 23. Summary of engine type for recreational fishing fleet. 38 24. Summary of engine horsepower for Virgin Islands recreational fleet. 39 25. Summary of Virgin Islands;recreationat fishing fleet boats having electronic equipment. 40 26. Construction materials employed in Virgin Islands recreationa 1 fleet. 40 27. Summary of recreationa 1 fleet purchasing patterns in D. S. Virgin Islands. 41 28. Summary of slip rents paid by Virgin Islands recreation- al boating fleet. 41 iVa TABLES - cont. Table No. 29. 30. 31. Summary of dingy fees paid by respondents who moor' their boats. Summary of storage methods utilized by Virgin Islands recreational boaters. Summary of location of Virgin Islands recreational boat- ing fleet. 32. Location of hurricane storage sites for Virgin Is lands recreational boaters. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Partial summary of annual expenditures by recreational boaters in U. S. Virgin Islands in 1977-78. Percent of fuel purchases made by Virgin Islands rec- reational boaters at marinas. Proportion of non-fue 1 purchases made at marinas by Virgin Islands boaters. Percent of Virgin Islands recreational boaters affected by increased fue 1 prices. Percent of Virgin Islands recreational boat purchases af- fected by fue 1 price increases. Percent of respondents who purchased their boats before fuel prices went up. Summary of use frequency required to warrant ownership of boat in the opinion of the re spondent. Average Virgin Islands boat use during summer months. Summary of Virgin Islands boat use during winter months. Page No. 42 42 43 44 45 46 46 46 47 47 48 49 49 42. Summary of number of passengers on boats in use in the V. I. 50 43. 44. Summary of trip length for Virgin Islands boating activity. Summary of marina departure and return times for Virgin Islands recreational boating activity. 50 51 TABLES - cont. v. Table No .. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Summary of travel time (in minutes) from homes of Virgin Islands recreational boaters to site of boat. Summary of distance trave led from Virgin Is lands recreational boaters' homes to their boats. Summary of Virgin Islands weekend recreational boating activity (% of boating done on weekends). Summary of Virgin Islands boating activity taking place in the British Virgin Islands. Summary of expenditures (U. S. $) by U. S. Virgin Islands recreational boaters in the British Virgin Is lands. Summary of Virgin Islands recreational fleet involved in carrying passengers for hire. Summary of crew employment in the Virgin Islands recreationa 1 boating fleet. Time (in days) spent by owners repairing recreational boating fleet. Selected parameters for between islands comparison. Geographical distribution of Virgin Islands recreational boating activity. Summary of recreational use according to time spent. Frequency and type of recreational fishing activity in the Virgin Islands. Rank preference for different recreational fishing tech- niques by Virgin Islands fishermen. Summary of recreational fishing effort by species dir- ection and success in capture. The respondents were asked to list the "species" that they fished for and that they caught in order of frequency. Distribution of recreational fishing effort among various activities as indicated from a followup questionnaire. Page No. 51 52 52 52 53 54 54 54 55 56 57 58 59 60-62 63 vi. TABLES - cont. Table No. Page No. 50. Distribution of Virgin Istands recreational fishing ef- fort by species, as rep())rt3G in foHow':" up questionnaire. 64-65 61. Summary of Virgin Islands reureatiomaLfishing landings. 66 62. Proportion (in percent of total) of family income spent on boating expenses by Virgin Is lands boaters. 67 63. Monthly ownership costs (in U. S. $) associated with respondents' boating activities. 67 64. Average daBy expenditures (in U. S. $) for respondents' boating activities. 68 65. Summary of equipment purchases by survey respondents. 69 6-6. Summary of economic data used in the calculation of the economic impact of the recreational boating and fishing sector on the Virgin Islands economy. 70 67. Summary of economic impact analysis. 71 -1- INTHODUCTION The passage of the so-calted "200 mile limit law" (PL-94-265) in 1976 created regional fishery management councils which were mandated to deve lop plans for the management of the fisheries within their respective jurisdictions. Development of these plans, which were to be based upon "best available information", led to the identification of critical gaps in the data base. In the region under the Caribbean Hegional Fisheries Man- agement Council it became apparent that there was very little extant in- formation about the fishermen, catch, or economic characteristics of the recreational sector. Since early information developed in association with management plans for the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) and the reef fish fisheries indicated that the commercial sector was harvesting nearly the full maximum sustainable yield (MSY) leve 1, this information became crucial in order to assess the need for resource allocation. If the recrea- tional catch was large. then the best available information would indicate that these fisheries were currently subjected to overfishing and some sort of allocation formulation would have to be developed. In fisheries where there is excess yie ld available for both groups, plan- ning may be sufficient to meet the need. Where there is no surplus. or where overfishing is indicated, hard decisions for resource allocation must be made based upon best available data. The absence of available data for recreational fishing has necessitated studies such as these. The present study and another national effort currently underway under the auspices of the National Marine Fisheries Service represent an attempt to fill these information gaps so that resource management can be based on a firm understanding of both the resource and the resource user groups. Management plans are to be designed so as to benefit the greatest number of people. Generally, since consumers outnumber all other resource users, production was considered to be a prime consideration. However, early estimates of the recreationa l fishing sector have shown that for many fish- eries large numbers of recreational fishing units may welt be landing in excess of the commercial catch. A 1965 survey (U. S. Bureau of Sport- fisheries and Wildlife, 1965) estimated that over 8 million saltwater anglers spent over $800 million annually for fishing re lated expenses. Deuel (1978) reports that some coastal areas recreational catch may exceed the commer- cial catch. A national summary of economic activity by recreational fish- ermen in 1975 (Centaur, 1977) reports $1. 8 billion in expenditures. In other words. there is inherent and actual competition for resource yield potentials between the recreational and commercial fisherman. -2- Another need for characterizing the local recreational resource user arises from the needs of the local government to plan for development. A n adequate characterization of the recreational resource user is c lear- ly a prerequisite to planning for the future use of the coastal zone. The Virgin Islands passed a Coastal Zone Management Act (Act No. 4248) in late 1978, calling for implementation in 1979. The results of the pres- ent study may be of use in furnishing information on both the character- istics of the resource user group and also the socio-economic dimensions of this sector of the economy. Furthermore, local government policy is beginning to reflect a concern for traditional life styles which are being confronted with a rapidly changing economic and cultural environment. Studies such as this can aid local government by quantitatively establishing the role of these lifestyles within the contemporary society. In the Virgin Islands, the recreational fisherman is part of a popuLation which may range from resource users that haul up to 100 fish traps three days per week to the snorkeler who may use the aquatic resource once or twice a month. Characterization of this recreational fisherman, an im- portant object of the present effort, is made more difficult by the fact that many part-time fishermen sell their surplus catch. For this survey rec- reational fisherman is being loose ly defined as a person who has either demonstrated fishing activity or else has the capability for fishing activity (i. e., is a boat owner). Recreational fishermen also include non-extractive marine resource users such as snorkelers and underwater photographers. Elements of the catch reported by known commercial fishermen are iden- tified in the results and deleted from calculations. Alt~ough some information has been available for the commercial fishery since 1932 (Fiedler and Jarvis, 1932; Dammann et. al., 1969; Olsen, et. at. , 1976), there have been significant changes in the patterns of exploitative marine resource use in this time period. At the time of the first survey, fishing was an important part of food production in a community which num- bered around 22,000 inhabitants (McElroy, 1978). For example, in 1930, agriculture and fisheries comprised over 33 percent of the labor force while in 1977 they comprise less than 1 percent (McElroy, 1978). Pre- sently, the commercial fishery only lands around 30 percent of the sea- food requirements for the islands (Kumpf, 1978), and a large recreation- al fishery -- which may make up 75 percent of the registered boat fleet -- catches some unknown figure. -3- THE VIRGIN ISLANDS POPULATION In 1960, the U. S. Virgin Islands had a total population of just over 32,000; a decade later, in 1970, this population had more than doubled to 75,151 (V. r. Department of Commerce. 1977). Latest estimates (1977) from the V. r. Department of Commerce put the population at over 98.000. Of this population. a substantial percentage are aliens or "down-islanders", immigrants from other West Indian islands seek- ing expanded economi9 opportunities in the U. S. territory; "continen- tals" from the U. S. mainland; and Puerto Ricans from the neighboring Commonwealth. This sudden. largely unplanned increase in population is clear ly evident when one considers that two out of three Virgin Is- lands residents living in the territory today were not present in 1960 (McElroy. 1978). A concurrent and equally rapid shift in ethnic composition has trans- formed the social fabric of the islands in a generation's time. As evidence. one study (McElroy. 1978) reports that between 1835 and 1950, native-born residents comprised roughly 70-80 percent of the popula- tion. As a result of the increasing proportion of West Indians, Puerto Ricans. and U. S. Con- tinentals, today the resident-born ratio is less than 40 percent. A lthough this dramatic shift in the ethnic structure of the Virgin Is lands population is widely reported. its exact dimensions are somewhat dis- puted. Accurate and consistent figures are difficult to obtain. with fig- ures often varying greatly from one government agency to another. A United Nations working paper prepared by the Secretariat for its sub- Committee on Small Territories (of the Special Committee ... on De- colonization, dmcument A/AC. 109/L. 1234) states that in 1970 approx- imately 40 percent of the inhabitants of the territory were Virgin Island- ers by birth. 24 percent were from other West Indian islands, 15 percent from Puerto Rico. 12 percent from the Continental United States and 9 percent .were from Europe. These figures are compared in Table 1 with statistics provided by three Virgin Islands government agencies based on information from the present decade and with the results from the present survey. -4- However one wishes to interpret the various studies, it would seem evi- dent that the native born population clearly has rapidly become a minority within its own society. Residents from other West Indian islands (exclusive of Puerto Rico) comprise the next single largest ethnic group, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the total population. In-migration from North America has also reduced the proportionate size of the native born population. It should be noted from the ethnic makeup of the current sur- vey respondents that there is considerable over representation by the "Continental" ethnic group in that survey. (See Table I. ) The influx of West Indian in-migration, in conjunction with an ongoing Hispanic (primarily Puerto Rican) and North American in-flow, serves to make the Virgin Islands one of the most complex, heterogeneous com- munities under the American flag. Further, it must be noted that within each of the major ethnic groupings -- Natives, Continentals, West Indians, Puerto Ricans, and Others -- there are further sub-groupings. Thus, while the "native-born" category generally refers to black Virgin Island- ers, it can be further sub-grouped, e. g., those of French ancestry who form the nucleus of a prominent, north-side St. Thomas fishing commun- ity. Likewise, "continentals" can further be sub-grouped by race: black continentals and white confinentals, two groups of varying cultur- al and social characteristics but grouped "ethnicaUy" within one cate- gory in the Virgin Islands. Finally, the "alien" or West Indian group is comprised of various foreign nationalities, representing virtually every major island or island group within the Caribbean archipe lago, e. g., Kittitian5, Dominicans, Haitians, "Bajans ", Antiguans, etc. Consequently, base lines for ethnicity are difficult to obtain. There are also differences in ethnicity between the Virgin Islands. Mills (1978) reports that native born residents make up 45 percent of the population of St. Thomas and only 37 percent on St. Croix. Resi- dents of Puerto Rican background represent 16 percent of the population on St. Croix and only 4 percent on St. Thomas. The population on St. John has over 48 percent residents of continental origins while the other two islands have less than 15 percent. -5- THE BOATING REGISTRATION LIST (SAMPLING UNIVERSE) The sampling universe was based upon the boating registration list pro- vided by the Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Af- fairs. This list was made up of all of the registered boats as of January 1. 1978. and had 1. 789 entries. This list was taken at about the mid point of the boat registration year and had somewhat fewer entries than an end of year list would have contained. In later economic calculations we used an assumed fleet size of 2. 000 boats. The survey questionnaire (AppenclixII) was mailed to all of the addresses on the list after sorting out obviously unde liverab Ie addresses. The dis- tribution of the mailing is shown in Table 2 along with the responses and interview results. The questionnaire was mailed bulk rate with an accompanying letter and post-paid) pre -addressed return enve lope. The interviews were obtained at meetings of dive c lub~. yacht clubs. fishing tournaments. and chapter meetings of the Virgin Islands Conservation Society. Some interviews were obtained at marinas. The results from interviews were combined with the maHout in the analysis. Bias result- ing from this combination is discussed subsequently. We made a very subjective attempt to assess the ethnic makeup of the population represented 'by the registration list. The technique was sug- gested by a sociologist at the College of the Virgin Islands and consisted of a review of the boating registration list and an assigning of all identi- able names to several ethnic categories. The subjectivity of this method cannot be over-emphasized, but it does supply some information for com- parison with the general census and response data. The "panel" which undertook this effort consisted of an economist and a sociologist froin the College of the Virgin Islands, both of whom were familiar with the techniques employed and have undertaken similar survey efforts in the Virgin Islands; a 10 year resident of the Virgin Islands who has been active in community action conservation programs; a historian who has been living and working in the Virgin Islands for 10 years; and a fishery biologist who has been working in the Virgin Islands for 8 years. The results of this subjective survey are shown in Table 3. There was considerable agreement among the.results furnished by the 5 panel members (C. V. = 8.4%) although the results were at variance with both the general census figures and the survey respondents. This sub- jective survey assigned 39.7 percent of the identifiable names into either West Indian (inc luding Virgin Islanders). Puerto Rican, or West Indians of French ancestry. The general census data indicate that ap- proximately 76 percent of the population should be in these combined .~. ,~.~"-~~------.. ~.--,----.~.--- --.---.. -~ .. -----------------""".--'-----"'"-------------~----- -6- c~tegories .. If this survey has any parametric verity, then it may in- dlCate that continentals (assumed as individuals that could not be assign- ed to these groups) own a disproportionate amount of the registered boating fleet. The boating registration list also furnishes additional information about ___ ~~h~._.J:::creational fleet. These data are summarized in Tab le 4. They indicate that the average boat in the Virgin Islands is powered by an outboard engine of 99.3 horsepower and is 23. 1 feet in length, constructed of fiberglass. The results of the table also indicated that the boats owned by persons having Puerto Rican addresses have nearly twice the horse- power and are an average of 8 feet longer. Also, it is interesting that the Puerto Rican owned fleet is 97 percent fiberglass and less variable in length (C. V. = 29%) than the rest of the fleet combined (C. V. = 45%). These data are used here as a baseline against which the response re- sults can be compared. Statistical identity with baseline data is desir- able. In fact, just as the boating registration list appears to be a non- representative ethnic representation of the Virgin Islands community, the sample respondents appear to be a non-representative sample of the boating registration list. An example of this "bias" can be shown by comparing the average size boat from the registration list (mean length = 23.1 feet) to the average sized boat from the respondents to the survey (mean length = 25. 1 feet). This difference was statistically significant (ts =5.26, p <0. 001, df=1936). The respondents therefore appear to own larger boats than the average for the fleet. This finding is in keeping with the over-representation by "continentals" in the sample respondents since there are subjective reasons to feel that the average income levels (therefore ability to purchase larger boats) are higher in this group. SAMPLING AND RESULTS Data from the survey came from both interviews and the mail out sur- vey summarized in Table 2. The boating registration list contained 1, 789 entries. One hundred forty-seven of these entries were redun- dant (ownership of multiple boats), foreign, or obviously undeliverable addresses. The initial mail out was 1,642 questionnaires. A total of 62 questionnaires were returned because they were;;tddressed to unde- liverable addresses, leaving a total of 1,580 forms which we could as- sume reached the addressees. The response rate was 11 percent or 183 forms (Table 2). With the exception of St. John, where the response rate was 24 percent, there was re lative uniformity between the response rates from the various islands and the continental United States. -7- This 11 percent response rate is significantty lower than that reported for other studies in the literature. Abramson (1963) and Abramson and Berude (1969) obtained 35 percent and 39 percent response rates to recreational surveys in California. Brown (1977). in a review of factors affecting recreational fishing surveys, reported that most other surveys that have been attempted elicited an approximate 20 percent response. He also reported that the kind of postage, sponsoring organization, and title of the author of the cover letter aU may affect response to mail out surveys. The bulk mailing rate employed in the present survey, according to Brown, would decrease response. McElroy (personal communication')has suggested that a number of other factors may have contributed to the low response rate. Among these are secrecy associated with multiple job holding, apathy towards government, literacy, and the fact that the survey period included w~s during a partkular- ly intense political campaign. It is also evident that the questionnaire, which was adapted from a similar Florida study, may have been too long and complex for the local situation. The other source of completed questionnaires came from direct inter- views which took place at meetings of various interest groups (yacht clubs, dive clubs, fishing clubs), at marinas, and other places where resource users congregate. We obtained an additional 74 interviews in this manner. The results were combined in the analysis. The total cost for mailing out the questionnaire (printing, s111uffing en- ve lopes, mailing, etc.) was $1, 048.06 or $5.73 per response. The total cost of the interviews was $175. 15 or $2.37 per completed response. This represents a significant difference in cost-effectiveness although, admittedly, most of the interviewing took place at locations where many interviews could be completed in a short period. Subsequent interview- ing efforts were not as productive. We also attempted to assess the parametric verity of the boating regis- tration list by undertaking a telephone survey whereby persons to be surveyed were selected by a random process. The interviewer made 197 calls and only completed five, all from the island of St. John. Most of the calls were terminated by the interviewee. Before aborting the effort a final attempt was made to assess whether the negative response indicated a small proportion of fishermen in the general population or a negative response to the telephone survey. This assessment consist- ed of randomly selecting ten individuals from the boating registration list and determining if each owned a boat. Nine of the interviews replied no. The one positive response did not allow the interview to continue. The results of this telephone survey have not been used other than as an indicator pointing to a lack of data on that proportion of Virgin Islands households containing recreational fishermen. Another project is cur- rentlv underway to furnish these data. -8- The results of the survey are furnished in the following discussion with Coefficient of Variation (C. V. ) so that the reader can compare the var- iabilityof parameters with different units. The Standard Deviation can be easily calculated by multiplying the value of the Mean by the propor- tional equivalent of the C. V. (the proportional equivalent of a C. V. = 890/0 is O. 89). The data are highly variable. On 41 questions where the Co- efficient of Variation was calculated, the average C. V. was 127 percent (S. C. = 93.2). We have not tested for differences between the respondents from the different islands since with 127 percent C. V. it would require over 330 respondents from each island (total greater than 1,980 responses) in order to have a 90 percent assurance of detecting a significant differ- ence between two of the groups at the five percent significance leve 1. The reason for this high variability may possibly be indicated by analyz- ing the frequency distribution of the respondents' incomes (Tables 5 and 6). The average family income ($18,551. ) was significantly higher than the $9,973. average earnings of workers employed in manufacture (V. I. Department of Planning, 1978) and higher than the $13,500. average gross income of a group of locally employed primarily professional workers re- cently surveyed (McElroy and Caines, 1979). Per capita annual income in the Virgin Islands (McElroy, 1978) is $4,743. In spite of this difference, the frequency distribution was not skewed towards the higher incomes but rather had a non-significant skew towards respondents with lower than average incomes (gl = -0.23, ts=1. 28, p. n. s.). On the other hand, the frequency distribution was significantly platykurtic (g2=1. 86, t s =5.31, P <0. 001). The result of combining dissimilar economic groups is a popuLation which is not overly weighted by a modal income group, with a broad range of possible incomes, and little measure of central tendency. The source of this kurtosis arises from the dissi'm:ilarity between the in- comes of respondents born in the continental United States (average in- come = $21,087., C. V. = 390/0) whose frequency distribution is skewed towards the higher income groups (gl = 0.60, t s =2,86, P <0.01), and the frequency distribution of incomes for non- U. S. born respondents (aver- age income $13,359., C. V. = 640/0). This latter figure is very similar to the income figure reported by McElroy and Ca.ines (1979). This observation may also account for the relatively lower variability in response among the 17 respondents from Puerto Rico. Most boats registered in the Virgin Islands by Puerto Rican citizens are owned by members of the upper classes. This selection process tends to increase the trend towards central tendency in the data. Table 5 also indicates that the incomes of interviewees were not signifi- cantly higher than mail out respondents (ts =0.42, p. n. s., df=194). Ethnic- ally, the interviewees were 82.4 percent continental (Table 7), while only 39 percent of the mail out response was from continentals. Both of these figures are much higher than the proportion for the Virgin Islands pop- ulation in general. Although this ethnic response heterogeneity exists, -9- we combined the results of the interviewing and mail out respondents in order to increase the sample size for subsequent analysis. The basis for this combination was the economic homogeneity of the respondents. The response rate to the various questions also varied. On 69 questions, the response rate averaged 66.2 percent (C. V. = 35%). Part of this lower response rate may be due to the fact that the questionnaire was designed to acquire information from a variety of user groups ranging from charter operations to occasional snorke lers. Consequently, sections of the ques- tionnaire did not apply to various of the user groups. Only 14 percent of the respondents answered the questionnaire from records (Tables 8 and 9). CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS The average respondent to the survey was 42.8 years of age (Table 10) and has lived in the U. S. V. 1. for 14.3 years (Table 11). Nearly 52 per- cent were born in the U. S., 13 percent in the U. S. V. 1., 12.5 percent were born in Puerto Rico, 9.9 percent were born in the other islands of the Eastern Caribbean, and 7. 6 percent were born in the British Virgin Islands (Table 12). .._--- ------ _~ ____________ ~ ________ ~ _~ ___ ~ __ ~_ ~~ ___ n' _____ ' ______ ~ __ _ The average household had 3.3 members at home (Table 13). This fig- ure is considerable lower than the 3.9 figure found by Mills (1978). Near- ly 61 percent of the respondents lived in single family housing, 16.3 per- cent in apartments and 9. 6 percent in boats (Table 14). Sixty-four per- cent of the respondents were engaged in day work, 21. 5 percent worked at night, 11. 5 percent were retired, and only 2.6 percent were unemploy- ed (Table 15). McElroy (1974) reported that only 6.5 percent of the population was re- tired at the time of that survey. The V. 1. Department of Health (Bureau of Vital Statistics) reports that 3.8 percent of the 1975 population was 65 or older. McElroy also reports (McElroy, personal communication) that there has been a current increase in the over 65 portion of the population locally. It is his opinion that this increase represents in-migration of continental retirees, and older dependents of West Indians who are achiev- ing resident status. Certainly, retirees are over-represented in our sam- ple. Our sample unemployment rate (3. 1 percent) shown in Table 15 was also significantly lower than the 8 percent figure for the Virgin Islands economy as a whole (V.1. Employment Security Agency, personal communication) as might be expected. McElroy (personal communication) says that this figure is probably c loser to 6 percent at present. ""_10- FLEET CHARACTERIZATION The major capital expenditure for the sector involves the purchase of boats. The average reported value was $17,680 with an estimated fleet value of over $35 million (Table 16). Sixty-nine percent of the fleet were power boats (Table 17). The average respondents' boat is 25.1 feet (Table 18). It was built in 1970 (Table 19) and bought by its present owner in 1975 (Table 20). Sixty-seven percent of the boats are gasoline powered (Table 21). Sixty-seven percent have a single engine (Table 22). Sixty-one percent are powered by outboard engines (Table 23), twenty-eight percent by inboards, and eleven percent by inboard/outboard engines. Average total horsepower (Table 24) was 144.7. Forty-two perctent of the fleet have ship-to-shore ra.dios, 28'pe:oeent have fathometers, and only twenty-one percent have any other e lectron- ics (Table 25). Nearly eighty percent of the fleet is built of fiberglass (Tab le 26). Sixty-seven percent of the fleet is purchased used and nearly sixty percent is purchased from brokers and dealers (Table 27). FLEET UTILIZATION About 34 percent of the respondents kept their boats in marinas and paid a monthly average of $69.47 in slip rent (Table 28). Dingy fees . . averaging $29.69 per month are paid by 15 percent of the respondents (Table 29). The remaining portion of the fleet is stored by different methods inc luding dry storage (6. 1 percent), traile red storage (11. 9 percent), and moored or anchored out· (36 percent) as shown in Table 30. 'The geographical distribution of the fleet is shown in Table 31. Two thirds of the respondent fleet is based in St. Thomas. The locations for potential boat storage in case of hurricanes are shown in Table 32. Fuel is a major expenditure, adding up to over $1. 5 million annually (Table 33). Over 70 percent of the fuel purchases and 29 percent of the other purchases associated with boating are made at marinas (Tables 34 and 35). Estimated fuel consumption by the recreational fleet is around 1. 4 percent of the 168 million gallons of petrochem- ical products consumed annually in the Virgin Islands (Texaco, per- sonal communication). The fuel price increases of the early part of the decade caused 12 percent of the respondents to reduce their level of boating activity (Table 36). Only 27 percent of the respondents said that the fue 1 price increases affected the type of boat that they bought (Table 37). Since only 41 percent of the fleet was purchased after fuel -11- prices began going up (Tables 20 and 38) fuel price increases affected 66 percent of the possible boat purchases. The respondents felt that they had to use their boats 3.8 times monthly in order for boat ownership to be worth the costs of ownership (Table 39). Since average use reported (TabE.s 40 and 41) was seven trips per month (with no significant variation from summer to winter), Virgin Islands boaters are apparently more than successful at maintaining cost-effective (from their point of view) operations. At an average of seven trips monthly:.respondents carry 3.6 persons per trip (Table 42). The average trip duration was 33. 9 hours alth(}Llgh 72 percent of the trips are 12 hours or less (Table 43). It is clear that the proportion of trips involving extended cruising has skewed these results towards the longer trips. The average day trip begins at 8:59 a. m. and ends at 4:52 p. m. (average duration 7 hours and 53 minutes), as shown in Table 44. The boaters travel an average of 19 minutes (Table 45) or 7.8 miles (Table 46) to get to their boats and expend $6.74 per day for this travel (Table. 33). Sixty-two percent of all boating activ- itytakes place on weekends (Table 47). Over 83 percent of the respondents made an average of 5. 1 trips to the British Virgin Islands last year (Table 48) and spent an average of $74.75 per trip (Table 49), or, in total, Virgin Islands boaters made a total of 8,364 trips and contributed over $625, 000 to the B. V. 1. econ- omy. Again, the fact that the present survey did not sample the docu- mented vesse 1 fleet adequate ly has probably resulted in a significant underestimate in the magnitude of this expenditure. Less than 2 percent of the registered fleet carries passengers for hi.r:e (Table 50). Most of the charter fleet consists of documented vessels which were not adequately sampled in this survey. There are probably between 200 and 300 vessels employed in the charter business locally. Only 9.7 percent of the boat owners employ professional crew (Table 51) with a total workforce of around 270 crew. Only one respondent reported his pay rate which was $35 per day. The respondents reported spending an average of 26.6 days repairing their boats last year (Table 52). This fairly high figure indicates a significant repair service industry which may not be included in our economic analysis. -12- BETWEEN ISLAND S COMPAHISON There appear to be demonstrable differences between the respondents from the three islands (Table 53), the British Virgin Islands and Puerto Hico. The island of St. John was anomalous in many ways. Actual differ- ences between St. John and the rest of the Virgin Islands have been demon- strated in other survey work (Mills, 1978). St. Johnian respa.ndents were nearly six years older than the average for the remainde r of the survey respondents and had an average income $5,500, lower than the remainder of the respondents. Nearly 30 percent of the respondents were native born Virgin Is landers and the average length of residence in the Virgin Islands was 25.2 years. The boats owned by St. Johnians were smaller and were worth nearly $10,000 less than the average for the remainder of the respondent fleet. Nearly 60 percent of the fleet in St. John is either moored or anchored. The respondents from St. Thomas appeared to represent a more biased sample of upper income residents. The incomes reported were the high- est for the study (excluding the small sample size Of U. S. residents) and the boats were nearly five feet longer than the average from the boating registration list, with an average value of $19,650. The St. Tlnmas re- spondents were made up of only 11.1 percent native born Virgin Islanders and the average residence here was 12.4 years. Over 50 percent of the fleet in St. Thomas is stored at marinas and 33 percent is moored or an- chored. The Cruzan respondents were similar to the St. Thomians a lthough the discrepancy between the average boat length from the DCCA boat registra- tion list and the respondent boat lengths were not as great. The Cruzan response contained only 8.8 percent native born Virgin Islanders and the average length of residence was 11. 9 years. The storage of the Cruzan fleet is different than for the other islands in that nearly a third of the boats are trailered and stored at home while the other two thirds are stored in marinas and moored. The boaters of Puerto Hican origin obvious ly represent an economic elite. The boats of the fleet are nearly 10 feet longer than the Virgin Island aver- age with a total value over $ 14,000 higher than the average for the remainder of the respondents. The relatively small sample size of the Puerto Hican respondents as well as for the British VIrgin Islands and United States has prec luded further ana lysis. -13- PATTERNS OF UTILIZATION St. Thomas waters are the site for 53 percent of all the boating activity reported (Table 54 and Figure 1), while 36 percent takes place in British Virgin Islands' waters and 11 percent in St. Croix. The results indic- ate that 55.4 percent of the people list cruising as a preferred activity, 18.8 percent list non-extractive uses of the water (snorke ling, diving, photography, swimming, water skiing, etc.), 12. 7 percent list non- extractive commercial activities. and 10 percent list extractive use of the marine resources (Table 54). This picture changes when the results are analyzed in terms of the number of days spent in these activities (Table 55 ). Non-extractive water use takes up 29.6 percent of the total reported days, while extractive activities accounted for 22.3 percent of the reported days, business re lated activities accounted for 22.3 per- cent of the reported days, and 14. 6 percent of the reported time was spent cruising. These results tend to substantiate the high average length of trip figure previously discussed. Because a:-large number of people are involved in cruising, a single trip may greatly increase the calculated average trip length since cruising trips generally involve several consecutive days. Sixty-one percent of the respondents (as ppposed to the previous question in which a respondent was given a choice among multiple responses) listed some sort of extractive use of the marine environment. Line fishing (24. 40/0).;w:as the most common activity (Tab Ie 56). followed by spear fishing (7.6 percent) and trap and net fishing (5.3 percent combined). When these results were analyzed by rank, the mO$t preferred techni- ques were lobster diving. spearfishing and diving for conch (Table 57). Forty-three types of finfish. two molluscs. and spiny Lobster were listed in the catch (Tab Ie 58). In terrl'lEFJ of effort (most frequently sought) the dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) is the most preferred fish, followed by snappers (Lutjanus sp.). grouper (Epinephe lus and Myctoperca), kingfish (Scomberemorus cavaLLa). and mackerel (S. maculata). The most frequently caught fish are snappers. followed by mackere 1. bar- racuda (Sphyraena barracuda), kingfish and groupers. There is considerab Ie agreement between the results of this segment of the survey in the Virgin IsLands and Austin et. al. 's (1977) survey in D8CiE County, Florida. Fishermen in the Virgin Islands tend to seek the same species as fishermen in Florida. The 11 most frequently sought species were significantly rank eor related to the Florida list (Spearman rank corre lation coefficient. rs=O. 97. p <0.01). The strength of this corre lation decreases if all of the species are inc luded due in part to faunistic differences between the two areas but also due to the -14- Figure 1. Map of the Virgin Islands showing Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs area designations which were used to assess the geographical distribution of recreational boating and fishing activity in the present survey. "B-1 Gorda '6-4 Barracuda Bank c...-~ <:'-4 c.-~ -15- cultural patterns in species preference. Virgin Islands consumers pay one price for most fish species, while Floridian consumers exercise greater se lective choice. A follow up questionnaire (Appendix III) was sent to 8t_of the respondents who indicated that we could contact them again for further information. The response rate was 63 percent. Ninety-six percent of these respon- dents answered the questionnaire from memory. Tables 59 and 60 sum- marize the results. These tables show that the diving-re lated fishing activities were most frequently utilized by the respondents (75 percent of the total responses as compared to 37.2 percent in the first, survey). Thirty percent of this total involved non-extractive use of the marine environment, such as snorkeling or underwater photography (as compar- ed to 29.6 percent in the first survey). Extractive activities made up the remaining 45 percent of diving activity. Line fishing accounted for 24 percent of the total (trolling made up 22 percent, bottom fishing 2 per- cent). The catch per unit effort (CPUE is given in Ibs. per person/day) indicated that most of the techniques average between 5 and 10 Ibs. per person/day (Table 59~), with the exception of two known commercial fishermen who reported averaging 484 Ibs. per day (Virgin Islands commercial fisher- men normally have two men in the boat so this figure should probably be halved). We collected two other sources of catch and effort data during the study. The first came from an intercept survey of game fishing boats at the Lagoon Marina in Red Hook, St. Thomas between August 9 and 23, 1978. During this period boats went fishing on 10 days (43 boat days) and carried 2.2 anglers per day. They landed 11 blue marlin averaging 266 Ibs. (38 percent C. V.), tagged and released 17 others, (a tag-release tournament took place on 4 of the days of the survey), and caught one shark, 1 sailfish, 1 wahoo (30 Ibs.), 1 barracuda (20 Ibs.), and one yellowfin tuna weighing 39 Ibs. The catch per unit effort of blue marlin was O. 12 fish per angler per day. The other source of data was furnished by the local dive clubs and came from the catch records of spearfishing tournaments from 1975 to 1978. These data cannot be legitimate ly used for CPUE analysis because the clubs regularly change the rules of the contest in order to change the scoring value of different species. Regardless of this limitation, they probably approximate the CPUE and do serve as a cross check to the other data. The results indicate that in 37 tournaments totaling 303 diver days (averaging 8.2 divers per day, C. V. =42 percent), the competitors speared 9.68 Ibs. per day (C. V. = 59 percent). The average size of these fish was 4. 68 Ibs. -16- Such spearfishing figures are interesting primarily because they are very close to the 10.5 Ibs. per day reported by spearfishermen during the follow-up survey (Table 60). The trolling data listed above (around 30 Ibs. /angler day) are over three times higher than reported in the follow-up study (9.3 Ibs. /angler day). The most frequently caught species reported in the follow-up survey were the mackerels (Scomberemorus regalis and S. maculatus) listed in 13.7 percent of the reports, lobsters (12.9 percent), groupers of various species (10.8 percent). snappers (9.2 percent), kingfish (6. 1 percent), and the molluscs Cittarium pica (whelks) and Strombus gigas (conch), each listed on 6 percent of the forms. The results were in fairly good agreement with the responses to the main survey (Table 58) except that the respondents to the second questionnaire were dominated by divers and spearfishermen, hence the domination of the catch results by those species like ly to be preyed upon by divers. Total landings were calculated from the results of the follow-up question- naire and, again, by using the combined effort estimates from the first survey with the CPUE from the follow-up survey (Table 61). The cal- culations are given as a range of results which may seem dismaying in the magnitude of the differences but do represent a first estimate of the recreational landings. The results indicated that &l')nti.i:d,t~ridi.'1g'sf0r.li.l~g.fishing techniques may be between 163, 000 and 195, 000 Ibs. Approximately 60 percent of these landings may be landed by trolling techniques. We fee 1 that the commer- cial line fishery does not represent a significant portion of these landings based on the fact that forms were not returned by many known commer- cial line fishermen. The two commercial trap fishermen reported landings that extend to between 1. 5 and 3.3 million pounds annually. It is interesting that this small sample is jn rEEl' agreement with the estimates of Dammann in 1969 (1. 3 million lbs.), and Olsen, et. al.. in 1975 and 1976 (1. a million Ibs. ). Olsen fe lt that his figure resulted from under-reporting and that the actual catch was closer to 1. 6 million Ibs. The current results furnish a first estimate of the magnitucle of the re- creational spearfishery which involves between 8, 000 and 13, 000 person days annually and lands between 84, 000 and 141,000 Ibs. annually. The species breakdown (Table 60) indicates that about 75 percent of this ef- fort is directed towards a variety of reef fish and about 25 percent towards more migratory or pe lagic species. The higher estimate of the recreational catch of reef fish 1(105, 000 Ibs. annually), when combined with Olsen's estimate of the commercial catch (1. 6 million Ibs. annually), gives a combined landings figure (1. 71 mil- lion Ibs. annually) that is extreme ly c lose to Kumpf's (19178) estimate of MSY (1. 85 million Ibs. annually). It is clear tm t the user groups are approaching a situation where allocation may be required. -17~ Recreational exploitation of the lobster resource involves between 1,200 and 11, 000 person days annually. Estimated landings range between 9,500 and 82, 000 Ibs. annually. We personally feel that the actual fig- ure is c loser to the lower end of the range and that the high figure arose from the high response rate by divers to the follow-up queshonnaire. If the upper estimate of lobster landings by recreational fishermen is correct, then they would be landing an amount equivalent to 72 percent of the current commercial landings (estimated by the Caribbean Region- al Fisheries Management Council at 114, 000 Ibs. annually). The com- bined catch represents 90 percent of the Maximum Sustainable Yield fig- ure (218, 000 Ibs. ) for Virgin Islands waters. If the "catch" from lost traps is substantial, then certainly the resource is in danger of over- fishing. Regardless of the actual figure, it is apparent that recreation- al divers are significant users of the Virgin Islands' lobster resource. Conch (Strombus gigas) is sought by divers between 400 and 2,500 per- son days annually and landings may be as high as 14, 000 Ibs. Dammann (1969) reported tha t total 1967-68 commercial conch landings were around 20, 000 Ibs. If current landings are similar,lhen recreational landings may nearly double the total. Another mollusc,whelks,(Cittarium pica), may be subject to similar fishing pressure and landings may be as high as 17, OIDO llis. Dammann's (1969) reported commercial landings were 22, 000 Ibs. Again recreational catch is nearly equivalent to the best available data on commercial landings. All of these results are summarized in Table 60 where the value of the recrEational catch is also calculated at between $402, 000 and $755, 000 annually. Non-extractive use of the marine resource environment (59.580 person days annually) may well represent between 50 and 60 percent of the rec- reational use when calculated on a daily basis. Future planning for re- source management should take precautions to insure that a reasonable share of the resources are preserved for this constituency. ECONOMIC IMPACT Analysis of the economic impact of the recreational boating/fishing in- dustry on the Virgin Is lands economy is made difficult by the fact that one of its major products is an intangible element, rec;reational enjoy- ment. As just mentioned, non-extractive use of the resources may occupy over 50 percent of the effort. The average boatowner uses his boat 84 days per year. He spends $51. 00 daily for trip related expenses and $2. 709. 00 annually for equipment purchase. The total expense of each person's boating for one day equals $23. 13 (total daily expenses / 3. 6 persons per boat per day). When the product of extractive use is -18- calculated by dividing the annual catch value ($578,600, the average of the ranges) by the average for the two estimates of extractive recreation- al activity (43,200 person days/year), the product value is $13.39. The recreational fisherman then pays approximately $10 per day for the rec~ reational aspects of his endeavor. The non-extractive user of the mar- ine environment pays $23.13 daily for the recreational aspects. The recreational "product" may also be measured by the gross returns to investment when compared to the commercial fishery. R.ecreational fishing occupies approximate ly 75 percent of a 35 million dollar fleet and generates a product (catch) worth $578,600 annually. The gross return to investment is approximate ly 2 percent. The commercial fisherman occupies the remaining 25 percent of the fleet and generates a product valued at approximate ly $2.4 million at 1978 prices (1. 5 million Ibs. of fish valued at $1. 50/lb.; 50,000 lbs. of lobster valued at $2. 50/lb). There is nearly a 28 percent gross return to investment, 14 times better than the recreational industry. It is clear, therefore, that the recreational "product" must be considered in any analysis of utilization. This state- ment is not intended to quantitatively evaluate the "products" of commer- cial and recreational boat use, but rather to indicate the presence of an unquantifiable "recreational product". The mean family income reported was (Tab Ie 5) $18,551 U. S. and fe 11 within 10 percent of the average family income which was backcalculated from the percent of income spent on boating expenses (Tables 62 and 63). The respondents reported spending 16.4 percent of their family income on boating expenses. When these expenses were listed separate ly (Table 33), however, they only accounted for 12 percent of family income. The total expenses associated with boat use (Table 33 and 64) amounted to $4,570,0001 annually (assuming a 2,000 boat fleet). The other major aspect of boating economics is the purchase of equipment (Table 65) which amounts to $2,709 per boat (Table 66) annually. Seventy-one per- cent of these purchases are made locally. The total for these expendi- tures annually is $5,418,000. The total expenditure by the owners of the registered fleet is then $10,289,500. 1Subsequent analysis uses the lower fishing gear expenditure estim- ate shown in Tab Ie 64. -19- Over 67 percent of the boats in the registerEd fleet were purchased used (Table 66) and nearly 60 percent of the boat purchases were through brokers and dealers. As previously mentioned, the estimated total value of the fleet is over $35 million. This figure does not include the extensive crew- ed charter boat fleet whose gross income reported by the 110 member V.1. Charter Boat League was 3.5 - 4.0 million dollars in 1978 (Peet, 1978), the extensive bareboat charter operations which may account for as much as 225,000 person days of boating annually (Olsen, 1978), or the extensive privately owned fleet of documented ves'sels. It also inadequately repre- sents the boating re lated service industries which one merchant estimated at $ 2.0 million for the marine hardwar component alone (Michel, personal communication). We surveyed six St. Thomas recreational boating re lated businesses which reported combined 1978 gross income figures at $1. 34 million. It is clear that recreational boating and fishing represents a sub- stantial annual e leme~t of the local economy. The data from the present effort can also be used to calculate the economic impact of the recreationa I fishing fleet. The data for this ana lysis is listed in Table 66. The methodology and formulation used here is outlined by Hoffman and Yamauchi (1973) who calculated the impact of the Hawaiian recreational fishing sector. Comparitive studies are available for Door Coun- ty, Wisconsin (Strang and Ditton, 1976) and for import dependent tourist economies in Scotland (Archer arrl ().1;.en, 1971; Wheeler, 1974). These comparative studies utilized comparable formulation. This analysis has been undertaken with a cognizance of the variability of the data. It does however, furnish a first estimate of the recreational sector's contribution to the overall economy. Additionally, multiplier calculation enables comput- ation of recreational fisheries' contribution to the Gross Territorial Product. The total impact of recreational boating and fishing expenditures upon the Virgin Islands economy is estimated by calculating a local impact multiplier, M, which is a modification of the more familiar Kenesian income multiplier. This multiplier can be used to calculate Total Income Increase, TIl, as follows: Tn =A(M) where A is the initial expenditure remaining in the local area, and M is the local income multiplier given by the equation: M .:: 1 (l-BC) where B is the marginal propensity to consume locally; and Cis the proportion of expenditures by local people that accrue -as local income. -----'~-.---~-".----------- -20- In our analysis, the parameter A was calculated as the total loca 1 pur- chases with the import content removed (Table 66). Local fuel suppliers would not supply figures for import content so we have calculated a range for the parameter ~(Table 67) based on a lower range of 40 percent to an upper range of 80 percent for the import content of fue 1. This latter figure is certainly an overestimate since it represents the proportion of cost to the retailers with road tax added. The range of values is from $4, 735,350. to $5,354,550. The parameter B is the simple propensity to consume which has been estimated local~by McElroy (1974) to be between 50 to 55 percent and by Checchi (1976) as between 55 to 65 percent. We have used an assumed va lue of O. 55 in this analysis. The parameter C is estimated here by the percent of local purchases left after the importContent is removed. McElroy (1974) has estimated this figure at 0.50 and Hoffman and Yamauchi (1973) used an assumed value of 0.50 for their Hawaiian analysis. The results of this analysis indicate the C may range betweenO. 54 (import content of fue 1 equal to 0.80) and O. 62(import content of fue 1 equal to 0.40). If the higher figure is valid, it would seem to indicate the recreational boaters may have a greater ten- dency to spend on local goods than the popUlation as a whole. The local impact multipliers calculated from this analysis (Table 67) range between 1. 43 and 1. 52; which is slightly lower than the Hawaii figure (Hoffman and Yamauchi), and for Door County, Wisconsin (Strang and Ditton, 1976). It was higher than the figures for the tourist industry in Scotland (Archer and Owen, 1971; Wheeler, 1974). Total income increase ranges between $6, 771,500 and $8,138,900. The results of this analysis would seem to indicate that recreational boat- ing and fishing are different from other figures for the general economy in the Caribbean (Bryden, 1973) and other elements of the Virgin Islarrl s economy (McElroy, 1974) which consistently range between 0.9 and 1. O. In fact, these latter multipliers are more sophisticated statistics which incorporate a greater knowledge of economic leakages and which are not strictly comparable in formulation. This is also true for the Department of .Commerce study (1976) which estimated the income multiplier for the tour- ism sector between O. 97 and 1. 39. A Ithough the variability of the present data are great and there is reason to suspect that the respondents were biased towards the more afflqent elements of the economy, the results do seem to indicate that the recreational boating and fishing industry is a highly desirable element of the economy with a positive economic impact. -21- The results appear to be similar to similar figures which use similar formulation for Hawaii (Hoffman and Yamauchi, 1973) and for the tour- ist industry in certain import dependent countries in Scotland where sim- ilarly formulated multiplier was calculated at 1. 33 (Archer and Owen, 1971; Wheeler, 1974). The total income increase, as calculated from equation (1) was between $6,771,500 and $8, 138, 900. To this increase might be added the values of the recreational catch ($580, 000) and the commercial landings (2.4 . million dollars). Recreational boating and fishing represent a signifi- cant contributant to the local economy. These figures do not include the large fleet of documented vesse Is, the crewed charter boat fleet, the bareboat charter fleet, or many of the service re lated businesses in the islands. Such an analysis will require additional time and effort and was basically outside the scope of the cur- rent survey. There was also no attempt to quantify the impact that this large recreational sector has in attracting other income in different econ':" omic elements such as tourism and construction. The increase also does not inc lude income increases arising from tour- ists who are attracted to the Virgin Islands because of the recreational and boating industry. The Department of Commerce survey of the tour- ism sector (1976) says that nearly 27 percent of the arriving passengers are attracted by boating / diving facilities. This represents nearly 13 percent of all arriving tourists. PUBLIC ATTITUDES Public attitudes in the Virgin Islands have become an increasingly force- ful determinant of government policy in recent years. Some of these at- titudes were shown by responses to a question asking the boater to state in his/her opinion the major problems facing recreational and commercial fishing in the Virgin Islands today. This subjective question elicited a broad spectrum of responses including several who said that boating sur- veys were a major problem! In all, there were 121 responses (47 percent response) which fell into nine general categories. By far the most gen- eral complaint pertained to the failure of the government to do enough to solve the problems of the resource users. Twenty-six percent of the respondents felt that government enforcement efforts were lacking, that the Virgin Islands National Park Service rules were unfair. and that there -22- should be a Coast Guard station in St. Croix. More generally, these respondents felt that government should undertake positive programs in the area of recreational resource use. Twenty-one percent of the respondents felt that the government should have more active programs for the construction of boat launching ramps, hauling facilities and marinas operated for the use of the general pub- lic. Nine percent of the respondents felt that government attempts to control theft of boats and fish traps were a failure. The final category pertaining to the public view of the government function were comp laints about the inadequacy of government pollution control efforts. In all, 56 percent of the respondents complained that the local and federal govern- ments were deficient in their efforts regarding the recreational marine resource user. To this can be added another nine percent who voiced complaints about the policies of the British Virgin Islands Government as they affect recreationa l boaters and fishermen. The next general category of response pertained to pressures pla ced upon the marine environment by overcrowding. Over 30 percent respond- ed that there were too many people engaged in water re lated activities, while 17 percent complained that there were either too few fish or too many fish traps. It is apparent that there is a significant amount of animosity between the purely recreational resource user and the trap fishermen. as both parties complained about the activities of the other. The final category of response involved general complaints about the availability and cost of services and supplies in the Virgin Is lands (6 percent). The response to this question points out the need for both government enhancement and public information activities which should be combined with a meaningful long range use planning activity. SUMMARY AND CONC LUSIONS The results of this study begin to supply a first estimate of the ro le of the recreational sector in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs boating registration information furn- ished a summary of the magnitude of the fleet and its makeup, very little. if anything was known regarding the economic involvement and resource use of the fleet owners. The present effort indicates a possible economic polarization of the fleet owners since there is statistical evidence that the respondents were con- centrated at either end of the economic spectrum. This finding has defin- ite policy implications for government activities within the area. It appears -23- that there is considerable need to enhance the accessibitity of the marine resource base to the lower economic groups through the deve lopment of boat ramps, fishing piers and access roads for shoreline fishing. En- hancement for the upper economic groups witl probably have to center on marina development and economic incentive. The magnitude of economic value of recreational boating and fishing was previously undocumented. These results indicate that the registered fleet may be worth 35 million dollars, that annual expenditures mayex- ceed 10 mitlion dollars and that these expenditures result in income in- crease which is highly desirable in our import dependent economy. Energy consumption by the fleet is a significant portion of the total petrochemical budget for the is land. The resource use by recreational fishermen is also important for plan- ning purposes. The present study documents that non-extractive uses of the resource such as snorkeling, photography and surface contact sports are extreme ly important in pub lic involvement. Subsequent planning and allocation cannot ignore this element just because they don't show up in catch records. Actual catch by the recreational fishermen is furnished here within a range of probable values. The results indicate that lobster and reef fish management plans should consider that this element of the catch places the total catch very near to maximum sustainable yield lev- els. The results also indicate species preferences by fishermen as well as their successes in capturing preferred species. In summary, although the data were highly variable, the survey results indicate that recrea tional fishing activities are indeed extensive in the U. S. Virgin Islands in terms of both catch and economic importance to the community. As resources and facilities become ever more limited, this element will have to receive the attention of planning in order to avoid problems of resource over utilization and competition. -24- LITEHA TUHE CITED Abramson, N. J. 1963. Distribution of California Angling Effort in 1961. Calif. Fish and Game 49 (3) 174-182. Abramson, N. J. and C. L. Berude. 1969. Distribution of California Angling Effort in 1968. Calif. Fish and Game 55 (4) :3-3-311. Archer, B. and C. Owen. 1971. Towards a Tourist regional multiplier, Hegional Studies 5 (4):289-294. Austin, C. B., H. Brugger, J. C. Davis, and L. Siefert. 1977. Hecrea- tional Boating in Dade County, 1975-76. Sea Grant Special Heport No.9. Univ. Miami. Brown, G. L. 1977. A Heview of Literature in Selected Areas Helevant to the Conduct of Marine Hecreational Fisheries Surveys. Hpt. National Marine Fisheries Service Contract 6-35339. Human Sciences Research Inc. 29 pp. Bryden, J. M. 1973. Tourism and Development. A Case Study of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Cambridge Univ. Press, London. 234 pp. Centaur Management Consultants. 1977. Economic Activity Associated with Hecreational Fishing. NMFS Contract 6-35150. 206 pp. Checchi and Co. 1976. The significance of tourism in the U. S. Virgin Islands. U. S. Economic Deve lopment Administration Technical Assistance Project 01-6-0149. Dammann, A. E. 1969. Study of the Fisheries Potential of the Virgin Islands. Carib. Hes. Inst. Contrib. No. 1. 197 pp. Deue 1, D. G. 1978. National Marine Hecreationa1 Fishery Statistics Program. Proc. Canad. Sportfisheries Conf. 15 pp. Fiedler, H. H. and N.D. Jarvis. 1932. Fisheries of the Virgin Islands of the United States. U. S. Department of Commerce, Investiga- tional Hpt. No. 14. -25- General Learning Corporation. 1975. Hesource Guide to the Culture of the Virginlslands, 1973-74. Hiatt, H. S. and J. W. Worrall. 1977. Marine Hecreational Fishermen's Ability to Estimate Catch and to Hecall Catch Over Time. Hpt. National Marine Fisheries Service Contract 6-35339. Human Sciences Hesearch Inc. 22 pp. Hoffman, H. G. and H. Yamauchi. 1973. Impact of Hecreational Fish- ing Expenditures on the State and Local Economics of Hawaii. Univ. Hawaii Sea Grant Pub. UNIHI-Sea Grant-AH-72-02. Kumpf, H. 1978. Heef-fish Management Plan (Draft). Caribbean Hegional Fisheries Management Council. McElroy, J. L. 1974. The Virgin Islands Economy: Past Performance, Future Projections, Planning A lternatives. Virgin Is lands Plan- ning Office Hpt. 127 pp. McElroy, J. L. 1977. Internal and External Policy Constraints in the Small Island Context, Paper Prepared for the "Conference on the Economic Development of the Small State with Special Hef- erence to the U. S. Off-Shore Areas of the Caribbean," Instit- ute of International Law and Economic Development, San Juan, Puerto Hico. McElroy, J. L. 1978. Economic and Social impacts of the V.1. Coastal Zone Management Program. Technical Supplement #4. V.1. Plan- ning Office. McElroy, J. L. and Caines. 1979. (in press) Consumer Expenditure Patterns: Survey of St. Thomas 1975-76. Carib. Hes. Inst. Hpt. Mills, F. 1978. A household survey of the Virgin Islands on Economic development. Hpt. V.1. Economic Policy Council. Olsen, D. A., A. E. Dammann, J. A. LaPlace. 1975. Analysis of Catch Data for the Virgin Islands (1974-75). V.1. Dept. Cons. Cult. Affairs, PL88-309 Hpt. 16 pp. Olsen, D. A., A. E. Dammann, J. Sylvester and J. A. LaPlace. 1976. Analysis of Catch Data for the Virgin Islands (1975-76). V.1. Dept. Cons. Cult. Affairs, PL88-309 Hpt. 18 pp. -26- Olsen, D. A. 1978. Coastal Water Resources of the British Virgin Islands. Is. Res. Fdn. Occas. Paper #29. 11 pp. Peet, C. 1978. Crewed charterboating in the Virgin Islands. Economic Review, V.1. Dept. Commerce, 3rd Quarter. Strang, W. A. and R. B. Ditton. 1976. The Lake Michigan Charter Fish- ing Industry: A Product of Love and Taxes. Univ. Wis. Sea Grant Rpt. (Wis-SG-77-374). pp. 89-98. U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1965. National Survey of Fishing and Hunting. Resource Publ. No. 27. U. S. Gvt. Printing Office, Wash. D. C., pp. 12, 44, 46. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1976. The Significance of Tourism in the U. S. Virgin Islands. U. S. Dept. Comm. Rpt. on Technical Assistance Project 01-6-01049. 91 pp. Virgin Islands Department of Commerce. 1977. Economic Review. Second Quarter. Virgin Islands Planning Office. 1977. Land Use and Housing Elements. June 1977. Virgin Islarrl s Planning Office. 1978. Economic Policy Guidelines. 24 pp. Wheeler, B. 1974. The economic impact of tourism in a region: Cordigan Shire. Univ. Survey Rpt. to Wales Tourist Board, Cardiff. APPENDIX 1. TABLES -27- Table 1. Ethnic makeup of the U. S. Virgin Islands population from various sources of information compared to the response results from the present survey. Table values are given in percentages. PRESENT ETHNIC GROUP 1 2 3 4 MEAN(C. V.) STUDY Native Born 40. 26. 47. 42. 39. (22. 1 %) 12.B West Indians 24. 31. 2B. 31. 29. (11. 60/0) 17.5 Puerto Ricans 15. 12. 06. OB. 10~" (3B. 0%) 12.5 Contine nta ls 5 12. OB. 13. 16. 12. (27.0%) 51. 9 Others6 09. 23. 05. 03. 10. (89.4%) 5.3 1. United Nations Committee on Small Territories. Document A / AC. 109/1.1234. 2. U. S. V: 1. Department of Education. 1973:..; 1974.- Resource Guide to the Culture of the U. S. Virgin Islands. 3. U. S. v. I. Planning Office. 1977. Land Use and Housing Elements of the U. S. V. 1. Economy. 4. V.1. Economic Policy Council. 1978. Economic Policy Guidelines. 5. Combines whites and blacks from the U. S. mainland. 6. Primarily Europeans. Table 2. Summary of data acquisition activities for socio-economic survey of the Virgin Islands recreational fishing community. Number of Questionnaires Mailed Out St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. Total Mail Out 1. Mailed 940 422 96 19 127 38 1642 2. Undeliverable address 32 23 5 a 2 a 62 3. Net Mailout* 908 399 91 18 125 38 1580 4. Returns 98 37 28 2 13 5 183 5. % Returns 11 9 24 11 10 13 11 6. Interviews 19 43 5 2 4 1 74 7. Total 117 80 33 4 17 6 257 * Net Mailout (1)-(2) -28- Table 3. Results of a subjective ethnic analysis of the boating registration list furnished by the Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs. Tabled values are given in percentages of the total 1,789 list that could be identified. Panel Member Ethnic Group 1 2 3 4 5 Mean C.V. Native/West Indian 16.9 21.2 17.9 15.3 17.7 17 .8 12.0 Hispanic Surnames 14.8 13.9 15.7 10.3 16.7 14.3 17.1 French West Indian 6.7 4.5 4.8 6.5 5.3 5.6 18.5 Corporations 7.8 7.8 7.5 6.1 7.9 7.4 10.3 % of List Identified 46.2 47.3 45.9 38.2 47.6 45.1 8.4 Table 4. Sunima;r:y of information from Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs boating registration list as of January 1, 1978. Table values given in percentages. St. St. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix John . , V. Isl. Rico U.S . Combined Inboard 37 27 28 61 72 63 42 Outboard 63 73 62 39 28 37 58 Horsepower Mean 97.2 103.5 77 .4 143.1 172.5 87.3 99.3 C.V. 106% 93% 120% 89% 62% 120% 102% Wood 22 25 29 12 1 10 21 Fiberglass 73 65 59 88 97 80 72 Metal 3 6 7 0 1 5 4 Other 2 4 4 0 1 5 3 Average Length 21. 7 ft. 21.5 ft; 20.2 ft. 26.3 ft. 31.8 ft. ~9.8 ft. 23.1 ft. C. V. 49% 38% 41% 35% 29% 48% 45% Total Boats 987 469 119 19 141 54 1789 Table 5. Frequency distribution of reported family incomes (in percent of total) for respondents born in the continental united States and outside the United States; and for direct interviews and mail respondents. Income o - $5,000. $5,001. - $10,000. $10,001. - $15,000. $15,001. - $20,000. $20,001. - $30,000. $30,001. - + Mean N C.V Skewness (gl) ts Kortosis (g2) t s U.S. Born 4.6 6.8 12.2 21.4 26.0 29.0 $21,087. 131a 39% 0.60 2.86** 2.30 6.65** Non U.S. 26.9 11.5 46.2 15.4 9.6 13.5 $13,359. 52a 64% -0.55 1. 62 2.49 3.66** a = some respondents did not report birth place. ** = significant at p <.01 Interview Mail Survey Combined 6.9 12.3 10.3 4.2 9.8 7.4 23.3 18.8 20.6 23.3 15.6 18.4 26.0 16.4 20.1 16.3 27.1 23.2 $18,905. $18,340. $18,551. 72 122 194 42% 53% 49% 0.28 -0.19 -0.23 1. 00 0.86 1. 28 2.19 1.69 1.86 3.78** 3.84** 5.31** I t--' co I Table 6. Average respondent incomes (in $U. S.) for recreational fishing survey. St. , st. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.Isl. Rico U.S. Combined Mean 19,500 18,454 12,954 12,500 19,280 26,250 18,551 C.V. (%) I 58 45 77 57 30 27 61 % Response 79 69 67 75 100 ;100 76 Table 7. Birth places of respondants (in percentages) of sample according to data source compared to the Virgin Islands population from various sources (TABLE I). DATA SOURCE Birth Place Direct Interview Mail out Combined V.I. Population (Table 1.) U.S. Virgin Islands 2.7% 16.9% 12.8% 39% British Virgin Islands 0 10.9% 7.6% } 29% Eastern Caribbean 1.4% 13.2% 9.9% Puerto Rico 1. 4% 16.9% 12.5% 11% United States 82.3% 39.4% 51.9% 12% Other 12.2% 2.7% 5.3% 10% No Response TOTAL RESPONSES 74 121 195 (76%) I W .. 0 I -31- Table 8. Proportion of the respondents answering the questionnaire from records. Table values given in percentages~ St. St. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.1s1. Rico u.s. Comb i1i.e d % Memory 53 61 67 100 59 83 ~6 % Records 28 3 a a 6 a 114 Records & Memory (%) 7 16 12 0 45 17 113 % Response 88 75 }9 50 100 '100 83 Table 9. Percent of respondents who keep records. Table values given in percentages. St. St. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.1s1. Rico u.s. Combined % Yes 14 6 12 a 29 17 13 % Response 77 75 85 25 100 83 78 Table 10. Average age in years of respondents to recreational fishing survey St. St. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix ·John V.1s1. Rico u.s. Combined :-0;0: - Average Age 42.0 42.1 48.7 34.7 41.6 42.5 42.8 . c.v. (%) 40 35 30 8 36 30 37 % Response 90 80 88 50 100 100 87 ---'-~- - ------ - -32- Table 11. Average length of respondent residence in Virgin Islands (in years); non-resident responses were deleted. St. St. St. Thomas Croix John Combined A verage length of residence (yrs) 12.4 11.9 25.2 14.3 0/0 Response 90 71 94 84* *Based on responses from V. I. residents only (230). Table 12. Summary of respondent birth places. Table values given in percentages. St. st. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.lsl. Rico U.S. Combined "i. - U.S.V.I. 1l.1 8.8 29.2 a a a 2.8 B.V.I. 7.4 5.9 12.5 5.0 a a 7.6 Eastern· ~.9 Caribbean* 9.3 17.6 8.3 a a a Puerto Rico 3.7 14.7 ,0. a 0 7.6 0 12.5 U.S. Mainland 61.1 41.2 50.0 '50 24 100 51.9 Other 7.4 11.8 a 0 0 a 5.3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100% 100% 100% % Response 53 50 82 67 100 100 60 * Excluding U.S.V.I.,B.V.I., and Puerto Rico -. -33- Table l3. Household size of respondents to recreational fishing survey (total number of persons in household) St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.lsl. Rico u.S. Average 3.0 3.6 3.2 2.7 4.0 2.5 C.V. (%) 54 55 65 78 48 79 % Response 83 88 73 75 100 100 Table 14. Type of housing (given in % of total responses) where survey respondents live. Table values given in percentages. St. st. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.lsi. Rico u.S. - - Town house 1.0 3.1 3.9 a 5.9 a Apartment 18.8 15.4 11.5 a 5.9 7 Condominiums 8.9 3.1 0.0 a 17.6 ro Mobil home 3.0 ,7.7 0.0 a 70.6 a Single family houses 53.4 67.7 76.9 33.3 a 56 Public housing a 1.5 0.0 a a a Boat 14.9 1.5 7.7 66.7 0 17 % Responses 87 95 85 75 100 100 Combined 3.3 57 84 Combined t2.4 6.3 p.7 ~.8 pO.8 p.5 9.6 90 -34- Table 15. Employment patterns of respondents to recreational survey. Table values given in percentages. St. St. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. Is1. Rico U.S. Combined - - --- Day (%) 76.9 ' 87. a 15.0 66.7 a a ~4.4 Night (%) 4.4 3.7 85.0 a 76.5 83.3 ~1.5 Unemployed (%) 2.2(3.1) 0.0 (0. ) 0.0(0.) 33.3(333 11.8(13., ~.O ~.6 (3.1) * (excluding ret.) Retired (%) '16.5 9.3 0.0 0.0 11.8 '0. a 1'1.5 ; % Response 83 77 77 75 100 100 83 *excludlng retlred respondents Table 16. Fleet value ($U.S.) summary of the Virgin Islands recreational fleet. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Value Thomas Croix John V. Is1. Rico ' U.S. Combined - less than $500 1.9 7.9 24.1 33.3 a a 6.8 $501-$1,000 3.9 1.6 17.2 a 6.3 a 5.0 $1,00,-$2,000 5.8 12.7 13.8 a a 0 8.1 $2,001-$4,000 13.5 20.6 l3.8 a 6.3 0 4.5 $4,001-$8,000 17.3 15.9 10.3 a 18.8 a 5.4 $8,001-$16,000 l3.5 11.1 6.9 a 12.5 33.3 12.2 $16,001:"'$32,000 24.0 20.6 6.9 33.3 6.3 a 19. $32,001-$64,000 1l.5 7.9 6.9 33.3 25. ·66.7 12.7 Over $64,001 8.7 1.6 a a 25. 0 6.3 Mean $19,650 $12,890 P ,230 24,100 ' $32,300 $36,000 ~17 ,,680 C. V. 100% 116% 176% 81% 77% 47% 109% , ; % Response 79.1 86.3 87.9 75 100 ;100 ~ 193 . 4 -35- Table 17. Percent of respondent fleet classified as sailboats or power boats. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V .Is 1. Rico U. S. Sail 38.5 20.9 28.1 75. 17.7 16.7 Power 61.5 79.1 71. 9 25. 82.4 83.3 Total # Forms 115 70 33 4 17 6 % Response to 98. 88. 100 100 100 100 Question --..::. . Table 18. Frequency distribution of respondent recreational fleet length (feet). Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Combined 31. 69. 246 96. Boat Length Thomas Croix John V .Is 1. Rico U. S. Combined 0-10 a a a a a a a 11-15 7.3 18.2 44.8 33.3 5.9 a 15.2 16-20 20.2 2-7.3 20.7 a 11. 8 a 20.9 21-25 20.2 18.2 13.8 a 17.7 16.7 18.3 26-30 15.6 16.7 13.8 a 11. 8 16.7 15.2 31-35 16.5 12.1 a 33.3 5.9 16.7 12.6 36-40 10.1 6.1 a 33.3 23.5 16.7 9.1 41-45 2.8 1.5 6.9 a 17.7 33.3 4.8 46-50 5.5 a a a a a 2.6 51-55 .9 a a a 5.9 a 0.9 56-60 a a a a a a a Over 60 . 9 a a b .. a .. 0 .. 4 Mean 26.81 22.49 18.53 27.72 29.97 33.71 25.11 c.v. 41% 37% 47% 40%· 43% 28% 44% % Response 98 90 91 100 100 100 95 -36- Table 19. Summary of vessel age for recreational fleet Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Year Thomas Croix John v. lsI. Rico . U.S. Combined - Pre 1950 3 a a a a 16.7 1.4 1952 a a a a a a a 1954 1 a p a a a .5 1956 a 1.7 5.6 a a a .9 1958 2 a 5.6 a a a .4 1960 1 3.4 5.6 a a ~ 1.9 1962 2 1.7 5.6 a a a 1.9 1964 3 5.2 11.1 a p a 4.3 1966 10.1 3.4 16.7 ~o a ·33.3 9.6 1968 14.1 24.1 16.7 a 6.3 a 15.2 1970 9.1 6.9 [16.7 50 6.3 16.7 ~.6 1972 18.2 24.1 5.6 a 18.8 0 8 1974 15.2 P-9 11.1 a 31.3 p 16.6 ! 1976 p"9.2 0.3 a a 31.3 '33.3 17.3 1978 '2 a a a 6.3 a 1.4 10< ; 1980 ·0 a a a a a Mean 1970.5 1970.6 1967.1 .1968.5 1974.4 1970.8 1970.1 C.v. 8.9% 6.3% 7.8% 3.6% 10.7% 7.8% Response 84.6 72.5 54.5 50 94 100 82.1 -37- Table 20. Summary of purchase date for Virgin Islands recreational fleet. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Year Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. Combined - 1950 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 1,.952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1954 0 0 0 0 0 :0 0 1956 0 '0 5 0 0 0 ~5 1958 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1962 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1966 1 3 10 0 0 0 1.4 ; 1968 5 9 20 0 0 0 5.8 1970 5 6 10 0 0 0 5.8 1972 15 8 30 0 2 0 11.4 1974 24 29 20 2 2 33.3 26.4 1976 44 38 5 0 11 66.7 41.7 1978 6 9 b b 1 b 6.7 .. <. Mean 1974.8 1974.4 1972.1 1972 1975.9 1975.8 1975.1 C.V. 3.5% 4.1% 6.6% 0 1.9% 1.5% 4.0% \ . % Response 86.3% 41. 3%' 78.8% 50% 94.1% 100% 82.1% % Purchased 43.8% 43.9% 31.6% 0 73.3% 66.7% 45.1% New* * Purchased by present owner within one year of date of construction. -38- Table 21. Type of fuel used by Virgin Islands recreational fleet. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Fuel Thomas Croix John V.lsl. Rico U. S. Combined Gas 59.0 75.8 85. 33.3 50. 67. 67. Diesel 41. 24.2 15. 66.7 50. 33. 33. % Response 98 95 91 75 100 100 96 Table 22. Most of the Virgin Island recreational fleet uses single engines. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto No.of Engines Thomas Croix John V .Is l. Rico U. S. Combined 1 59. 75.8 84.6 33.3 50. 66.7 66.8 2 41. 24.2 15.4 66.7 50. 33.3 33.2 9.: 0 Response 98 g5 91 75 100 100 96 Table 23. Summary of engine type for recreational fishing fleet. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Powertype Thomas Croix John V .Is l. Rico U. S. Combined Outboard 65.6 64.6 70.4 100 18.2 0 61. 2 Inboard 23. 31. 3 18.5 a 72.3 a 27.6 Inboard/ 11. 5 4.2 11.1 a 9.1 100 11. 2 Outboard '. ~' % Response 99 91 91 75 100 100 95 -39- Table 24. Summary of engine horsepower for Virgin Islands recreational fleet. Table values given in-percentagesi- St. St. St. British Puerto Horsepower Thomas Croix John V.Ist. Rico U. S. Combined 0-4 2.8 3.1 3.3 a a a 2.6 5-9 6.4 4.6 20. a 5.9 a 7.4 10-19 10.1 10.8 16.7 a 5.9 a 10.4 20-39 17.4 12.3 16.7 ..•. a 5.9 66.7 16.1 40-79 16.5 12.3 2 O. 66.7 11. 8 16.7 16.1 80-159 19.3 27.7 13.3 33.3 5.9 16.7 20. 120-319 14.7 16.9 3.3 a 23.5 a 13.9 320-639 11. 4 9.2 6.7 a 17.7 a 10.4 640-849 . 9 1.5 a a 11. 8 a 1.7 850 - a a a a 11. 8 a . 9 Mean 137.8 144.2 77.1 62.8 346.1 45.0 144.7 C.V. 114% 106% 155% 20% 85% 75% 121% % Response 99 98 91 75 100 100 97 -40- Table 25. Summary of Virgin Island recreational fishing fleet boats having electronic equipment. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Type Thomas Croix John V.Isl. Rico Short Wave Marine 29.5 ~7. 5 , 25. 33.3 32.1 Radio CB Radio 14. 5. 25. 16.7 3.6 Fathometer 30.2 ~J-. 8 a 33.3 28.6 Other 26.4 5. a a 25. None a 8.8 50 . .. 'i6~7 .... Ib~1 % Response 99 ~7 100 100 100 Table 26. Construction materials employed in Virgin Islands recreational fleet. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Material Thomas Croix John V .Is l. Rico Fiberglass 79.8 80.3 53.3 66.7 94.1 Wood 11. a 10.6 36.7 33.3 5.9 Metal 3.7 4.6 6.7 a a Other 5.5 4.6 3'.3 0 0 % Response 95 85 91 100 100 U. S. Combined 33.3 29.3 11.1 13.3 33.3 27.7 22.2 21. 5 b 8.2 100 97.2 U. S. Combined 100 77.9 0 13.9 0 3.9 0 4.3 100 97 -41- Table 27. Summary of recreational fleet purchasing patterns in U.S. Virgin Islands. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.Isi. Rico u. S. 1. New 32 33.3 21. 4 0 47.1 66.7 Used 68 66.7 78.6 3 52.9 33.3 2. Broker 30.8 0 16.7 0 0 0 Dealer 34.6 0 16.7 0 0 0 Other 34.6 0 66.7 0 0 0 9.: 0 Response 66.9 82.5 66 7S 100 Table 28. Summary of slip rents paid by Virgin Islands recreational boating fleet Table values given in percentages. St. st. St. British Puerto Payment: Thomas Croix John .V.lsl. Rico U.S. - " By the Foot 90.2 . 50. 100 100 50 75 By the Slip 9.8 50 a a 50 25 Cost/Month $71. 21 $50.11 $25 $150 $104.88 $25 C.V. 91% 82% -- ~~. 46% -- J % Response 44% 12.5% 3% 25% 59% .67% Combined 32.6 67.4 28.1 31. 3 40.6 86 Combined 78.7 21.3 $69.47 86% 29% -42- Table 29. Summary of dingy fees paid by respondents who moor their boats. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V.Is1. Rico U.S. Yes 29.2 100 0 33.3 0 33.3 No 70.8 100 66.7 100 66.7 Cost/Month $28.43 $20 $20 $37 C.V. 19% % Response 41 31 70 25 24 33.3 ;" Total fees paid'= .361 x .152 x 20003 x 29.694 x 125 = '$38,500 1 % of fleet that is moored or anchored (Table XX.XI):) 2 % of mooredpeet paying dingy fee 3 Number of boats in fleet 4 Monthly rate 5 months/year Table 30. Summary of storage methods utilized by Virgin Islands recreational boaters. Table values given in percentages. St. st. St. British Puerto MI"thnd Thomas Croix John ,V.ls1. Rico U.S. Anchored out 8.1 14.1 34.5 0 0 0 Mooring 25.3 15.6 24.1 50 24.0 33.3 Trailered, at home 0 31. 3 3.5 0 29.4 0 Trailered, dry storage 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 On beach 7.1 1.6 17.2 0 0 0 Marina, wet berth 42.2 29.7 6.9 0 35.2 66.7 " Marina, dry berth 8.1 4.7 3.5 0 1l.5 0 , Other 9.1 1.6 10.3 50 "0 0 % Response 85 85 91 100 100 100 -""- .-~. ~--"--.-. -... ---' .. Combined 14.62 85.4 $29.694 20% 40 Combined 12.5 23.5 11.4 0.5 5.9 34.0 6.1 6.1 91 -43- Table 31. Summary of location of Virgin Islands recreational boating fleet. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto .Location Thomas Croix John V.lsl. Rico u. S. Combined ST. THOMAS Antill~s Yachting 8.7 5.1 Avery's Boathouse 10.1 16.7 7.7 Compass Point 5.8 16.7 4.2 Lagoon Fishing Center 8.7 33.3 6.0 Lagoon Marina 10.1 33.3 6.3 st. Thomas Sheraton 13.0 100 22.2 9.4 Shoreline Marine 11.6 6.8 Sapphire Beach Marina 5.8 2.6 V.I. Pleasure Boats 11.6 6.3 Dohms Marina 4.4 2.6 St. Thomas Yacht Club 7.3 4.2 Treasure Sea Port 8.7 5.1 Frenchman's Reef 1.5 0.9 TOTAL. 66.7 ST. CROIX St. Croix, in town 1.5 0.9 St. Croix Yacht Club 62.1 16.7 14.2 st. Croix Marine Dev. 13.8 3~4 Kings Alley Hotel 6.9 1.7 Skov's Marina 3.5 0.9 Club Comanche 3.5 0.9 Salty Dogs 3.5 0.9 King's Wharf 3.5 0.9 St~ John Cruz Bay 33.3 0.9 TOTAL 24.7 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS West Indies Yachts 16.7 0.9 TOTAL 0.9 PUERTO RICO Roosevelt Roads 11.1 16.7 1.7 Club Nautico 22.2 1.7 Villa Marina 22.2 1.7 Sea Lovers 22.2 1.7 TOTAL 6.8 - UNKNOWN Munroe Harbor 16.7 0.9 % Response 98 ( 84 182 75 100 ~OO 91 -44- Table 32. Location of hurricane stora,sre pla,ns ;eor Virsrin Islands recreational boaters. Location St. Thomas Lagoon Sheraton Marina Avery's Boathouse Shoreline Marine St. Thomas Harbor water Island Long Bay Hull Bay (on beach) Cowpet Bay Red Hook St. John Hurricane Hole Coral Bay Cruz Bay Lameshur Bay Leinster Bay Great Cruz Bay Puerto Rico Culebra Roosevelt Roads %* 19.6 1.7 0.6 1.7 2.3 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.2 8.7 0.6 5.2 0.6 0.6 1.2 4.6 1.2 Location St. Croix Salt River Teague Bay South Shore Tamarind Reef Lagoon Coakley Bay Christiansted General Dry Storage Trailered At Sea On Beach British Virgin Islands Maya Cove North Sound %* 5.2 6.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 11.6 16.8 1.7 1.7 0.2 0.2 * % of 173 total responses. Several respondents gave multiple answers. There was 58% response to this question. -45- Table 33. Partial summary of annual expendit:ures by recreational boaters in u.s. Virgin Islands in 1977-78. Expenditure Fuel Refreshments Fishing Gear Travel to Boat Ice Bait Monthly Expenses3 Slip Rent (29%) Dingy Fee (15%) Daily Expenses $15.62 $11. 38 $10.76 $ 6.74 $ 4.52 $ 1. 98 $51. 00 $69.47 $29.69 TOTAL Per Boat Annual Total $1,548,000 $1,377 ,000 $1,012,000 $ 793,000 $ 410,000 $ 223,000 $5,363,000 $ 483,000 $ 38,500 $5,884,500 $ 2,942 1,2,3 1. Based on 2,000 fleet. Total trips/year = (7 trips/month) (2,000 boats)x 12 months. 2. Total expenditure = (# trips) (% response) (Daily expenditure) 3. Annual total = (% response) (2,000 boats) (monthly fee) (12 months). 4. Total person days (168,000 trips/year) (3.6 persons/trip) = 604,800 person days/yeaJ 5. Daily cost/person = ($51/day) (3.6 persons/day) = $14.16/person/day -46- Table 34. Percent of fuel purchases made by Virgin Islands recreational boaters at Marinas. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix ·John V. Isl. Rico ,. - Mean (%) 80.2 48.2 51.1 . 98 78.9 C.V.(%) 45 99 92 42 % Response 76 53 92 25 94 -Table 35. Proportion of non-fuel purchases made at marinas by Virgin Island boaters. Table values given in percentages. St. St. st. British Puerto U.S. 95 5 100 Thomas Croix John V. Isl. Rico U.S. - - Mean (%) 31.8 23.8 10.8 20 36.3 58.2 C.V. (%) 119 128 148 .. 10.3 66 % Response 68 48 39 25 88 83 0 ---.- ----- I Table 36. Did fuel price increases affect Virgin Island boating? Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John .V.Isl. Rico U.S. % Yes 9 12 14 50 25 0 % Response 79 69 64 50 94 67 Combined 70.0 53 66 Combined 29.27 117 59 Combined 12 74 -47- Table 37. Did fuel price increases affect boat purchase in the Virgin Islands? Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. Combined % Yes 36 17 10 0 29 33 27 % Response 72 65 61 50 100 100 70 Table 38. The respondents purchased their boats before ftlel prices started going up. Table values_ given in percentages. St. st. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix -John . V.lsI. Rico U.S . Combined % Yes 61 55 86 50 0 50 59 % Response 75 84 64 50 100 100 78 -48- Table 39. Summary of use frequency required to warrant ownership of boat in the opinion of the respondent. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. Is1. Rico U.S . Combined .. 1. Hean number total trips 4.1 2.4 5.0 3.5 5.6 3.8 C.V. 123% 131% 52% 105% 175% 127% : % Response 91 40 24 .59 83 63 '. 2. Hean number recreational 2.5 2.0 3.7 1.7 1.2 2.4 trips C.V. 97% 117% 69% 75% 104% 102% % Response 65 46 33 59 83 54 3. Hean number commercial 09.7 12.2 14.4 14 1 10.2 trips* C.V. 167% 80% 185% 165% % Response 29 6 15 6 40 18 , * Only positive: answers·used. Zero·values ignored. Table 40. Average Virgin Islands boat use during summer months. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. Combined - - , " Average Number of Trips 6.5 6.9 13.3 2.5 2.5 3.8 ' 7.0 C.V. 153% 133% 91% 0 0 : 57% 140% , % Response 87% 66% 58% 78% 77% 100% 74% ; % Fulltime Cruising 1% 0 0 0 0 33% 1.5% TabJ,e" 41. Summary _of V:i,rginIslands. boat use during winter months. St. St. st. • British Puerto Thomas Croix John . V.lsl. Rico U.S . Combined - Average Number of Trips 7.0 6.8 12.2 2.5 2.5 3.6 7.1 C.V. 154% 117% '~1~5% 0 0 61% 140% : % Response 89% 61.3% 55% 75% 77% 100% 75% % Fu11time Cruising 0.9 0 0 25 0 16.7 0.8 ... 50- Table 42. Summary of number of passengers on boats in use in the Virgin Islands St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. - --, Mean 3.6 3.5 2.9 2.5 4.6 3.8 C.V. 35% 37% 55% 40% 44% 24% % Response 86 65 88 100 82 100 Table 43. Summary of trip length for Virgin Islands boating activity. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto TriD Dur",ri ("'In Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. 0-3 hours 21.7 20.0 45.0 0 0 -16.7 4-6 Hours 28.3 41.8 25.0 0 18.2 16.7 7-12 Hours 18.9 16.4 25.0 100 18.2 16.7 13-24 Hours 6.6 '0 0 0 -0 0 1-2 Days 6.6 0 0 0 9.1 0 2-4 Days 4.7 20.0 5 0 27.2 0 . 4-8 Days 10.4 1.8 0 0 9.1 33.4 8-16 Days 2.8 0 0 0 18.2 0 16-32 Days 0 0 0 0 0 16.7 Mean (in hours) 33.4 21. 7 8.2 9.5 90.2 146.7 C.V. 183% 146% 185% 112% 137% % Response 96 66 41 25 65 100 % of Trips less than 12 hours 69 77 95 100 36 50 Combined 3.6 39% 83 Combined 22.1 30.7 19.1 3.5 4.0 10.1 7.5 2.5 0.5 33.9 208% 77 72 -51- Table 44. Summary of marina departure and return times for Virgin Islands recreational boating activity. Table values given in percentages. St. Thomas Primary Departure Time, Mean A.M. 9:08 C.v. Primary Return Time, Mean P. M. C.v. Trip Length % Respopse 105% -4:56 58% 7 hrs 48 min 68% St. Croix 9:11 38% ·4:16 34% 7 hrs. 5 min 33% ~ St. John 8:12 16% ~:OO 71% 9 hrs 48 min 21% British v. lsI. 7:30 5:30 10 hrs O·miri 25% Puerto Rico 8:20 56% 4:14 42% 7 hrs 54 min U.S. 8:36 59% 6:20 48% 9 hrs 44 min 100% Table 45. Summary of travel time (in minutes) from homes of Virgin clslands recreational. boaters to site of boat. St. st. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix ·John v. lsI. Rico U.s. ~. - Mean 16.9 17.9 8.9 18.3 44.0 11.2 C.V. (%) 80 68 120. 126 60 72 % Response 76 64 52 75 94 100* Combined 8:59 76% 4;52 46% 7 hrs 53 min 51% Combined 18.7 79 71 * Two respondents listed f'light time from U.S. mainland. These were deleted from arialysis. - -52- Table 46. Summary of distance traveled (in miles) from Virgin Islands recreational 'bpCl.te:t;:s'homesto, their boats. St. st. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix ·John V.Is1. Rico U.S. Combined ,. - ". Mean 4.9 7.5 4.1. 5.0 29.2 2.8 7.75 C.V. (%) 135 72 119 100 86 74 94 % Response 74 63 39 75 94 100* 68 * Three respondents listed flight distance from U.S. mainland. Th~se were deleted from analysis. Table 47. Summary of Virgin Islands weekend recreational boating activity (% of boating done on weekends) Table values.gtven in percentages. St. St. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix ·John V.Is1. Rico U.S. Combined Percentage 70.5 53.1 39.6 55.0 70.5 69 61. 9 C.V.(%) 43 70 83 116 54 45 57 % Respo~se 65 61 55 50 100 100 65 ---- ---------'-~- --------- -~- --- ----- ----'--------~--. Table 48. Summary of Virgin Islands boating activity taking place in the British Virgin Islands. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix ·John V.Is1. Rico U.S. Combined ,. - , Number Visits to B.V.L last year 7.6 1.5 5.3 2.7 1.8 5.1 C. V. 148% 172% 157% 77% 64% 135% %Response* 90% :,69% '. ,'70% -'100% 100% ,82% *B. V. 1. results c/leleted f:t~m calculations of combined mean. -53- Table 49. Summary of expenditures (in U.S.$) by u.s. Virgin Islands recreational boaters in the British Virgin Islands. St. st. St. British Puerto 1 Thomas Croix John V. Is!. Rico U.S. - - Customs 98.23 12.06 20.72 50.00 36.96 24.58 C.V. (%) 242 266 132 148 109 % Response 74 61 55 25 82 " 67 Lodging " 60.56 8.10 4.67 100.00 10.75 0.00 , C.V. (%) 323 344 387 273 0 % Response 55 53 45 25 71 67 Fuel 56.16 21. 60 10.27 200.00 171. 33 17.50 C.V. (%) 360 246 243 169 164 % Response ; 57 56 52 25 . 88 66 Meals 141.52 67.26 34.50 2000.00 147.94 195.00 C.V. (%) 180 257 149 148 190 % Response 67 53 55 25 '100 67 Other 175.06 94.71 20.00 2000.00 143.44 3.33 C.V. (%) 398 312 165 179 173 % Response 58 53 48 2!? " .. ; 94 50 Total annual average 2 expenditure $531. 53 $203.73 $90.16 $4350.00 $510.42 $240.41 Av~r~ge per trlp 69.94 135.82 17.01 189.04 133.56 1. Deleted from calculations of combined mean 2. Weighted according to % response. Combined 58.59 247 67 ·32.23 331 54 51.01 341 58 111.77 193 62 127.63 362 57 $381. 23 74.75 -54- Table 50. Summary of Virgin Islands recreational fleet involved in carrying passengers for hire. Table values given in percentages. Mean, on boats carrying pas- sengers % Carrying passengers C.V. % Response St. Thomas 3.75 3.4 29 6.8 St. Croix a 53 St. John a 9 British V.ls1. a 25 Puerto Rico a 53 U.S. Combined 3.75 1.6 29 a 25 Table 51. Summary of crew employment in the Virgin Islands recreational boating fleet. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. Is1. Rico U.S. - . - % with crew 5.1 3.8 33.3 25 5.9 a Average number of crew on boat 1.2 1.7 1.3 a with crew , C.V. 32 56 47 a % Response 60 64 76 50 71 100 Table 52. Time (in days) spent by owners repairing recreational boating fleet. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. Is1. Rico U.S. - - Mean 27.4 31.1 23.7 25.0 17.3 3.7 C.V. (%) 128 234 188 28 141 95 % Response 77 68 58 50 94 83 Combined 9.7 1.4 .34 68 Combined 26.6 143 72 , . -55- Table 53. Selected parameters for between islands comparisons. Table values given in percentages. variable st. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. Is1. Rico u.s. Combined Total Responses 117 80 33 4 17 6 257 %Response to mai10ut 11 9 24 11 10 13 11 Boat Size Average boat length (feet) DCCA list 21.7 21.5 20.2 26.3 31.8 29.8 23.1 Average respond. boat length 26.8 22.5 18.5 27.7 30.0 33.7 25.1 Socio Economic Aver. fam. income 19,500 18,454 12,954 12,500 19,280 26,250 18,551 ($U. s . ) Aver. res. age 42.0 42.1 48.7 34.7 41.6 42.5 42.8 (years) Household size 3.0 3.6 3.2 2.7 4.0 2.5 3.3 (persons) Native born (%) 11.1 8.8 29.2 0 0 0 12.8 Length of res. in the V.I. (yrs. 12.4 11.9 25.2 14.3 Value of boat 19,650 12,890 7,230 24,100 32,300 36,000 17,680 ($U.S.) Unemployment (%) 3.1 0 0 33.3 13.3 0 3.1 Fleet Storage Marina (%) 50.3 34.4 10.4 0 46.7 66.7 40.1 Moored or anchored (%) 33.1 29.7 58.6 50.0 24.0 33.3 36.0 Trai1ered (%) 0 32.9 3.5 0 29.4 0 11. 9 Other 16.6 3.0 27.5 50.0 0 0 12.0 Table 54. Geographical distribution of Virgin Islands recreational boating activity. See figure 1 for areas. Table values are in percent of total responses. Type of Usage T-l Business Related Recreation 0.2 Cruising 4.5 Water Surface Contact Sport 0.4 Snorkeling/ Skindiving 0.6 SCUBA diving 0.4 Chartering 0.2 Bareboat Chartering 0.2 Commuting 0.2 Line Fishing (recreational) 0.4 Spearfishing 0.2 Commercial fishing Other 7.4 Total Responses 489 % Response 58% T-2· T-3· T-4 T-5 ._-- 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 11. 3 . 6.3 6.3 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 19.0 13.1 11. 0 2.9 AREA (see map - Figure 1) B-1 B-2 0.4 0.8 7.4 8.5 0.4 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 12.5 13.4 Location St. Thomas St. Croix BVI B-3 0.8 6.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 9.4 B-4 C-l C-2 C-3 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 ! 0.4 0.2 0.2 p.4 2.7 4.1 1.0 % of Reported Activity 53.4 10.7 .35.7 C-4 C-5 0.8 0.4 ... 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 , .... _. - ""'-.. - ~ 0.4 ' 2.9 C-6 Combined 4.5 55.4 4.3 10.8 3.7 5.3 2.9 0.8 ,6.9 2.3 0.8 2.3 J C51 m J ..,,57- Table 55. Summary of recreational use according to time spent. Table values are in terms of percent of the total number of reported days. Table values given in percentages. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. Is1. Rico U.S. Combined - Business related 9.3 5.0 8.9 12.5 10.9 .11.1 4.8 recreation Water surface 8.7 11. 9 8.4 12.5 15.2 11.1 8.7 contact sports , Cruising 22.1 .19.5 6.8 12.5 21.7 16.7 14.6 ! , , Snorke1ing/ skindiving 13.5 15.7 8.0 25.0 17.4 16.7 11.7 SCUBA diving 9.9 10.1 8.6 0 6.5 16.7 9.2 Chartering 4.5 3.1 8.6 0 2.2 5.6 6~0 Bare-boat chartering 1.9 1.3 9.1 0 0 11.1 5.1 ; Commuting 5.1 2.5 8.2 0 0 0 5.7 Linefishing (Recreational) 9.3 15.7 7.5 12.5 19.6 11.1 10.0 Spear fishing 4.5 5.7 8.9 12.5 2.2 0 6.5 Commercial fishing 3.2 4.4 8.9 0 0 0 5.7 Other 8.0 9.4 8 .• 2 12.5 2.2 0 8.0 , Total Days Reported 312 159 440 8 4.6 18 984 % Response 64.1% 18.8% 100% 25% 47.1% 50% 52.1% -58- Table 56. Frequency and type of recreational fishing activity -in the Virgin Islands. Table values given in percentages. Method Line fishing C.V. % Response. Net fishing C.V. % Response Trap fishing C.V. % Response Spear fishing C.V. % Responding Other C.V. % Response St. Thomas 16.8 30 65 1.5 225 65 4.0 106 64 8.9 53 64 3.2 114 62 St. Croix 26.6 17 64 0.2 590 64 2.9 120 64 6.2 62 . 0.8 262 64 . st. John 18.9 26 42 6.5 75 42 6.6 74 42 4.3 80 45 o o 42 British Puerto V. Is1. Rico 33.5 19 o 82 1.4 115 o 82 0.7 235 o 82 9.5 54 82 o o 82 U.S. Combined I 57.7 24.4 12 27 50 62 1.5 364 50 61 o 114 50 61 1.7 7.6 92 71 50 61 o L8 50 61 -----.~~- -59- Table 57. Rank preference for different recreational fishing techniques by Virgin Islands fishermen .. 1 2 3 4 5 % Using ~Ranks Method % Response Technique Rank (frequency) Preference* Linefishing Bottom fishing 56 38 2 205 78 Trolling 58 35 1 338 118 Cast/spin 31 8 10 105 8 81% Spear fishing Sling 31 5 11 107 5 Speargun 43 21 4 202 42 Skin diving 37 16 6 161 26 SCUBA 32 8 9 114 9 50% Netting or Hand Catching Lobster 43 25 3 217 54 Tropical fish 31 7 11 108 8 Conch 38 7 5 170 31 Whelks 36 16 7 150 24 Other 27 3 14 71 2 69% Net and Trap Fishing Gill Net 33 1 16 78 0.7 Trammel Net 33 1 15 82 0.8 Throw Net 33 4 12 93 4 Haul Seine 33 3 13 87 3 Traps 37 9 8 129 12 18% * Preference =(Column 2) (Column 4) High Values Indicate High Preference. -60- Table 58. Summary of recreational fishing effort by species direction and success in capture. The respondents were asked to list the 'species' that they fished for and that they caught in order of frequency. EFFORT % Reports ERF Coryphaenidae Dolphin, dorado (Coryphaena hippurus) Elopidae Tarpon(Megalops atlanticus) Bonefish (Albula vulpes) Belonidae Gar (Tylosaurus crocodilus) Holcentridae Redman, wenchman, squirrel fish Sphyraenidae Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) Serranidae Grouper (Epinephilus, 12.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 4.4 Myctoperca) 8.3 Hind (E. guttatus) 3.1 Butterfish (gaphalopholis fulva) 1.5 Buttersacs (Petrometopon cruentatum) 0.4 Jewfish(E. itijara) 0.2 Priancanthidae Bleareye (Priacanthus) 0.4 Carangidae Crevalle (Caranx hippos) 0.0 Barjack, carengue, blue runner (C. ruber) 0.6 Hardnose (C. fuscus) 0.6 Pompano (Trachinotus goodei) 0.0 Permit (T. falcatus) 0.4 Jacks (Caranx) 0.6 244 5 4 1 2 60 165 47 25 2 1 6 o 13 13 o 5 12 CATCH % Rank Reports E. RF Rank 1 6.9 39 7 30 0.0 o 37 32 0.0 o 37 38 0.3 4 24 33 5 21 12 8.6 62 3 3 8.6 48 5 13 3.3 18 13 17 0.6 4 24 33 0.0 o 37 38 0.0 o 37 29 0.3 2 29 44 0.3 2 29 21 0.3 1 32 21 0.3 1 32 44 0.6 4 24 30 0.3 1 36 22 1.0 6 20 TABLE 58. (Continued) -61- EFFORT CATCH % % Reports ~RF Rank Reports ;E,RF Rank Istiophoridae Marlin (Makaira nigricans) 4.9 89 7 2.3 19 12 Sailfish (Istiophorus Elatypterus) 1.2 30 16 0.0 0 37 Scombridae Mackeral, Spanish mackeral (Scombroremorus regalis, S. Maculatus) 7.5 112 5 9.4 73 2 King, Kingfish (S. cavalla) 7.7 148 4 8.2 58 4 Wahoo (Acanthocybium solanderi) 5.0 91 6 3.0 21 10 Bonito (;Euthynnus ?-l1etteratus) 3.1 38 15 4.9 32 6 Tuna (Euthynnus, Thynnus) 5.0 68 9 3.9 21 10 Lutjanidae Snapper (Lutjanus) 9.0 167 2 12.2 74 1 Yellowtail (Ocyurus chrysurus) 5.2 89 7 4.9 31 8 Silk (Rhombolites ~urorubens ) 0.0 0 44 0.3 3 27 Pomadasyidae Grunt (Haemulon) 1.5 20 20 2.3 11 16 Margate (H. album) 0.0 0 44 0.3 1 32 Sparidae Porgy (Calamus) 0.2 1 38 0.6 5 21 Mullidae Goatfish (Pseudupeneus maculat,l1s 1 0.4 2 33 0.0 0 37 Queen mullet (Mu11oidichthys martinicus) 0.2 1 38 0.0 0 37 Kyphosidae Chub (KYEhosis) 0.2 1 38 0.3 1 32 Bothidae Flounder 0.4 8 26 0.3 3 27 Chaetodontidae Flatfish, Angelfish (?omacanthus, Holacanthus) 0.8 9 25 0.6 5 21 -62- TABLE 58. (Continued) EFFORT CATCH % % Reports cE RF Rank Reports £RF Rank Labridae Hogfish (Lachnolaimus .maximus) 0.2 2 33 0.0 0 37 Scaridae Parrotfish, Gutu, Madam Bluefish (Scarus, Sparisoma) 3.4 70 8 2.0 10 17 Acanthuridae Doctorfish (Acan thurus) 1.2 23 18 2.0 14 15 Balistidae Oldwife (Balistes vetula) 4.6 65 11 4.9 27 9 Diodontidae Blowfish (Diodon) 0.2 1 38 0.0 0 37 General and Unidentified Bonnet 0.2 2 33 0.0 0 37 Tropical fish 0.4 7 28 0.3 1 32 Weakfish 0.4 10 24 0.0 0 37 Mollusca Whelks (Cittarium pica) 0.6 12 22 1.3 10 17 Conch (Stro1tJJ2us gigas) 1.3 21 19 1.3 8 19 Crustacea Lobster (Panulirus argus) 1.9 40 14 2.0 16 14 TOTAL % 100.0 % 100.0 Reports 521 304 Table 59. Distribution of recreational fishing effort among various activities as indicated from a followup questionnaire (51 returns and 110 responses). The results indicate both the amount of activity and the catch per unit effort (lbs/person/day). Annual average total catch (Column 5) has been calculated by assuming that the recreational fishing fleet is made up of 2,000 boats whose activities are divided up according to the results below. The totals in Columns 6 and 7 were calculated from the results of Question 27 (Table 55) using the estimate of the percent of boat time devoted to the designated activity instead of the % response figure from the followup questionnaire (Column 1). Method Trolling Bottom Fishing Traps Nets Spearfishing Diving for lobsters Diving for conch Whelk fishing Snorkeling Underwater photography 1 2 % of Days/Month Responses (C.V.) 18.2 3.0 (124%) 5.5 4.9 (156%) 1.8 7.5 (28%) 12.7 4.4 (75%) 17.3 2.6 (98%) 7.3 1. 4 (124%) 7.3 1. 4 (114%) 23.6 8.0 (93%) 6.4 9.:3 (111%) 3 Catch/Day in lbs. (C. V • ) 9.3 (117%) 11. 3 (131%) 483.5 (37%) 10.5 (97%) 7.6 (89%) 5.6 (74%) 6.9 (105%) TOTAL 4 Total # Person days/yr. 13,100 6,460 3,240 13,400 10,800 2,450 2,450 45,300 . l4~284 5 6 Total Catch Total (lbs/yr) Person Days/yr. 122,000 } 7,600 73,000 1,567,000 6,800 141,000 8,000 82,000 1,250 13,700 436 16,900 436 7 Total Catch (lbs/yr) 163,000 3,307,000 84,200 9,500 2,450 3,000 111,490 days 34,500 days I m w -64- Table 60. Results of the followup questionnaire indicate the distribution of effort among various marine species. Table values given in percent of respondents reporting. Technique Trol- Spear Bottom Trap Diving Wading Total ling fish- fish- fish- Species ing ing ing Shark 0.8 0.8 Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippirus 1.5 1.5 Holocentridae Holocentrus sp. 0.8 0.8 1.6 Synodontidae Synodus sp. 0.8 0.8 Muraenidae Gymnothorax sp. 0.8 0.8 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda 3.8 3.8 Serranidae Epinephelus striatus 1.5 1.5 E. guttatus 0.8 0.8 E. itajara 0.8 0.8 Cephalopholis fulva 0.8 0.8 Myctoperca venenosa 0.8 0.8 M. tigris 0.8 0.8 Grouper 5.3 5.3 Carangidae Caranx ruber 0.8 0.8 Elegatis bipinnulatus 0.8 0.8 Trachinotus falcatus 1.5 1.5 Istiophoridae Makaira nigricans 0.8 0.8 Scombridae Scomberomorus cavalla 4.6 1.5 6.1 S. regalis & S. Maculatus 7.6 6.1 13.7 Acanthocybium solanderi 1.5 1.5 Euthynnus alletteratus 3.0 0.8 3.8 Thunnus atlanticus 0.8 0.8 Tuna 1.5 1.5 Lutjanidae Lutjanus apodus 0.8 1.5 2.3 L. jocu 1.5 1.5 -65- Table 60. cont. Trol- Spear Bottom Trap Diving Wading Total ling fish- fish- fish- ing ing ing Lutjanidae (contd) L. analis 0.8 0.8 L. mahogoni 0.8 0.8 Ocyurus chrysurus 0.8 0.8 Snapper 0.8 3.0 3.8 Pomadasyidae Haemulon (grunt) 0.8 1.5 0.8 3.1 Calamus (porgy) 1.5 0.8 2.3 Chaetodontidae Pomacanthus or Holocanthus 1.5 0.8 2.3 (flatfish, angelfish) Labridae Lachnolaimus maximus 0.8 0.8 Scaridae Scarus 1.5 0.8 2.3 Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. 0.8 0.8 Balistidae Balistes vetula 2.3 0.8 0.8 3.9 Mollusca Cittorium pica 6.0 6.0 Strombus gigas 6.0 6.0 Crustacea Panulirus argus 12.9 12.9 Total: 26.7% 38.3% 6.1% 4.0% 18.9% 6.0% 10.0% -~-"."-----<---------- Table 61. Summary of Virgin Island Recreational fishing landings. The results are given in ranges calculated by using two estimates of effort from the mailout and followup surveys. Annual Value of Virgin Islands Recreational Catch* Item Value ($/lb.) Catch in Ibs. x 1000 (Range) Value in $ xlOOO (Range) Finfish $1. 50 247 - 336 371 - 504 Lobsters $2.50 9.5 - 82 23.8 - 205 Conch $1.50 2.5-13.7 3.7 - 20.5 Whelks $1.50 2.5 - 16.9 3.7 - 25.4 TOTAL $402.2 - $754.9 x = $578.6 *Excluding fish traping because Virgin Islands Act 3330 requires all fishermen using traps and nets to report their catch in the commercial fishing statistics. Virgin Islands trap catch is around 1.5 million pounds annually (Olsen, et.al., 1976). I 0) 0) I -67- Table 62. Proportion (in percent of total) of family income spent on boating expenses by Virgin Island boaters. Table values given in percenta~es. St. St. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix ·John V. lsI. Rico U.S. Mean' (%) 21.4 '7.8 11.9 20 14.9 19.4 C.V. (%) 118 92 87 120 161 , .. _- - % Response 67 50 48 25 94 83 Combined 16.4 123 61 Table 63. Monthly ownership costs (in U.S.$) associated with respondents' boating activities. Table values given in percentages. St. st. St. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. Combined I, 310.83 234.47 Mean 256.05 150.75 99.3i 500.00 408.24 102 105 129 107 79 97 C.V.(%) 73 50 48 25 100 100 64 % Response -68- Table 64. Average daily expenditures (in $ U.S.) for respondents' boating activities. Table values given in percentages. st. st. st. British Puerto Thomas Croix John V. lsI. Rico U.S. - Fishing gear $13 .17 12.02 2.00 ,0 17.00 0.46 C.V. 162% 216% 219% 134% 137% % Response 52 53 70 50 71 83 Ice $4.23 $2.41 ; $6.44 $9.00 $4.47 $10.40 C. V. 84% 130% 173% 16% 100% 164% % Response 59 34 70 50 88 67 Fuel $14.38 $9.41 $7.04 $12.50 $48.47 $10.25 C.V. 119% 118% 156% 85% 87% 76% % Response 1 69 34 70 50 88 66 Refreshments $13 .10 $10.26 $5.43 $38.00 $9.40 $10.80 C.V. 169% 157% 177% 119% 65% 203% % Response 82 54 70 50 88 83 Bait $3.70 $0.25 0 0 $0.63 0 C.V. 188% 632% '397% % Response 74 50 70 50 88 83 Travel $4.31 $3.73 $0.39 0 $24.07 $75.25 C.V. 300% 389% 253% 149% 66% % Response 80 54 70 50 82 67 Total Average Expenditure Per Day $52.89 $38.08 $21. 34 $59.50 $104.04 $107.10 * Averages are only for positive respondents. Combined 10.76 . 184% 56 ' $4.52 118% 54 $15.62 123% 59 $11. 38 165% 7.2 $1.98 345% 67 $6.74 296% 70 $51. 00 -69- Table 65. Summary of equipment purchases by survey respondents. Item % Res- ponse* Boats 24 Engines 34 Electronics 7 Fishing Gear 19 Total per boat owner/year Local* Average $6,070 $1,124 $428 $224 * Results from Question 53 Expenditure V.I. Total** $2,913,000 $764,000 $60,000 $85,000 $3,822,000 $2,709 % Res- ponse* 6 10 7 7 ** Equals (% response) (2000 boat fleet) (average/boat) Non-Local Average* $7,635 $2,236 $1,078 $583 V.I. Total** $916,000 $447,000 $151,000 $82,000 $1,596,000 Table 66. Summary of economic data used in the calculation of the economic impact of the recreational boating and fishing sector on the Virgin Islands Economy. Expenditure BOATS New (32.6%) Used (67.4%) ENGINES ELECTRONICS FISHING GEAR 2 FUEL REFRESHMENTS TRAVEL TO BOAT AND BACK HOME ICE BAIT SLIP RENT AND DINGY FEES TOTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURE Local Purchase $949,000 $1,963,000 $764,000 $60,000 $85,000 $1,548,000 $1,377,000 $793,000 $410,000 $223,000 $521,500 $8,693,500 Imported Purchases $916,000 $447,000 $151,000 $82,000 $1,596,000 $10,289,500 % Local Import 1 Purchasing content 76% 100% 63% 33% 51% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 0.75 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.50 3 0.50 3 0.053 0.503 0.503 Import content of Local Purchases $711,000 $458,000 $30,000 $42,500 $619,200 $774.,000 $928,800 $1,083,600 $1,238,400 $689,000 $396,500 $20,500 $111,500 $260,750 $3,338,950 - $3,958,1504 1. Unless otherwise stated % import content was obtained from an informal merchant survey. 2. Local sources would not furnish import content figures for fuel. The calculation was made between ..40% 'and an upper figure of BO%. This latter figure represents sale price to retailers and was furn- ished by local industry sources. 3. Assumed Values. 4. Range calculated from import content for fuel equal to 0.40 and O.BO. I -J o I Table 67. Summary of Economic Impact A laysis. A B C M Total Income Increase 4 6,771,500 .54 1. 43 . 5 $4,735,3501 0.55 3 .62 l. 52 7,197,700 4 .54 1. 43 7,657,000 5 l. 52 8, 138,900 . 62 $5.354.5502 0.553 1. Total local purchases after removal of import content assuming import content of fuel at 0.80. 2. Total local purchases after removal of import content assuming import content of fuel at 0.40. 3. McElroy (1974). Checchi (1976). 4. Percent of local purchases left after import content is removed assuming import content of fue l is equal to 0.40. 5. Percent of local purchases left after import content is removed assuming import content of fuel is equal to 0.80. I -.:J I-' I APPENDIX II. Q.UESTIONNAIRES -72- APPENDIX II. Mail out questionnaire for recreational fishing survey. ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION June 10, 1978 Dear Boat Owner: LAGOON MARINA, RED HOOK ST. THOMAS, U. S. VIRGIN ISLANm (809) 775-3225 In conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council, and with the cooperation of the Virgin Is- lands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, we are conducting a survey of recreational and commercial fishing and boating in the U. S. Virgin Is lands. The attached questionnaire is being mailed to a selected sample of regis- tered boat owners. We hope that you will take the time to return this questionnaire to us in the pre-addressed enclosed envelope. The results of the questionnaire will provide guidelines for better management of those marine resources which are the vital part of both commercial and recrea- tional boating and fishing. This is your opportunity to make a contribution to the future improvement of facilities and services that support recreation- al boating. This includes the protection and enhancement of our natural re- sources. By providing the information, you will he lp us to demonstrate that the recreational fisherman is an important cultural and economic factor in the Virgin Islands. Parts of the questionnaire may not apply to your particular situation but try to fill out all of the sections that do pertain to you. I wish to personally assure you that it is worth your time to complete the attached form. The information you provide is considered strictly confid- ential and will only be released in a form of combined data that will respect your personal privacy. If you fill in your name and address on the ques- tionnaire, we will send you a summary of the results of the survey. If you have any questions about our project, you may call us at the Island Resources Foundation, telephone 775-3225. For good (and hopefully better) boating and fishing, '.i, C'"~ '--C"e ~ .2.. ," 7 0. ,,~-t;; Edward L. Towle, Ph. D. PRESIDENT Island Resources Foundation ELT/kmf enclosures ~:Q~~~ David A. Olsen, Ph. D. PROJECT Dill·ECTOR Island Resources Foundation PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 4187· ST. THOMAS. U. S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00801 ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION LAGOON MARINA, RED HOOK ST. THOMAS, U. S. VIRGIN ISLAND Island Resources Foundation/Caribbean Fisheries, (809) 775-3225 Management Council, Virgin Islands Recreational and Commercial Boating Survey Questionnaire Boat Data (boat registry number # ____________________________ ~ Circle the appropriat~ item(9) or fill in the blanks. If an answer cannot be adequately expressed by circling the appropriate item or filling in a blank, please feel free to write a longer answer. 1. Type of boat: Power, sail (if sail, rig --------------------------~ 2. Overall length of boat in feet: ------------------------ 3. Construction material: l. 2. 3. Fiberglass Wood Metal 4. Other --------------------------------------- 4. Type of engine: l. 2. 3 • 4 _ 5 • 5. Number of Engines: 6. Total horsepower: Gas Diesel Outboard Inboard Inboard/outboard 7. Year boat was built: 19 Where built 8_ Boat built by whom 9. Year you purchased the boat: 19 ___ _ 1. New 2. Used 3. Broker 4 _ Dealer 5 • Other PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 4187 • ST. THOMAS. U. S. vmGIN ISLANDS 00801 -75- Questionnaire - page 3 Indicate on the chart provided on the last page where you most frequently part- icipate in the above activities. For example, if you most frequently cruise in areas Tl and T2, place a letter "B" in these areas on the charts. Also show your marina or customary departure site by marking an "X". 17. Average duration of trip (hours or days) 18. Average number of trips per month (April-September) 19. Average number of trips per month (October-March) 20. Average number of people per trip 2l. Average number of paid crew (if any) 22. Average wages per crew member/per day per year 23. Average number of paid passengers (if any) 24. How did your customers find out about you? 25. Do you advertise? Yes No Budget/per year ____________________ _ 26. In your opinion, what is the minimum number of trips per month that makes it worthwhile for you to own a boat? ---------------------- 1. Recreational trips ------ 2. Commercial trips -------- 3. Combination trips ---- Fishing Activity 27. Estimated percent of boat time/use devoted to fishing A. line % B. net % C. trap % ---- D. spear % E. other % 28. Indicate the type of fishing by frequency: (1) most frequent (4) never (2) occasional (3) less frequent Line fishing: bottom -------troll cast/spin Netting or hand catching: lobster -------tropical fish ------conch -------whelks ------other Spearfishing: sling ----- _______ spear gun skin diving --------SCUBA Net and trap fishing: gill net -----: trammel net ------throw net --------~haul seine _________ traps -77-- Questionnaire - page 5 42. Average travel distance from home to marina in miles: 43. primary marina departure time: ret urn time: 44. Percent of boating done on weekends: % 45. Where will you keep your boat in case of hurricane? -------------------- 46. Age of the owner of the boat: ------ 47. Number of years a resident in the Virgin Islands Birthplace ---- 48. Number of members in your family living at home 49. Type of home: 1. townhouse --- 2 • apartment --- 3 • condominium --- 4. mobile home ---- 5. single-family house ---- 6. public housing ---- 7. boat ---- ----- shift 50. Hours of employment: day _____ _ night ------ ----- 51. Approximate gross annual family income in thousands of dollars: 1. 0-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 4. 16-20 5. 20-30 6. 30+ 52. Most important outdoor recreational activity other than boating (please specify) : ________________________________________________ _ 53. How much did you spend last year on the following items of gear? Please give the expected life of any equipment and when purchased and where pur- chased (local store, catalogue or elsewhere) : ITEM Vessel Engine(s) Electronics Fishing gear AMOUNT SPENT 1. Hooks, line, rods, etc. 2. Traps with lines and buoys 3. Net and diving equip. EXPECTED LIFE WHEN PURCHASED WHERE -79- APPENDIX III. Follow-up questionnaire for recreational fishing survey. ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION August 30, 1978 Dear Boater: LAGOON MARINA, RED HOOK ST. THOMAS, U. S. VIRGIN ISLANDS (809) 77 5-322 5 Thank you for completing our "Hecreational Fisheries Q.uestionnaire!' We are now asking for one more piece of information about your fish- ing effort. Could you please fill in the boxes below with the average number of days each month that you fish and the average catch per day in pounds that you get. By furnishing this information, you will he Ip to assure that the people currently engaged in managing our fisheries will set aside a portion of the yield for yourselves and people with sim- ilar interests. Please call us if you have any questions or would like to supply further information. Again, thank you for your he lp. David A. Olsen, Ph. D. PLEASE REPLY TO: P. o. BOX 4187· ST. THOMAS, U. S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00801 APPENDIX III FOLLOW - UP QUESTIONNAIR.ES -80- APPENDIX III. (cont. ) Average Number Average Catch Fishing Method Days per Month per day (in lbss. Ii ve weight) 0' J Trolling Bottom Fishing Traps . Nets Spearfishing Diving for Lobsters Divlng for Conch Whelk fishing Snorkeling only, Not Applicable Underwater Appl:icable Phc;tography Not Kind ofFish Caught Most Often Method Used The above information is based on: Catch Records Memory