Executive Summary

The increasing concentration of people in and adjacent to population centers taken with the need for increased fishing opportunities where people live have led to increased attention to community fisheries programs nationwide. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department listed 76 lakes as Community Fishing Lakes (CFLs) in 1993. To assist fisheries managers in refining program objectives, a cross-sectional survey of anglers who were intercepted during TPWD creel surveys of 23 CFLs was conducted between October, 1993 and April, 1994. The survey was administered by the Human Dimensions of Fisheries Research Laboratory of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences at Texas A&M University. Additional sample size for the study was obtained when some anglers self-reported fishing a CFL in response to press releases. The survey was designed to collect information about the social and demographic characteristics of anglers, their preferences for fishing facilities and fisheries management tools, species preferences, and what constrained them from fishing more frequently. Overall, 298 anglers were identified and sent a self-administered mail questionnaire. There were 154 anglers who provided usable responses for an effective response rate of 57.5% after non-deliverables were excluded. Additional data were used from the 1994 Texas Statewide Angler Survey to determine participation rates for various cities in Texas, as well as provide information from licensed anglers who live and fish within their city or town limits. The Community Fishing Study and the Texas Statewide Angler Survey were conducted independent of each other, and therefore two separate sections will cover results from each.

Results from the Community Fishing Study

Characteristics of Community Fishing Lake Anglers

Anglers fishing CFLs were mostly males (85%) over 40 years of age (average=47 years). The median household income of CFL anglers was $30,000-39,999. Most (84%) CFL anglers were white/Anglo, 6% black/African-American, and 10% Asian, American Indian or other. About 9% indicated they were of Spanish/Hispanic ethnic origin. Few CFL anglers belong to fishing clubs or organizations (19%), or participated in fishing tournaments (14%). About 41% of CFL anglers indicated they lived in a household which owned a powerboat. When asked to compare their fishing ability to that of other anglers, most CFL anglers indicated they were equally skilled (62%). About 23% indicated they were less skilled. Most CFL anglers agreed with the statements "I like to fish where there are several types of fish to catch" (84%), "A fishing trip can be successful even if no fish are caught" (71%), "The more fish I catch, the happier I am" (67%), "I usually eat the fish I catch" (63%), "I'm happiest if I catch a challenging gamefish" (62%), "I'm just as happy if I release the fish I catch" (58%), "The bigger the fish, the better the fishing trip" (56%), and "I'm just as happy if I don't keep the fish I catch" (55%). Most (67%) disagreed with the statement "I want to keep all the fish I catch".

Where do CFL anglers get their fishing information?

About 21% of anglers use newspapers daily as a source of information about fishing. Likewise, 47% of anglers watch weekly television fishing shows for their information. Television fishing shows most often watched by CFL anglers included "Bill Dance Outdoors", and "Fishing Texas". Magazines most often read by anglers were B.A.S.S. Masters, Texas Fish and Game, Field and Stream, and TPWD Magazine.

Fishing Participation and Attitudes Toward Management Tools by CFL Anglers

CFL anglers fished an average of 45 days in the previous year (18 days in city/state park lakes, 12 days in other lakes, and 5 days each in rivers, private ponds, and saltwater). CFL anglers indicated they had fished in fresh water for an average of 32 years. Over 59% of CFL anglers indicated largemouth bass as their first species preference. Catfishes (19%), crappie (9%) and freshwater trout (5%) were other species listed as a first preference. Most CFL anglers supported minimum size limits (92%), daily bag limits (88%), the "Use of education clinics to teach people how to fish" (79%), slot-length limits (62%), "A catch and release area for a specific species" (61%), "Prohibiting the use of certain types of sport fishing gear" (59%), and the "Use of brush fish attractors" (58%). A plurality (40%) indicated support for "Prohibiting the use of certain types of bait". About 39% of CFL anglers opposed the "Removal of freshwater vegetation"; about 39% were neutral on the "Use of automatic fish feeders". Overall, 44% of CFL anglers were very to extremely satisfied with freshwater fishing in Texas.

Characteristics of Community Fishing Lakes Fishing Trips

Most (55%) anglers drove 5 miles or less one-way to fish at a CFL on their last trip. Most (50%) trips anglers made to a CFL started before 10:00 A.M. Anglers spent an average of 4 hours fishing on their last trip to a CFL. A plurality (39%) of anglers made their last fishing trip to a CFL alone. About 34% of anglers indicated they fished with their family on their last trip. A plurality (37%) of anglers fished for largemouth bass on their last trip to a CFL. About 35% fished for freshwater trout, and 18% fished for catfishes. When asked how satisfied they were with their fishing at a CFL, only 24% indicated they were very to extremely satisfied.

Constraints to Participation in Fishing

About 82% of CFL anglers indicated there were factors which prevented them from fishing as often as they would like. "Work commitments", and "family commitments" always or often prevented 46% and 21% of anglers, respectively. Other constraints which prevented anglers (always or often) included "fishing facilities/areas are poorly developed and/or maintained" (18%), "fishing facilities/areas are overcrowded" (16%), and "I'm not satisfied with my catch" (12%). Almost 25% of anglers indicated they were at least "sometimes" prevented from fishing because "fishing sites are not safe and/or comfortable to visit".

Results from the Texas Statewide Angler Survey

Fishing Participation Rates in Texas

About 31% of the population in Texas live within cities, but only 18% of licensed anglers in Texas came from cities. Most (69%) people, and licensed anglers (81%) live in suburban areas, small cities/town, or rural areas. About 6 people of every 100 people who live in a city with a population >50,000 purchase a fishing license. About 11 of every 100 people in suburban areas, small cities/town and rural areas purchase a fishing license. The statewide average was 9.6 people of every 100. Only three cities had participation rates above the statewide average of 9.6: Waco (13.5%), San Angelo (13.2%), and Corpus Christi (11.5%). Only 3 of every 100 people who live in the cities of Dallas and Lubbock purchased a fishing license. Less than 1 per 100 of those living in El Paso purchased a fishing license

Characteristics of Anglers who live in Cities

About 15% of urban anglers (those living in cities with population size >50,000) were female. About 16% of urban anglers were African-American, Asian, or American Indian. Only 7% of non-urban anglers were minorities. About 50% of urban anglers indicated they lived in a household which owned a powerboat, compared to 57% of non-urban anglers. Urban anglers fished an average of 19 days in the pervious year, compared to 26 days for non-urban anglers. Urban anglers have fished an average of 27 years in freshwater. About 14% of urban anglers indicated they fished with a fishing guide in the previous year, opposed to 10% of non-urban anglers. Urban anglers indicated they travelled 15 miles further on a typical fishing trip than non-urban anglers. Urban anglers were more likely than non-urban anglers to support closed seasons on fish, stocking native freshwater fishes, size limits, prohibiting the use of certain types of gears, and tags or stamps to retain a particular species of fish.

Discussion

Whereas the general lack of the differences observed between CFL anglers and the statewide licensed angler population may be due to the way CFL anglers were sampled, results provide further evidence that the program as configured (where lakes are located) is serving the general population of anglers rather than meeting the needs of those who were unserved previously. If the program was meeting its original objectives, i.e., attracting new participants to fishing and constituents for TPWD programs, there should have been notable differences in years of fishing experience and in angler characteristics.

A focus on urban populations is essential to meeting original program objectives for several reasons. First, there is already a sizable discrepancy between current population levels and estimated numbers of licensed anglers in urban and non-urban areas. Only six percent of the overall urban population purchase a fishing license in order to participate in this activity compared to 11 percent in non-urban areas. Second, based on expected demographic changes in Texas over the next 30 years (Murdock et al. 1992), we can expect increased growth in urban populations with an increasing number of minorities and ethnic group members. Third, as urban residents compare their opportunities to go fishing close to home, i.e., extent of fishable water, fishing access and facilities, and agency programs and services with those of non-urban residents, they are likely to believe resource allocation decisions by TPWD are unfair.

What can TPWD do to more effectively meet its community fisheries program goals and objectives? First of all, they need to maintain their commitment to the idea that people ought to be able to fish where they live. It can be argued that everyone should have access to the leisure/quality of life opportunities afforded by fishing close to home regardless of whether they live in non-urban or urban areas.

Nevertheless, if TPWD wants to attract a significant amount of new fishing participants and constituents they need to focus its community fisheries programs specifically in urban areas with populations of 50,000 and above because that is where the greatest opportunity exists to do so. To provide programs and services to those who have not participated previously will require more than lakes, stocking, and fishing clinics. A more holistic perspective on constraints to participation in leisure activities will be required. For example, because urban residents generally have less household disposable income than non-urban residents, the present cost of a fishing license with few fishing opportunities close to home may be an important constraint to participation. A special low cost license for fishing in publically-accessible urban ponds and lakes may help to reduce the financial barrier to fishing. This approach is used in Arizona to effectively deliver services in urban areas.