There has been a growing recognition of the value of understanding the diversity among the population of anglers and their preferences and experiences. As we have learned from our studies over the past two decades, there is diversity in tastes within most groups of outdoor recreationists. These findings suggest that individual anglers vary in their reasons for fishing and what they expect from their fishing experiences. Fisheries managers need to better understand and act on this diversity if they are to be effective and enhance angler's experiences.

Understanding the diversity among anglers should be of interest to managers for several reasons. Understanding what is important to various angler segments can be useful for predicting how segments will differentially impact fishery resources. Since all anglers do not have the same commitment to (or capability for) catching fish, managers should not feel that must "deliver" a certain number of fish to each and every angler. This may alleviate some of the pressure fishery managers feel when they see the extent to which the Texas population is increasing. Understanding what is important to identifiable and unique segments of anglers is also useful in predicting how changes in catch limits and restrictions will differentially impact these segments. Ignoring this diversity will leave many anglers, perhaps most, less than fully satisfied and, as a result, we would expect reduced political support for fisheries, their management and TPWD itself.

To serve the diversity of anglers' tastes and preferences, managers first need to recognize that diversity exists. Fisheries mangers in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department have recognized the importance of understanding angler diversity for some time now. They are interested in the potential impacts various groups have on fish stocks and on the active role some anglers play in fisheries management rulemaking. They want to know more about their management constituencies, the extent and distribution of fishing activity, and the extent of specialized anglers in various sub-populations so they can deliver services more effectively. The products of our research have proven useful to TPWD on several occasions in recent years. As questions arise among the management staff, they can now query available human dimensions data sets and reports we have provided for answers.

By understanding angler diversity, managers can design diversity into their programs, better institute rules and regulations, and know which constituents will be affected accordingly. If managers are able to recognize and serve the diverse needs of anglers, broad based political support for fisheries programs will be maintained and when this occurs, all Texas anglers and economic interests associated with the recreational fishing industry benefit.

We have conducted fourteen statewide surveys of Texas anglers previously in cooperation with TPWD. The agency has funded this work on an annual basis in support of its management efforts. In addition to providing a cross sectional view of the statewide angler population, these data collections also provide an opportunity to evaluate the variables of concern to managers and researchers on a longitudinal basis (see, for example, Hunt and Ditton 2001; Hunt and Ditton 2001).

We will conduct a survey of licensed anglers in Texas (excluding non resident anglers). Although most of the same questions will be used to ensure comparability with previous study results, some new questions will be developed in consultation with staff. After an advance notice letter telling anglers in the sample about the study and soliciting their participation, the first mail questionnaire is scheduled to be sent by first class mail on February 20, 2002. This will be followed by a reminder postcard one week later and second (and final) mailing four weeks after the advance notice letter is posted as per the Salant and Dillman methodology (1994). Using the Dillman (1978) approach with statewide fishing surveys previously in Texas, response rates have ranged between 65% and 72% (Hunt and Ditton, 1996).

OBJECTIVES