Date Case Description County Com or Rec1/3 Commercial establishment charged with selling oysters w/o required permits KE Comm.1/4 1 citation 9% undersize oysters SM Comm.

1/15/18 3 individuals charged with dreding outside designated area and possession of undersized Oysters TA Comm.1/18 2 individuals charged with oystering from an oyster sanctuary (Manokin River) SO Comm.

2/5 individual charged with harvesting more than 250ft in MDE closed area TA Comm.2/7 5 citations for harvesting oysters w/o comm.. TFL (Diving) catched seized SM Comm.

2/15 1 citation issued to Goldeneye Seafood Co. for Failure to Maintain Proper Records (Shellfish Harvest Tags) SM Comm.2/15 4 citation commercial oyster harvesting w/o license SM Comm.2/16 2 individuals Harvesting Oysters for Commercial Purpose Without TFL SM Rec.2/16 4 citations for harvesting oysters recreationally for comm. purpose SM Comm.2/23 Individual charged with power dredging in a non designated area and possession of unculled oysters (50%) SO Comm.

3/9 Individual charged with power dredging in a non designated area SO Comm.3/12 Individual charged with over the daily limit of oysters (5 bushels) and possessing multiple types of oyster gear onboard SO Comm.

3/18/2018 Possession of striped bass during closed season SO Rec.3/18 10 citations for poss/ targeting rockfish closed area. HA Rec.3/29 Individual charged with over the daily limit of oysters (7 bushels) SO Comm.3/31 Possession of striped bass during closed season SO Rec.

4/2 2 citations possession striped bass closed season SM Rec.4/8 2 citations for illegal possession of herringherring CH Rec.

Category Charge CitationsTidal Fish Fishing without Commercial license 1Tidal Fish Fishing without Commercial Fishing license in possession 1Tidal Fish Fishing without Chesapeake Bay Sport Fishing license 7Tidal Fish Fishing nets during prohibited time 1Tidal Fish Failure to display waterman's ID 3Tidal Fish Possession of Striped Bass- closed season 1Tidal Fish Possession of Striped Bass without license/permit/tags 2Oysters Oystering without a license 7Oysters Possession of undersize oysters 6Oysters Possession of unculled oysters 5Oysters Dredging in a prohibited area 2Oysters Over the daily limit of oysters 2Oysters Failure to keep accurate records 1Oysters Oyster in a sanctuary 2

1

Freshwater Fisheries Monthly Report – March 2018

Stock Assessment Spiker Run - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed a nonpoint source success story for Spiker Run, a tributary to Casselman River in Garrett County. The report states that Spiker Run was impacted by episodic low pH associated with acid mine drainage and therefore was listed as impaired in 1996. An assessment of an acid mine drainage seep impacting the headwaters of Spiker Run ranked this stream as a high priority for mitigation in the Casselman River watershed. Successful implementation of two acid mine drainage mitigation measures brought the stream into compliance with Maryland’s Water Quality Standard for pH. Monitoring of brook trout demonstrated that the adult trout standing crop increased five-fold after implementation of the pH treatment projects. The Maryland Department of the Environment will pursue delisting Spiker Run for its pH impairment in Maryland’s 2018 Integrated Report.

Spiker Run in Garrett County

Upper Potomac River Walleye - Staff conducted annual spring walleye surveys on the upper Potomac River. Roughly two dozen adult walleye were collected and transported to Cedarville State Fish Hatchery to serve as brood stock for walleye juvenile production. These juvenile fish will be stocked later this spring into impoundments and major rivers across the state. A recent four-year study of walleye stocking on the upper Potomac River found that 50 percent of young-of-year fish collected in fall electrofishing surveys were hatchery produced fish. The supplemental stocking of juvenile walleye significantly contributes to overall year class strength and helps maintain this productive fishery.

2

Adult walleye collected from upper Potomac River Upper Potomac River Muskellunge - Staff continued efforts to monitor and study the muskellunge population in the upper Potomac River. Expanding upon work from 2017, a new radio telemetry project was initiated in sections of the upper Potomac River below Dam 5 and Dam 4. Using funding received from a research grant from the angling organization Muskies Inc., Freshwater Fisheries was able to purchase 22 radio tags. These tags have been surgically implanted into adult muskellunge as part of a two-year study to determine seasonal movement patterns, habitat use, and mortality Information from this research will help in the management of the Potomac River population and add to our understanding of this species at the southern extent of its distribution range. The radio tagged muskellunge are further identified by two external dart tags located under the dorsal fin on the left side. Anglers that catch these fish are asked to report the catch to staff at 301-898-5443 or josh.henesy@maryland.gov Electrofishing to collect muskellunge Tagged muskellunge ready for release

3

Conowingo Reservoir Walleye - There is a popular fishery for walleye in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Reservoir. In 2017, staff began a study to better understand and manage this resource. More than 50 walleye were collected from the Conowingo Dam east fish lift in 2017. Length, weight and sex of each fish were recorded, and their otoliths were removed to determine age. Initial ageing results completed this month show quick initial growth, reaching legal size (15 inches) in their second or third year of life. Further work is planned this spring to better characterize this population. Habitat and Water Quality Environmental Review - Provided aquatic resource information for environmental review projects including:

• A State Highway Administration project that will construct a stormwater facility along Maryland Route 39 in Crellin. The project is designed to collect stormwater that would otherwise drain into the Youghiogheny River. This project should provide water quality benefits by collecting and infiltrating stormwater runoff before entering the river. Comments were made regarding time of year restriction and use of best management practices for sediment and erosion during construction.

• Savage River State Forest’s proposed timber harvest within the Winebrenner Run sub-basin of the Georges Creek watershed. The proposal provides stream protection with a no-cut buffer along the headwater area of the stream. Brook trout were reintroduced into Winebrenner Run a few years ago, and now the stream supports a reproducing population.

• Maryland Department of the Environment’s review regarding the status of fish populations in Tarkiln Run, a Casselman River tributary stream. Maryland Department of the Environment has been liming the stream to alleviate acid conditions and water quality has improved. Previous sampling by the department indicated the stream was fishless; the department will survey the stream in 2018 to see if fish have re-colonized as the water quality has improved.

• State Forest ID Team regarding rare dragonfly research in high elevation wetlands by Frostburg State University researchers. The researchers will collect water quality data in February (when pH may be the lowest) and throughout the summer as well as assess the presence of fishes. The presence of large insectivorous fish is one of the strongest factors affecting dragonfly communities. The department provided comments on Bull Glade Run and Murley Run, as these two acidic streams are currently fishless based on previous sampling. The Salting Grounds impoundment (in the Herrington Creek watershed) may support creek chub, as we documented this species (as well as white sucker and mottled sculpin) in the stream below the impoundment in 2015.

• Staff provided brook trout population study data for a presentation at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region III Association of Mid-Atlantic Aquatic Biologists conference. Maryland Department of the Environment staff will present water quality and biotic community improvements in the Casselman River Watershed at the conference with a presentation entitled “Restoring Water Quality and Aquatic Biology in the Casselman River.”

4

• Eastern Regional Freshwater Fisheries staff provided written comments on six environmental reviews and five potential Department of Natural Resources property acquisitions.

Land Stewardship Committee - Provided comments regarding a potential land acquisition in the Evitts Creek watershed. This property contains portions of Evitts Creek and its tributary stream Bottle Run. Evitts Creek is a Maryland Department of the Environment Designated Use-IV-P stream, and is managed as a recreational trout fishery, receiving 7,300 rainbow trout annually. Further, Evitts Creek supports a diverse fish species community including American eel, Blue Ridge sculpin, two catfish species, three darter species, 13 minnow species, four sucker species and six sunfish species. Bottle Run is a very important coldwater stream (Use-III) in Allegany County, supporting a reproducing brook trout population as well as a wild rainbow trout population. Blacknose dace, Blue Ridge sculpin and fantail darter are also found in Bottle Run. The Freshwater Fisheries Program fully supports this acquisition as it would provide long-term water quality and stream habitat protection in the Evitts Creek watershed. Bottle Run is one of the relatively few streams in Allegany County supporting a reproducing population of native brook trout. One of the major goals in the 2006 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Brook Trout Fishery Management Plan is to increase public ownership of lands within watersheds supporting brook trout populations to ensure long-term protection of this species.

GIS Mapping - Completed the 2016 and 2017 GIS mapping layer that shows the extent and composition of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the tidal freshwater portion of the Potomac River. These layers can be very useful for anglers fishing SAV in the Potomac River and will also serve as a basis for future comparisons of SAV bed health in the region. Stocking and Population Management Staff assisted Albert Powell and Unicorn state hatchery personnel with statewide stocking of rainbow/golden and brown trout into streams and impoundments gearing up for opening day on March 31. This comes to the delight of countless anglers in the region that view the annual stocking as the unofficial start of the fishing season. Due to the early spring snow storm, some scheduling had to be rearranged to assure trout were stocked for the opening day. Volunteers assisted the department with float stocking the new delayed harvest area on the South Branch Patapsco River. Because of limited stocking access, trout are loaded into floating boxes and distributed throughout the mile-long special regulation area.

5

Stocking trout in the South Branch Patapsco River Delayed Harvest Area Outreach Cove Run Restoration - Staff along with Northern Garrett High School Envirothon Team conducted a field visit to the Cove Run Brook Trout Restoration Project site. The riparian zone of the stream was planted six years ago, and the trees and shrubs have grown extremely well providing shade for the stream. The students cleaned out bluebird nesting boxes that were placed on the fencing posts as part of the project.

Bluebird nest box maintenance along the well-established vegetated riparian zone along

Cove Run Population Surveys - Staff prepared current summaries of fish population surveys for the Savage River Trophy Trout Fishing Areas, the Youghiogheny River Catch and Return Trout Fishing Area, Deep Creek Lake, New Germany Lake and Piney Reservoir. These report summaries will be uploaded to the Freshwater Fisheries Program website. Customer Service - Staff responded to many customer service calls regarding: Battie Mixon Fishing Rodeo fish stocking application; brook trout fishing in western Maryland; carp fishing and statewide management; Deep Creek Lake boat launch opening; pike fishing in Deep Creek Lake; put-and-take trout fishing opportunities and Savage River

6

Trophy Trout Fishing Area; a new South Branch Patapsco River Delayed Harvest Trout Fishing Area and walleye and muskellunge fishing opportunities in the nontidal Potomac River. Signage - Staff posted new regulation and closures signs statewide in preparation for trout season. New tidal black bass signs were posted where needed. Informational signs were posted at popular trout fishing areas to educate and encourage anglers to clean wading gear to reduce the potential spread of invasive species. Envirothon - Provided aquatic ecology training for high school students from Anne Arundel and Frederick counties participating in the Envirothon, an environmental education competition. Staff provided training on habitat and water quality, largemouth bass anatomy and physiology and macroinvertebrate taxonomy. Angler Access Staff met with a willing seller of property along the North Branch Potomac River. The property borders about 0.75 miles of the Zero Creel Limit of Trout Fishing Area. The potential acquisition is being evaluated for public angler access and riparian zone protection. Invasive Species Staff participated in drafting a recommendation for handling invasive species (northern snakehead, blue catfish) that could be passed in the Conowingo Fish Lift from lower Susquehanna River to Conowingo Reservoir.

Staff participated in the non-indigenous species symposium held at the Southern Division of American Fisheries Society meeting. The symposium provided information on current research and threats of blue catfish and northern snakehead in adjacent and distant states to Maryland.

7

Northern Snakehead - Staff participated in the annual Northern Snakehead Taskforce meeting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Department Game and Inland Fisheries, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and District of Columbia's Fisheries Division. Current data collected by these agencies was presented. Northern snakeheads have increased in density in those areas where they have become established. The species has consistently expanded its range since they were first found in the Potomac River in 2004. Northern snakeheads are now found in most areas of the upper Chesapeake Bay (e.g., Susquehanna River, Susquehanna Flats and Northeast River), the Potomac River, Patuxent River and many eastern shore rivers.

Staff discussed opportunities for coordinating an outreach and fishing derby event at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in partnership with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The objectives of the derby would be to remove northern snakehead, encourage harvest and raise awareness.

Blue Catfish - Biologists collected specimens of the invasive blue catfish from two tidal tributaries of the Potomac River in Charles County (Mattawoman Creek, Nanjemoy Creek). In addition to basic life history information (e.g., size, sex, otoliths for aging work), biologists examined the stomachs of nearly 75 fish up to 24.5 pounds. Many had empty stomachs but for those with stomach contents, common food items were adult yellow perch, white perch, and crayfish. A small number of fish had also recently eaten juvenile northern snakehead, another invasive species common to the Potomac River and now the Chesapeake Bay drainage. For a subset of individuals with stomach contents too digested to be identified, samples of stomach material were preserved for metabarcoding analysis to identify those food items. This work is part of a collaborative project with the United States Geological Survey’s National Fish Health Research Laboratory to better understand the diet and potential ecological effects of blue catfish in the Potomac River. A commercial angler recently reported catching a tagged blue catfish from the Potomac River. The fish was at-large for 1,698 days before it was harvested. It was tagged as part of a project to determine movements of these invasive fish in the Potomac River. A pin and letter detailing the fish’s history were sent to the angler. Brook Trout Program Staff participated in the quarterly Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture steering committee conference call. Topics discussed included dispensation of Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture restoration funds for 2018, the brook trout symposium at the American Fisheries Society meeting in the fall of 2018 (staff are presenting papers and participating in a symposium), and future genetics work and direction needs for eastern brook trout nationally. Staff participated in a field visit to review proposed activities associated with the installation of a new gas line along the east side of Dan's Mountain in Allegany County. The proposed activities involved the crossing of two known brook trout streams.

8

Discussions included potential impacts and how to avoid those impacts to brook trout resources. Staff distributed fliers to all public schools in Garrett and Allegany counties to begin registration for the Third Annual Big Run Youth Trout Fishing Clinic. This has been a very popular event the past two years where kids between the ages of 8 and 16 are invited to learn how to fish for wild brook trout. The event is hosted and run by staff of the Freshwater Fisheries Program, with donations and support from local (Martins grocery, Weis grocery, Wal-Mart, Bassin’ Box, Bill’s Outdoor Center and Early Rise Fly Shop) and national merchants (Bass Pro Shops and Orvis) and assistance from local angling groups (Nemacolin Chapter of Trout Unlimited). Staff gave an update to the Nemacolin Chapter of Trout Unlimited on the status of a proposed restoration project on a tributary to Poplar Lick, a premier native brook trout resource in Garrett County. Tidal Bass Program Staff presented a poster highlighting Maryland's bass fisheries and a paper at the Southern Division meeting for the American Fisheries Society in Puerto Rico. During the meeting, staff also participated with a workshop designed to standardize boat electrofishing during fish surveys. Staff also aided in beach restoration work that included shoveling sand dunes, planting sea grape (a shoreline plant species), and cleaning marine trash from a beach that is often visited by reproducting sea turtles.

Staff co-hosted and participated in a webinar event for black bass tournament directors. Over 100 directors were invited to participate in the webinar that included information on the status of black bass fisheries in Maryland, rules for tournaments, and offered a general forum for discussion of concerns. PowerPoint slides and a recording of the webinar are available on-line via Chester County Bassmasters Facebook page.

Staff participated in a planning workshop for Harford County's Bassmaster Elite Series. Staff visited Harford County's Office of Tourism to coordinate details regarding promotion, assistance and other factors that will stimulate tourism for this event held at Flying Point Park and Cal Ripken's Stadium July 26 – 29, 2018.

Staff coordinated the release of the Black Bass Annual Review (Volume X) and a press release conveying information on the Director of Fishing and Boating Services' new Black Bass Conservation Award (here).

Staff received the Secretary's Customer Service Award from the Assistant Secretary and Deputy Secretary.

Staff released finalized version of a publication in the department’s Maryland Natural Resource Magazine. The article promotes black bass tournaments in Maryland and highlights the newest inclusions of social media during on-the-water weigh-ins.

A1

FISCAL YEAR 2017 PERFORMANCE REPORT

July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017

SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT OF MARYLAND’S FISHERY RESOURCES

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Fishing and Boating Services

Fisheries Monitoring and Assessment Division – Freshwater Fisheries Program

Tawes State Office Building

580 Taylor Avenue B-2

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Federal Aid Grant: F-48-R-27

This grant was supported by funds from the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Acts

(Dingell-Johnson & Wallop-Breaux)

and the State of Maryland Fisheries Management and Protection Fund

Compiled by Approved by

James M. Lawrence, Project Manager Anthony Prochaska Director, Freshwater

Fisheries Program

A2

FISCAL YEAR PERFORMANCE REPORT

July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Fishing and Boating Services

Fisheries Monitoring and Assessment Division – Freshwater Fisheries Program

SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT OF FRESHWATER FISHERIES RESOURCES

USFWS Federal Aid Grant F-48-R-27

Study I

Management of Fisheries Information Resources

By:

Rebecca Bobola

Brett Coakley

Mary Groves

Alan Heft

Todd Heerd

Michael Kashiwagi

Alan Klotz

Scott Knoche

James Lawrence

Joseph Love

John Mullican

Anthony Prochaska

Susan Rivers

Matt Sell

Mark Staley

Mark Toms

Ross Williams

A3

State: Maryland Project Number: F-48-R-27

Study No.: I

Job No.: 2

Project Title: Survey and Management of Freshwater Fisheries Resources

Study Title: Management of Fisheries Information Resources

Job Title: Angler Preference Surveys

Introduction

An understanding of the level of fishing effort and harvest is critical to evaluating the

effectiveness of regulations and other management efforts. Information on angler

preferences and trip expenditures will also enhance the State’s efforts to maximize

recreational fishing opportunities and provide key data regarding the economic impact of

recreational fishing in Maryland. These are crucial elements in Maryland’s ability to

preserve, protect, improve, and properly manage its freshwater resources.

Three surveys were conducted during the 2016 reporting period, while the analysis of

those data was completed under the 2017 reporting period. Those studies were a

statewide Recreational Fisheries Management Survey, a Wild Trout Angler Preference

Survey, and an Eastern Region Fishery Management Area Angler Survey on

impoundments. Additionally, an angler creel survey was initiated during spring 2017 for

the upper Gunpowder Falls above Prettyboy Reservoir. Data analysis is in process and

results will be provided with the 2018 report.

Objectives

Maryland Recreational Fisheries Management Survey

The objectives for the Maryland Recreational Fisheries Management Survey are as

follows:

Collect catch and harvest data of target species to determine catch and harvest

rates, age, and weight of kept and released fish.

Estimate fishing effort by area.

Estimate total harvest and catch by area.

Identify angler preferences and satisfaction associated with the Maryland

freshwater angling experience.

Provide information on anglers and trip expenditures by area.

Provide background necessary for future surveys.

Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey

The objectives for the Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey are as follows.

Develop information on the angling public’s opinions on wild trout angling in

general.

A4

Develop information on the angling public’s opinions on wild brook trout

management in the Upper Savage River watershed and on the regulations

imposed on the special management area in the same watershed.

A5

Maryland Recreational Fisheries Management Survey

Prepared by Scott Knoche, Morgan State University in cooperation with Fishing and

Boating Services, Freshwater Fisheries Program

Introduction

Recreational fishing in non-tidal waters is a popular outdoor recreational activity in

Maryland, with an estimated 227,000 anglers taking over 2.5 million fishing trips and

spending nearly $400 million on trips and equipment in 2011 (USDOI, 2013). Popular

fish species targeted by Maryland non-tidal anglers include largemouth bass, smallmouth

bass, trout, catfish, and a variety of panfish species (e.g., sunfish, bluegill, crappie,

perch), with the non-tidal portion of the Potomac River being among the most popular

non-tidal fishing areas (Rivers, 2004). To better manage the Maryland recreational

fisheries, up-to-date information is needed on angler participation, preferences and

expenditures. Further, to better understand how segments of anglers differ with respect to

non-tidal recreational fishing, such information should be examined within the context of

relevant sociodemographic information (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, income and

education). This is particularly true for trout fishing and trout management in Maryland,

which is intensively managed to both produce desirable fisheries-related outcomes for a

diverse set of anglers and to achieve preferred conservation outcomes.

Objectives

The objective of this project was to collect and analyze data on Maryland non-tidal

anglers to aid with development of management decisions and achieve superior fisheries

outcomes which benefit Maryland recreational anglers. Below are the key components of

the survey:

Angler Trip Profile

o The objective of this section was to collect and analyze details of specific

fishing trips taken by anglers.

Participation, Effort, and Location

o The objective of this section was to collect and analyze information on

non-tidal fishing effort and participation.

Species Targeted & Fishing Methods Used

o The objective of this section was to collect and analyze information on

species targeted, gear used and fishing methods.

Trout Fishing Section

o The objective of this section was to collect information on trout fishing in

Maryland, with an emphasis on understanding how different fishing site

attributes influence site choice.

General Questions Section

o The objectives of this section were to gather information for:

Angler’s motivation to go fishing.

Individual’s favorite non-tidal fishing location.

A6

Name and location of the favorite fishing area

Demographics

o The objective of this section was to collect information on key non-tidal

angler socio-demographic and socio-economic variables such as age,

gender, race/ethnicity, education, household composition and household

income.

Methods

This project involved the development and implementation of a mixed-mode (internet &

mail) survey of Maryland non-tidal anglers. This mixed-mode internet/mail survey was

conducted according to principles of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007).

Survey Development & Pre-Testing

This survey was developed in conjunction with Maryland Department of Natural

Resource, Fishing and Boating Services. After informal discussions about survey focus

and content, an initial draft of the survey was presented at a meeting with Fishing and

Boating Services on October 21, 2015. To begin the meeting, hard copies of the survey

were handed out and attendees took the survey. Subsequently, a discussion took place

regarding ways to improve survey content, layout and formatting. During the following

months, the hard copy and online survey went through a series of iterations.

In spring 2016, external pretesting of the survey instrument was conducted with a number

of Maryland non-tidal anglers to identify and correct any remaining issues before the

survey invitations were mailed to non-tidal anglers. Fishing and Boating Services

personnel compiled a list of 32 Maryland anglers who might be interested in helping with

survey pretesting. Six of these individuals were affiliated with Trout Unlimited (a

coldwater fisheries conservation organization), six individuals were affiliated with

Maryland Sportfish Advisory Commission (SFAC), and 20 other individuals were not

affiliated with the previous two organizations but had an interest in Maryland non-tidal

fishing. These 32 individuals were contacted by email in a recruitment effort for survey

pretesting. Ultimately, 17 individuals agreed to participate in the hour-long survey

pretesting session. During survey pretesting, screen sharing software was used which

enabled individuals to proceed through the survey online while progress through the

survey was monitored visually by a member of the survey development team from a

remote location. A phone connection was maintained throughout the process to address

immediate comments, questions or concerns an individual might have regarding specific

aspects of the survey instrument. A thorough assessment of respondent comprehension

occurred after the survey was completed. Each individual was asked a series of questions

designed to identify potential issues with survey instrument design or content. Though no

major issues were identified in the pretesting process, helpful comments and suggestions

were received which facilitated the improvement of various aspects of the survey layout

and design.

Population Sampling Procedure

A7

The survey sample (N = 4,285) was drawn from the population of anglers who purchased

a license that permitted the individual to fish in Maryland non-tidal waterways during the

2015 calendar year. Specifically, this included individuals who held at least one of the

following licenses during 2015:

● Resident Annual non-tidal fishing license.

● Resident 7-day non-tidal fishing license.

● Non-Resident Annual non-tidal fishing license.

● Non-resident 3-day non-tidal fishing license.

● Non-resident 7-day non-tidal fishing license.

● Senior Consolidated fishing license.

Ordinarily, the sample would be obtained by randomly selecting individuals from all

individuals holding at least one of the above licenses during 2015. However, in spring

2016, there was a concurrent survey of Maryland trout anglers with a very similar

mailing protocol (process described in “Survey Implementation” that follows this

section). It was determined that given the population size and sample size for each

survey, an independent random sampling procedure for each survey would likely result in

between 100 to 200 individuals receiving both surveys. Those developing and

implementing the surveys believed that the potential of confusing/irritating this number

of individuals with multiple, similar mailings for different surveys were unacceptably

high. To avoid this overlap, the following procedure was employed. First, staff used a

random number generator to construct two sub-populations (N=25,000) from the

population of Maryland non-tidal anglers. Then they used a random number generator to

select from the first sub-population the final sample for this survey (given the sample size

and population criteria listed above). This procedure preserved the desired random

sampling feature while allowing for the construction of two non-overlapping survey

samples.

Survey Implementation

The survey consisted of an initial mailing, followed by up to three additional contacts if

an individual had not responded to the previous mailing. The survey was sub-contracted

to an independent firm for the printing and mailing of contact materials and hard-copy

surveys. The timeline for survey mailings are as follows:

● The first Contact Mailing Date was on March 29, 2016. This contact consisted of

a two-sided 8.5” by 11” document. The front of the document contained

information about the purpose of the survey and a website address to access the

survey online. The back of the document contained answers to common questions

individuals often have about the nature and purpose of such surveys. The mailing

envelope contained the survey logo - an outline of the state of Maryland overlain

with an outline of a trout.

● The second Contact Mailing Date was on April 12, 2016. This contact consisted

of a two-sided 5.5” by 4.25” postcard. The front of the postcard consisted of a

A8

brief request to complete the survey, the survey website address, and a color

image of the survey logo. The back of the postcard contained information about

the survey and contact information.

● The third Contact Mailing Date was on April 26, 2016. This contact consisted of a

two-sided 8.5” by 5” postcard. The front of the postcard consisted of a brief

request to complete the survey, the survey website address, and a color image of

the survey logo. The back of the postcard contained information about the survey

and contact information.

● The fourth Contact Mailing Date was on May 19, 2016. This contact contained a

two-sided 8.5” by 11” document that reminded individuals about the survey and

contained a website address to access the survey. This contact also contained a 12

-page survey consisting of three 17” by 11” pages folded over to create a booklet.

The page containing the front and back of the survey was of slightly heavier

weight forming a survey cover. Finally, this wave contained a 9” by 12” business

reply mail envelope. These materials were mailed in a 9” by 12” envelope which

contained the same image and text as the first outgoing envelope.

To reduce undeliverable mail, the sub-contractor cross-checked the individuals’ mailing

addresses with the National Change of Address list (NCOA). A total of 179 individuals

were dropped from the sample as a result of this process. Throughout the mailing process,

277 addresses were returned as undeliverable. To calculate the effective response rate, the

179 individuals from the NCOA process and 277 undeliverable addresses were removed

from the sample, yielding an effective sample size of 3,829.

The internet nature of the survey, combined with the uncertainty associated with the date

that a respondent received a mailing, complicates calculating the precise survey response

by wave. However, we provide an estimate of response rate by mailing below and in

Table 1.

● First Wave Response – 215 internet surveys.

● Second Wave Response – 134 internet surveys.

● Third Wave Response – 158 internet surveys.

● Fourth Wave Response – 404 valid mail surveys and 51 internet surveys.

Below is the equation for the effective response rate.

𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦𝑠+𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦𝑠

𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑈𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠−𝑁𝐶𝑂𝐴 𝐷𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑠

=558 + 404

4285 − 179 − 277= 25.1%

Survey Content

1) Angler Trip Profile

A9

Individuals were asked to think back to a specific fishing trip during a specific

season, and then proceed to answer survey questions on that page while thinking

about that trip. Key questions included:

● Name and location of waterbody.

● Number of people on trip.

● Number of nights away from home.

● Fishing methods used and species targeted.

● Angler satisfaction with catch and environmental quality.

● Trip expenditures.

Answers to these questions provided information on angler expenditures on

nontidal fishing trips, angler satisfaction with the fishing experience at key

locations and other important issues.

2) Participation, Effort, and Location

Individuals were asked to list the three rivers/streams and the three

lakes/ponds/reservoirs they fished most during 2015, and then proceed to list the

number of trips and species targeted at each location. Answers to these questions

will provide information on the frequency and location of fishing trips, the

proportion of trips taken to fish for different species and other key metrics

regarding fishing effort and participation.

3) Species Targeted & Fishing Methods Used

Individuals were asked to check all fishing types and methods (e.g., Natural Bait,

Fly Fishing, Ice Fishing) they used to fish for each nontidal fish species during

2015. Answers to these questions will allow the estimation of the proportion of

the non-tidal angler population that targets each species and the fishing methods

used to target those species.

4) Trout Fishing Section

Individuals were first asked how many trips they took to fish for trout during the

2015 season, and then asked Likert-Scale questions (i.e., Strongly Agree/Strongly

Disagree with a range of options between the two extremes) regarding the

influence of fishing site attributes (e.g., distance from home, regulations, catch

rate) on fishing site choice.

This survey also included a stated preference choice experiment of trout angler

fishing site choice to better understand angler preferences for aspects of the trout

fishing experience. The stated preference choice experiment approach (Kanninen,

2007) is a survey-based approach that, when employed within a trout fishing site

choice context, allows for the identification of angler preferences for fishing site

attributes and angler willingness to pay for changes in the level of these attributes.

A10

In determining which potential fishing site attributes should be included in the

fishing site choice scenarios, staff considered attributes that were believed to

influence angler site selection and also have management relevance (i.e., be under

manager’s influence or control). Ultimately, staff identified seven attributes for

inclusion in the choice scenarios. These site attribute levels vary both within and

across surveys, and include: Distance (driving distance to fishing site), Type of

Waterbody (River/Stream or Lake/Pond), Large Fish Potential (probability of

catching “trophy-sized” fish), Catch Rate (expected hourly catch rate), Species

(type of trout species available), Harvest Regulation and Gear Regulation (Table

2).

To examine angler preferences for trout fishing site attributes, staff constructed

choice scenarios that consisted of hypothetical trout fishing sites defined by these

attributes. Each survey contained four of these choice scenarios. The attribute

levels varied both within surveys (i.e., each individual saw four unique choice

scenarios with fishing sites that differed by attribute levels) and across surveys

(there were 84 survey versions, with each survey having four unique choice

scenarios). Hence, in total, there were 336 unique choice scenarios. This very

large number of unique choice scenarios enables the identification of the

probabilistic effect site attribute levels have on angler fishing site choice and also

enables the calculation of angler willingness-to-pay for site quality

improvements.1

These 336 unique choice scenarios were constructed using

NGene choice software. This enables the construction of choice scenarios that

will yield the greatest possible tradeoff information. Bayesian priors were

developed through a review of the literature and used to avoid “dominated”

choice scenarios that would likely yield little attribute level trade-off information.

For example, a fishing site with low catch rate and far from someone’s residence

would (in theory, and all else equal) be “dominated” by a fishing site with high

catch rate and close to home. The Bayesian priors help avoid dominated choice

scenarios and ensure that as much trade-off information as possible is extracted

from each choice scenario.

1 Mean willingness-to-pay – a tradeoff measure revealing the maximum amount the average individual

would be willing to pay (in monetary terms) to receive a specified fishing site quality change - is calculated

as the ratio of model-estimated site quality attribute parameters and the model-estimated travel cost

parameter. In the random utility model to be estimated, the distance attribute (i.e., distance to fishing site) is

converted to round-trip travel costs. This allows the estimation of individual willingness-to-pay for changes

in fishing site attributes. In random utility models of recreation demand, travel costs are assumed to be a

function of vehicle operating costs and the opportunity cost of an individual’s time (Parsons, 2003).

Vehicle operating costs are calculated by multiplying the round-trip miles to a fishing site by the 2016

average per-mile driving cost (gas, maintenance, tires, depreciation) as calculated by the American

Automobile Association. The opportunity cost of an individual’s time is calculated by multiplying a

household’s hourly wage rate (determined either through survey responses or U.S. census estimates if

survey response to income question is not available) by the number of round-trip travel hours necessary to

visit a fishing site (determined assuming average travel rate of 40 miles per hour) by one-third. In random

utility models, the opportunity cost of time is assumed to be a percentage of an individual’s wage rate wage

rate, generally between 0 percent and 100 percent of wage rate. Staff chose 1/3 of wage rate, as is common

in the recreation demand literature (Parsons, 2003).

A11

The behavioral theory underlying the stated preference discrete choice experiment

approach, known as Random Utility Theory, was developed by McFadden (1974).

Haab and McConnell (2002) provide a complete description of this theory, along

with econometric estimation and the method of calculating willingness-to-pay

measures presented within this report. The theory suggests that the utility of an

alternative (in this case, a fishing site), is a function of the attributes of the

alternative. Parameters (weights) associated with each attribute are often

estimated using statistical regression models known as logit models. The

conditional logit model (McFadden, 1974) has long been used to examine

consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for changes in outdoor recreation

amenities. The mixed logit model (see Train, 2009 for a description) is becoming

increasingly popular as it enables the practitioner to understand how preferences

for alternative attributes vary throughout the population. This is important for

attributes such as fishing regulations, as anglers may differ substantially with

respect to how regulations may affect fishing site choice.

5) General Questions Section

First, individuals were asked Likert-Scale questions regarding whether changing

various aspects of the fishing experience would result in the individual going

fishing more often. Second, individuals were asked “Yes” or “No” questions

regarding statements about their favorite nontidal fishing area. Finally,

individuals were asked to list the name of the waterbody and county that

constitutes their favorite nontidal fishing area. Answers to these questions will

provide important insights into the factors influencing fishing effort, an important

issue in fisheries management given stagnating or declining fishing participation

and license sales in many areas. Further, the question with respect to an angler’s

favorite fishing location was asked in the Rivers 2002 survey, and thus will allow

comparison across 13 years to examine changes in fishing motivations at an

angler’s favorite fishing area.

6) Demographics

This section collected information on key non-tidal angler socio-demographic and

socio-economic variables such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, education,

household composition and household income. Answers to these questions will

allow for the examination of whether and to what extent angler participation,

preferences, and motivations vary across different segments of the population.

This will allow fisheries managers to develop fisheries management strategies that

are responsive to the needs of many different types of anglers.

A12

Results and Discussion

A list of all questions and data collected from the survey can be found in Appendix A. An

example of a survey that was mailed to is available in Appendix B.

Preferred fishing areas

A primary objective of this survey was to explore angler preferences for different fishing

areas. Specifically, the survey asked anglers to record the number of fishing trips they

took to their three most-visited Maryland nontidal river/stream fishing areas, and their

three most visited Maryland lake/pond reservoir fishing areas. The Potomac River was

the most popular fishing area in terms of both the proportion of anglers who reported

taking at least one trip to this river, and the total number of reported trips to this fishing

site. Nearly ⅓ of anglers reporting fishing in a Maryland nontidal river/stream during

2015 took a trip to fish in the Potomac River, with a total of 1,304 trips reported by

respondents. The next most popular nontidal fishing location, Deep Creek Lake in Garrett

County, was visited by about 19 percent of lake/pond/reservoir anglers with a total of 476

trips reported. While the Potomac River and Deep Creek Lake were the most frequently

visited fishing locations in Maryland, survey findings indicated that anglers fish a wide

variety of Maryland waterways. There were a total of 19 rivers/streams and 16

lakes/ponds/reservoirs named by 10 or more anglers as destinations for at least one

fishing trip in 2015. Further, there were a total of 21 rivers/streams and 19

lakes/ponds/reservoirs for which there were at least 50 trips reported by survey

respondents. Angling effort was relatively equally distributed across lakes and streams,

with 508 survey respondents reporting that they took at least one fishing trip to a

lake/pond/reservoir, and 444 respondents reporting that they took at least one fishing trip

to a non-tidal river/stream.

To estimate the total number of nontidal fishing trips taken to rivers/streams and

lakes/ponds/ reservoirs, multiply the total number of fishing trips taken to the

rivers/streams and lakes/ponds/ reservoirs by the ratio of unique license holders to survey

respondents. The equation is as follows:

2015 Non-tidal River/Stream Maryland Fishing Trips = (Total river/stream trips

taken by survey respondents * (unique license holders /survey respondents) =

8898 * (174,853/962) = 1,617,299 trips

Using the same approach to estimate fishing trips to Lakes/Ponds/Reservoirs during

2015, the estimate showed that there were a total of 974,051 trips to these waterbodies.

The total estimated fishing trips to Maryland non-tidal waterways in 2015 was 2,591,350.

Geographically by county, the majority of nontidal angling effort occurs in counties west

of the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay. In terms of visitation by unique individuals,

Garrett County was the most popular, with about 18 percent of survey respondents

reporting at least one nontidal fishing trip to a waterway in Garrett County. Given that

Garrett County has the third smallest population of all Maryland counties, the popularity

A13

of Garrett County as a fishing destination speaks volumes to the appealing nontidal

fishing opportunities available in that part of the state. While Garrett County was visited

by the largest proportion of unique anglers, Baltimore County was second for unique

visits (13.1 percent of anglers) and first for total number of reported trips (1109). That

Baltimore County is second in terms of unique visits but first in total trips is likely due to

fishing sites being in close proximity to the heavily populated Baltimore metropolitan

area, allowing for more frequent trips.

Finally, the survey asked individuals to identify their favorite nontidal waterway and to

answer an assortment of follow up questions related to their fishing experiences at that

waterway. Survey results found that there are a wide variety of nontidal waterways

favored by Maryland nontidal anglers. The Potomac River was identified as the favorite

waterway by about 11 percent of anglers, closely followed by Deep Creek Lake at 9.5

percent. Gunpowder Falls and Loch Raven Reservoir were third and fourth, with about 4

percent of anglers identifying these respective waterbodies as their favorite waterbody.

Note: In angler responses, one area was referred to in numerous ways which proved to be

synonymous. Gunpowder Falls in Baltimore County was referred to as Gunpowder Falls,

Gunpowder and Gunpowder River. While there is a Gunpowder River, it is located in the

tidal portion of the Chesapeake Bay. In checking the surveys and correlating location and

targeted fish species, it became clear that all these various named locations were, in fact,

Gunpowder Falls.

Time/Seasonal Preferences

The survey asked anglers to list the number of trips they took during each season during

the 2015 calendar year, with seasons defined as Winter 2015 (January, February, March),

Spring 2015 (April, May, June), Summer 2015 (July, August, September), and Fall

(October, November, December). Across all seasons during 2015, 700 anglers reported

taking a total of 8,898 fishing trips in Maryland nontidal rivers/streams, for an average of

12.7 trips per angler. Across all 2015 seasons, 700 anglers reported taking a total of 5,359

fishing trips in Maryland lakes/ponds/reservoirs, for an average of 7.7 trips per angler

during 2015. Spring and summer were the most popular seasons in terms of total fishing

trips, comprising 34 percent and 39 percent of total fishing trips, respectively. Still, non-

tidal angler trips were distributed over the fall and winter seasons as well, with about 18

percent of reported trips occurring in fall and 9 percent of trips occurring in winter. The

seasonal distribution of Maryland nontidal fishing trips for Maryland

lakes/ponds/reservoirs was similar to these participation figures. The majority of trips

occurred in summer (39 percent), followed closely by spring (35 percent), then fall (18

percent) and winter (9 percent).

In the bullet points below, additional information is provided on how aspects of nontidal

fishing experiences vary across season in Maryland.

Waterbody Fished - For each of the four seasons, Deep Creek Lake and

Potomac River fishing trips were most frequently identified when anglers

A14

were asked to think about their most recent fishing trip during a specific

season. The Gunpowder Falls was either third or fourth most identified during

the fall, winter and spring seasons. The reason that the Gunpowder Falls is not

as frequently identified during the summer season may be due to the fact that

it is a highly used, multi-recreational location. The Gunpowder Falls runs

between two water supply reservoirs for Baltimore City and is widely

contained within a large linear state park. In the summer months, the river is a

destination for swimmers, tubers, kayaks, canoes, hikers, summer camps and

picnicking. Since this survey has shown many anglers prefer more secluded

locations, they may skip the Gunpowder Falls during the heavy use summer

months.

City/Town - For three of the four seasons (winter, spring, summer), McHenry

was the most often visited city/town. Other popular cities/town visited for

fishing trips for each of the four seasons include Oakland, Cumberland, and

Frederick. Notably, McHenry, Oakland, and Cumberland are all located in

Western Maryland, a two to three hour drive from major population centers

Baltimore and Washington D.C.

People on trips and nights away from home - Survey results indicated that

people are more likely to go on solo nontidal fishing trips during winter (33

percent of trips were solo trips) and fall (35 percent), versus spring (28

percent) and summer (23 percent). Nontidal fishing trips involving three or

more people were most often taken in spring (33 percent) and summer (37

percent), versus fall (20 percent) and winter (20 percent). Seasonal differences

were also evident with respect to the number of nights spent away from home

on the reported fishing trip. The day-trip (i.e., zero nights away from home)

was the predominant fishing trip for all seasons; about 23 percent of summer

nontidal fishing trips were reported to be overnight trips. This is followed by

spring (16 percent), fall (12 percent) and winter (6 percent).

Fishing Methods - Survey results found that natural bait was more frequently

used in summer (64 percent of trips involved the use natural bait). Spring was

next highest at 55 percent, followed by fall at 43 percent. Fly fishing is least-

often used during the summer months, with less than 10 percent of reported

trips involving this method. Using watercraft while fishing, either with or

without a motor, was least popular during the winter season. About ¼ of

reported summer and fall fishing trips involved the use of a motorized vessel.

Species Targeted - For the fish species category “Bass” (which includes

individuals who specifically listed largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, or

another type of bass), anglers were less likely to pursue this species on winter

fishing trips (33 percent), and most likely to pursue bass on summer (48

percent) and fall (51 percent) fishing trips. There were notable differences

among anglers who stated that they fished for some type of trout. Nontidal

A15

fishing trips during the winter and spring months had the highest proportion of

anglers fishing for trout, with 41 percent of winter fishing trips and 33 percent

of spring fishing trips involving the pursuit of trout. Comparatively, only 13

percent of summer fishing trips involved the targeting of trout.

Fishing trip purpose and experience - The primary difference in this category

of questions was whether fishing was the primary reason for taking a trip to

the area referenced. While a large majority of anglers reported that fishing

was the primary purpose in all seasons, the percentage was particularly high

during cooler weather months. For winter fishing trips, 91 percent of anglers

reported fishing as their primary purpose, with a fall percentage of 93 percent

and a spring percentage of 87 percent. In contrast, about 75 percent of anglers

reported that summer fishing trips had fishing as a primary purpose.

Fishing trip expenditures - Mean per-trip fishing expenditures was notably

different across seasons, with mean per-trip expenditures highest in summer

($236.72) and lowest in winter ($57.53). Spring mean per-trip expenditures

($122.01) and fall mean per-trip expenditures ($100.47) were similar. Summer

mean per-trip expenditures were influenced by more expensive multi-day

trips. The median trip expenditures were relatively similar across seasons,

with the median expenditure of spring and summer fishing trips being $40,

whereas for winter it was $30 and for spring it was $31.

Total Fishing Trip Expenditures

For surveys not implemented at regular time intervals throughout the year, it can be

difficult to obtain an estimate of total annual angler trip expenditures. Asking anglers to

provide an estimate of their average, per-trip expenditure during the year presents recall

and computational challenges for these anglers, given the potential for multiple fishing

trips to different locations. Asking anglers about expenditures on the most recent fishing

trip likely reduces angler recall error, but presents challenges to survey researchers with

respect to estimating total seasonal expenditures given the clustering of reported trip

expenditures in proximity to the time the survey was distributed. For example, as all

survey mailings (i.e., initial contacts and follow up contacts) for this survey were mailed

to households between March 29 and May 19, surveys arriving during the spring fishing

season would very likely result in an over-representation of trout fishing trips (and

possibly other types of fishing as well) and would potentially bias seasonal expenditure

estimates (to the extent that fishing trips during this time period are correlated with

different trip expenditure patterns). To best mitigate this potential bias, four different

survey designs were constructed to obtain trip details and expenditures throughout the

year. These four survey designs each contained questions that asked anglers to indicate

which seasons they fished in a Maryland nontidal waterway, with the ordering of these

four seasons varying in four different ways. Through an automated process on the online

survey and through explicit instructions on the hard copy mail survey, survey respondents

were instructed to think back to the first nontidal fishing trip they took during a specific

season. This process enabled the calculation of seasons-specific mean per-trip

A16

expenditures estimates. These estimates can then be applied to season-specific trips, and

ultimately produce total expenditure estimates during the 2015 calendar year.

2015 Non-tidal Fishing Expenditures = [(Mean winter per-trip expenditures * # of

winter trips + Mean spring per-trip expenditures * # of spring trips + Mean

summer per-trip expenditures * # of summer fishing trips + Mean fall per-trip

expenditures * # of fall fishing trips) * (sample population /survey respondents)

2015 Non-tidal Fishing Expenditures =

($57.53 * 1251 + $122.01 * 4983 + $236.72 * 5491 + $100.47 * 2532) *

(174,853/962) = $406,081,551

Fish Species Preferences & Angling Methods Used

For this section, reported percentages were calculated using only anglers who reported at

least one targeted species and fishing method in 2015. Largemouth bass was the most

popular fish species targeted, with about 2/3 of anglers reporting fishing for largemouth

bass at least once during this calendar year. Smallmouth bass was second, with close to 3

out of 5 anglers fishing for smallmouth bass at least once during 2015. Panfish species

were also popular, with about one-half of anglers targeting bluegill/sunfish at least once,

just over one-third of anglers targeting crappie, and over one-quarter of anglers targeting

yellow perch in nontidal waterways during the 2015 fishing season. Trout fishing was

also popular, with just under 40 percent of anglers reporting fishing for stocked trout

during the 2015 fishing season. Despite more limited geographic range of wild brown

trout and wild brook trout, 17 percent and 18 percent of anglers reported pursing these

species during 2015.

The survey revealed that Maryland nontidal anglers use a variety of fishing methods to

target fish species. Artificial lures was the most popular type of fishing, with about four

out of five anglers using lures to target fish species in nontidal waterways during 2015.

Natural bait was also a popular fishing method, with nearly two out of three anglers

reporting that they used natural bait during 2015. Despite being method requiring

specialized gear and some know-how, fly fishing was used by nearly 20 percent of

anglers. The majority of anglers (about 3/5) fished from shore or while wading. Boat use

was still popular with about 1/3 anglers reporting fishing from a motorized boat in a

nontidal waterway, while about one out of six anglers reported fishing from a non-

motorized vessel.

Types of fishing and fishing methods employed varied considerably across species. Of

anglers fishing for largemouth and smallmouth bass, between 84 percent and 87 percent

reported using artificial lures to target these species, whereas less than 50 percent of

people targeting these species reported using natural bait. Natural bait was most often

used to target channel and flathead catfish (88 percent each), white and yellow perch (79

percent each), and bluegill/sunfish (71 percent). Fly fishing was used by 48 percent and

49 percent of anglers targeting wild brown trout and wild brook trout, respectively. About

28 percent of anglers targeting stocked trout reported using fly fishing method. Roughly

A17

one out of 10 anglers targeting largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, carp, shad, and

bluegill/sunfish reported using the fly fishing method to target these species.

Trout Angler Participation, Effort, and Preferences

This survey contained a section specifically designed to elicit participation, effort, and

preference information from those anglers who fish for trout. To identify these anglers,

the survey asked individuals whether they had fished for trout in Maryland in the

previous 10 years. About 46 percent of angler responded “Yes” to this question, and were

instructed to proceed through the trout fishing portion of the survey. Anglers responding

“No” were directed past the trout fishing questions. Trout anglers reported taking an

average of 6.8 trout fishing trips during the 2015 calendar year, with a median number of

three trout fishing trips. In this section, anglers were presented with color images of the

three major trout species pursued in Maryland, along with typical catch sizes and trophy

criteria for each species (developed in consultation with state fisheries biologists). Trout

anglers generally agreed (74 percent agreed or strongly agreed) that most trout they catch

are within the typical sizes described. The survey did find that relatively few anglers were

catching trophy sized trout, with only 18 percent of anglers stating that they catch a trout

that fits the trophy criteria in most seasons.

The following 12 Likert-Scale questions asked anglers to indicate the extent to which

they agreed or disagreed with statements on how aspects of trout fishing sites affect their

decision on where to fish. Environmental quality, the opportunity to catch many fish, and

seeing few or no other people were particularly influential fishing site characteristics,

with 73 percent, 65 percent, and 70 percent (respectively) agreeing or strongly agreeing

with statements probing the importance of these characteristics. With respect to the

potential impact of regulations on angler site choice, several questions examined the

importance of allowable gear and harvest levels. About 28 percent of trout anglers

indicated that they prefer to fish in areas where catch-and-release is required. About 45

percent of anglers stated that the ability to harvest trout is important, and 28 percent of

anglers prefer to use natural bait when fishing for trout.

Impediments to Angler Participation

The survey asked anglers to indicate whether different factors influence how often they

go fishing in nontidal waterways. The lack of leisure time was clearly the most

substantial impediment to fishing more often in nontidal waterways, with about three out

of five anglers either agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement. Other important

characteristics and factors constraining how often they went fishing included “...if I was

able to catch more fish” (55 percent agreed or strong agreed), “...if access to fishing sites

was better” (55 percent), “...if I knew when and where to fish” (55 percent), and “...if I

was able to catch larger fish” (50 percent). Relatively speaking, regulations (25 percent),

cost of fishing (29 percent) and having somebody to go with (35 percent) were less

important. In general, results from this section suggest that anglers’ fishing frequency is

influenced by a number of factors, with many under some level of management influence

and control (e.g., more fish, larger fish, better access).

A18

Behaviors and Motivations at Favorite Non-Tidal Fishing Area

Anglers were asked to respond to “Yes / No” - style questions about factors, behaviors

and motivations regarding their favorite fishing location. In order to examine potential

changes over the past 15 years in Maryland, this question was an exact replica of a

question asked in a 2002 survey (Rivers, 2004). Generally speaking, 2016 survey results

were comparable to results from the 2002 survey, with the exception of the factor “I go

there because I always catch something”. Answers from the 2002 survey showed 81

percent answered “Yes”, but the 2016 survey showed the number of affirmative

responses had reduced to 54 percent. In this survey, about 57 percent of people reported

releasing all fish they caught at their favorite waterway, a slight increase from 2002 (54

percent). At the same time, about 22 percent reported that they “prefer to leave with a

stringer full of fish” (17 percent in 2002 survey). This implies that only about one out of

five anglers have harvest preferences that lie between “release everything” and “keep

everything up to the limit” when it comes to their favorite fishing area. About 22 percent

of people responded “No” to the prompt “I fish for sport and pleasure rather than food”.

This is a slight uptick from 2002 and suggests a small portion of the angling public is

fishing primarily to obtain something to eat, and not for recreation. The series of

behavioral and motivation questions about an individual's favorite waterway was

followed up by a prompt for the individual to name the waterbody and the county where

the waterbody is located when responding to these questions. Potomac River and Deep

Creek Lake were most often named by respondents (11.3 percent and 9.5 percent,

respectively) followed by Gunpowder River and Loch Raven Reservoir (each 3.7

percent). The county most often named was Garrett county (16 percent) followed by

Baltimore (14 percent) and Washington (11.5 percent).

Recommendations

Based on the results described in the previous pages, the following recommendations are

proposed:

The age structure of anglers in this survey indicates that younger people under the

age of 35 are not pursuing angling.

o Programs should be developed to target this demographic.

o Youth programs need to be increased to educate children on the sport of

fishing.

Future programs should be developed to teach minority groups about angling.

These groups include females and ethnic minorities. The largest minority

identified in the survey was females at roughly 87 percent, followed by African

Americans (6.7 percent) and Hispanic/Latino peoples (2.2 percent).

Rivers and streams are the most popular class of nontidal fishing areas.

o Care must be taken to protect the fish species in those areas.

Get information to local municipalities on the worth and economic

value of these opportunities for citizens to the local community.

o Conduct outreach to permitting agencies to increase awareness of the

economic value of recreational river and stream fisheries when drafting

protective permit conditions.

A19

o Access to these areas must be improved where possible.

o The Potomac River was the most popular fishing river so protection and

sound management of fish species there, particularly black bass species is

the key to meeting angler expectations.

Impoundments

o The most popular impoundment was Deep Creek Lake, a multi-use

recreational area.

Apply sound management strategies to fish species in the lake.

Work with Park Service and local citizen groups to protect water

quality and prevent invasive fish and plant species from impacting

the lake and resident species.

o Fishery managers should increase data collection and management

strategies to improve panfish/crappie fisheries.

Non-consumptive fisheries (limited harvest, catch and return only) were not

popular with anglers. These management strategies were put in place to preserve

the fisheries in given locales.

o Fishery biologists must do a better job at educating the public about the

necessity of this management in certain areas to improve catch and size of

fish, both identified as desired attributes for angler participation.

o Consumptive opportunities must be equally available.

Anglers provide economic benefit to the local economy of communities that

surround popular fishing areas.

o Get information to local municipalities on the worth of these opportunities

to the local community.

o Partner with local municipalities to protect resources by sharing resource

information and working to have best management practices applied to

any projects that might impact the aquatic resources and associated fish

populations.

Trout

o Stocking remains popular, so hatchery production remains an important

facet of fishery management.

o Many trout fisheries in the state contain native or wild populations and are

a source of enjoyment for many anglers, so these areas need to be

preserved and protected.

A20

Table 1. Summary of trout angler survey response and disposition.

Initial Sample Size 4,285

NCOA Drops 179

Returned Undeliverable 277

Total Responses 962

Wave 1 Responses (internet survey) 215

Wave 2 Responses (internet survey) 134

Wave 3 Responses (internet survey) 158

Wave 4 Responses (mail and internet survey) 455

Wave 4 Mail Survey 404

Wave 4 Internet Survey 51

Total Responses 962

Table 2. Trout fishing attribute variables selected for inclusion in the choice scenarios. Trout fishing site attribute

variables

Fishing site attribute variable

definition

Attribute levels

Distance2

One-way distance from

individual’s residence (in miles) 10; 20; 35; 50; 75; 125

Waterbody Type of Waterbody River/Stream; Lake/Pond

Catch rate Typical number of trout caught

per hour of fishing 0.25; 0.5; 1; 1.33; 2; 4

Trophy catch Probability of catching a trophy-

sized trout during the fishing trip 0.0; 0.1; 0.2; 0.5

Harvest restrictions

Number of trout that may be

legally harvested from the

fishing site

Catch & Release Only ; Limit 2;

Limit 5

Gear restrictions

Restrictions on type of fishing

gear that may be used at a

fishing site

No Restrictions (natural bait

allowed); Artificial Lures and

Flies only; Artificial Flies only 2In the random utility model to be estimated, distance to fishing site will be converted to travel costs. This

allows the estimation of individual willingness-to-pay for changes in fishing site attributes. In random

utility models of recreation demand, travel costs are assumed to be a function of vehicle operating costs and

the opportunity cost of an individual’s time (Parsons 2003). Vehicle operating costs are calculated by

multiplying the round-trip miles to a fishing site by the 2016 average per-mile driving cost (gas,

maintenance, tires, depreciation) as calculated by the American Automobile Association. The opportunity

cost of an individual’s time is calculated by multiplying a household’s hourly wage rate (determined either

through survey responses or U.S. census estimates if survey response to income question is not available)

by the number of round-trip travel hours necessary to visit a fishing site (determined assuming average

travel rate of 40 miles per hour) by one-third. In random utility models, the opportunity cost of time is

assumed to be a percentage of an individual’s wage rate wage rate, generally between 0 percent and 100

percent of wage rate. Staff chose 1/3 of wage rate, as is common in the scientific literature (Parsons 2003).

A21

Appendix A. Survey question responses.

Recreational Fishing in Maryland Questions

1. Did you go fishing in Maryland in 2015?

A. Yes

B. No

Did you go fishing in

Maryland in 2015? Question responses (%)

Yes 860 (91.5)

No 80 (8.5)

TOTAL 940

2. How many fishing trips did you take in Maryland in 2015?

A. 1-5

B. 6-10

C. 11-15

D. 16-20

E. More than 20

# of fishing trips Question responses

(%)

1-5 333 (38.1)

6-10 182 (20.9)

11-15 93 (10.7)

16-20 77 (8.8)

> 20 188 (21.5)

TOTAL 873

A22

3. Where did you fish in Maryland during 2015?

A. Both nontidal waterways & tidal waterways

B. Nontidal waterways only

C. Tidal waterways only

Waterways fished Question responses (%)

Both Nontidal & tidal waterways 343 (39.3)

Nontidal waterways only 395 (45.3)

Tidal waterways only 134 (15.4)

Total 872

Maryland Non-Tidal Fishing Trip Questions

4. During which seasons did you fish in Maryland nontidal waterways? (check all

that apply) Summer 2015 (July 2015 – September 2015)

Fall 2015 (October 2015 - December 2015)

Winter 2015 (January 2015 – March 2015)

Spring 2015 (April 2015 – June 2015)

Did you fish?* Winter 2015 Spring 2015 Summer 2015 Fall 2015

Yes 155 (21.3%) 513 (70.5%) 527 (72.4%) 296 (59.3%)

No 573 (78.7%) 215 (29.5%) 201 (27.6%) 432 (40.7%)

Total 728 728 728 728

*Results include only individuals reporting fishing in Maryland nontidal waterways in 2015.

A23

5. During which month was this fishing trip?

With the anglers keeping in mind what season they checked first on the survey (See

Appendix A), they were asked what month they take their first fishing trip.

Number of fishing trips per month

Season Month # of fishing trips (%

for season)

Responses

per season

Winter

January 22 (27.9)

79 February 12 (15.2)

March 45 (57)

Spring

April 134 (49.3)

272 May 85 (31.3)

June 53 (19.5)

Summer

July 117 (65)

180 August 42 (23.3)

September 21 (11.7)

Fall

October 53 (86.9)

61 November 5 (8.2)

December 3 (4.9)

6. Name of the waterbody and nearest city/town where you fished. Note: areas that were mentioned only once were compiled to reduce the list of areas reported.

Waterbody fished winter 2015

Waterbody fished Question

responses (%)

Waterbody fished Question

responses (%)

Deep Creek Lake 8 (10.3) Evitts Creek 2 (2.6)

Potomac River 5 (6.4) Jennings Run 2 (2.6)

Gunpowder Falls 4 (5.1) Little Falls 2 (2.6)

Conowingo Reservoir 3 (3.8) Patapsco River 2 (2.6)

Middle Creek 3 (3.8) Savage River 2 (2.6)

Blair’s Valley Lake 2 (2.6) Tuckahoe Creek 2 (2.6)

Deer Creek 2 (2.6) 38 areas received one mention (1.3% each)

Total Question Responses 78

A24

Waterbody fished spring 2015

Waterbody fished Question

responses (%)

Waterbody fished Question

responses (%)

Potomac River 34 (13.3) Little Falls 3 (1.2)

Deep Creek Lake 21 (8.2) MLK Jr. Pond 3 (1.2)

Gunpowder Falls 11 (4.3) Monocacy River 3 (1.2)

Loch Raven Reservoir 8 (3.1) Morgan Run 3 (1.2)

Liberty Reservoir 7 (2.7) Stream 3 (1.2)

Pond 7 (2.7) Wills Creek 3 (1.2)

Chesapeake Bay 6 (2.3) Youghiogheny River 3 (1.2)

Bear Creek 5 (2) Antietam Creek 2 (0.8)

Patuxent River 5 (2) Black Hills Regional Park 2 (0.8)

Beaver Creek 4 (1.6) Centennial Lake 2 (0.8)

Jennings Run 4 (1.6) Greenbrier Lake 2 (0.8)

Patapsco River 4 (1.6) Lake Habeeb 2 (0.8)

Savage River 4 (1.6) Lake Roland 2 (0.8)

15 Mile Creek 3 (1.2) Northeast River 2 (0.8)

Blair’s Valley Lake 3 (1.2) Piney Run 2 (0.8)

Casselman River 3 (1.2) Piney Run Reservoir 2 (0.8)

Choptank River 3 (1.2) Pocomoke River 2 (0.8)

Conowingo Reservoir 3 (1.2) Prettyboy Reservoir 2(0.8)

Deer Creek 3 (1.2) Susquehanna River 2 (0.8)

Lake Needwood 3 (1.2) Triadelphia Reservoir 2 (0.8)

Total Question

Responses 256

68 areas received one mention (0.4% each)

Waterbody fished summer 2015

Waterbody fished Question responses

(%)

Waterbody fished Question

responses (%)

Deep Creek Lake 26 (15.7) Prettyboy Reservoir 3 (1.8)

Potomac River 25 (15.1) Beaver Creek 2 (1.2)

Monocacy River 5 (3) Greenbrier Lake 2 (1.2)

North Branch Potomac

River

4 (2.4) Gunpowder Falls 2 (1.2)

Pond 4 (2.4) Hutchins Pond 2 (1.2)

Chesapeake Bay 3 (1.8) Patapsco River 2 (1.2)

Conowingo Reservoir 3 (1.8) Patuxent River 2 (1.2)

Lake Habeeb 3 (1.8) Piney Run Reservoir 2 (1.2)

Total question

responses 166

76 areas received one mention (0.6% each)

A25

Waterbody fished fall 2015

Waterbody fished Question responses (%) Waterbody fished Question responses (%)

Potomac River 6 (9.8) Antietam Creek 2 (3.3)

Deep Creek Lake 4 (6.6) Choptank River 2 (3.3)

Loch Raven Reservoir 4 (6.6) Lake Waterford 2 (3.3)

Gunpowder Falls 3 (4.9) Monocacy River 2 (3.3)

Liberty Reservoir 3 (4.9) Patuxent River 2 (3.3)

Susquehanna River 3 (4.9) Piney Run 2 (3.3)

Total Responses 61 26 areas received one mention (1.6% each)

Waterbody fished all seasons*

Waterbody fished Question

responses (%) Waterbody fished

Question

responses (%)

Potomac River 70 (12.5) 15 Mile Creek 3 (0.5)

Deep Creek Lake 59 (10.5) Broadford Lake 3 (0.5)

Liberty Reservoir 22 (3.9) Clopper Lake 3 (0.5)

Gunpowder Falls 20 (3.6) Cunningham Falls Lake 3 (0.5)

Loch Raven Reservoir 18 (3.2) Lake Habeeb 3 (0.5)

Chesapeake Bay 11 (2.0) Little Patuxent River 3 (0.5)

Pond 11 (2.0) ML King Jr. Pond 3 (0.5)

Conowingo Reservoir 10 (1.8) Morgan Run 3 (0.5)

Monocacy River 10 (1.8) Rocky Gap Lake 3 (0.5)

Patuxent River 10 (1.8) APL Pond 2 (0.4)

Patapsco River 9 (1.6) Back River 2 (0.4)

Beaver Creek 8 (1.4) Cash Lake 2 (0.4)

Savage River 8 (1.4) Catoctin Creek 2 (0.4)

Susquehanna River 8 (1.4) Chester River 2 (0.4)

Youghiogheny River 8 (1.4) Evitts Creek 2 (0.4)

North Branch Potomac River 7 (1.3) Hutchins Pond 2 (0.4)

Antietam Creek 6 (1.1) Lake 2 (0.4)

Bear Creek 6 (1.1) Lake Artemesia 2 (0.4)

Choptank River 6 (1.1) Lake Linganore 2 (0.4)

Jennings Run 6 (1.1) Lake Roland 2 (0.4)

Blair’s Valley Lake 5 (0.9) Little Seneca Creek 2 (0.4)

Casselman River 5 (0.9) Marshy Hope Creek 2 (0.4)

Deer Creek 5(0.9) Middle Patuxent River 2 (0.4)

Lake Needwood 5(0.9) Myrtle Grove 2 (0.4)

Lake Waterford 5(0.9) Northeast River 2 (0.4)

Little Falls 5(0.9) Piney Reservoir 2 (0.4)

Piney Run 5 (0.9) Piney Run Lake 2 (0.4)

Prettyboy Reservoir 5 (0.9) Piney Run Reservoir 2 (0.4)

Black Hill Regional Park 4 (0.7) Pocomoke River 2 (0.4)

Centennial Lake 4 (0.7) Private Pond 2 (0.4)

Greenbrier Lake 4 (0.7) Rocky Gorge Reservoir 2 (0.4)

Middle Creek 4 (0.7) Triadelphia Reservoir 2 (0.4)

Seneca Lake 4 (0.7) Tuckahoe 2 (0.4)

Stream 4 (0.7) Unicorn Lake 2 (0.4)

Tuckahoe Creek 4 (0.7) Urieville Pond 2(0.4)

Wills Creek 4 (0.7) 97 areas received one mention (0.2% each)

Total survey responses 561

A26

Nearest city/town

Nearest city - winter 2015

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

McHenry 6 (7.9) Myersville 2 (2.6)

Cumberland 3 (3.9) Oakland 2 (2.6)

Frederick 3 (3.9) Queen Anne's 2 (2.6)

Clear Spring 2 (2.6) 56 towns mentioned

once (1.3% each)

Total question responses 76

Nearest city - spring 2015

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

McHenry 13 (5.1) LaPlata 3 (1.2)

Frederick 8 (3.1) Little Orleans 3 (1.2)

Oakland 8 (3.1) Pocomoke City 3 (1.2)

Bowie 7 (2.7) Swanton 3 (1.2)

Cumberland 7 (2.7) Sykesville 3 (1.2)

Eldersburg 7 (2.7) Westminster 3 (1.2)

Baltimore 6 (2.3) Accident 2 (0.8)

Friendsville 6 (2.3) Bel Air 2 (0.8)

Monkton 6 (2.3) Chesapeake Beach 2 (0.8)

Hagerstown 5 (2) Chestertown 2 (0.8)

Brunswick 4 (1.6) Columbia 2 (0.8)

Dickerson 4 (1.6) Conowingo 2 (0.8)

Germantown 4 (1.6) Corriganville 2 (0.8)

Parkton 4 (1.6) Flintstone 2 (0.8)

Rockville 4 (1.6) North East 2 (0.8)

Thurmont 4 (1.6) Ocean City 2 (0.8)

Towson 4 (1.6) Olney 2 (0.8)

Williamsport 4 (1.6) Point of Rocks 2 (0.8)

Boonsboro 3 (1.2) Rising Sun 2 (0.8)

Clear Spring 3 (1.2) Salisbury 2 (0.8)

Elkton 3 (1.2) Sandy Hook 2 (0.8)

Frostburg 3 (1.2) Sharpsburg 2 (0.8)

Gaithersburg 3 (1.2) White Oak 2 (0.8)

Grantsville 3 (1.2) 81 cities mentioned only once (0.4% each)

Total question responses 256

A27

Nearest city - summer 2015

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

McHenry 16 (9.5) Westernport 3 (1.8)

Eldersburg 5 (3) Williamsport 3 (1.8)

Oakland 5 (3) Annapolis 2 (1.2)

Sykesville 5 (3) Brunswick 2 (1.2)

Clear Spring 4 (2.4) Cockeysville 2 (1.2)

Cumberland 4 (2.4) Columbia 2 (1.2)

Frederick 4 (2.4) Flintstone 2 (1.2)

Hagerstown 4 (2.4) LaPlata 2 (1.2)

Darlington 3 (1.8) Owings 2 (1.2)

Friendsville 3 (1.8) Perry Hall 2 (1.2)

Gaithersburg 3 (1.8) Poolesville 2 (1.2)

Randallstown 3 (1.8) Sharpsburg 2 (1.2)

Rockville 3 (1.8) Swanton 2 (1.2)

Towson 3 (1.8) 75 cities mentioned only once (0.6% each)

Total question responses 168

Nearest city - fall 2015

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

Hagerstown 3 (5.3) Frederick 2 (3.5)

Port Deposit 3 (5.3) Germantown 2 (3.5)

Baltimore 2 (3.5) McHenry 2 (3.5)

Cambridge 2 (3.5) Thurmont 2 (3.5)

Conowingo 2 (3.5) Williamsport 2 (3.5)

Total question

responses 57

35 cities mentioned only once (1.75% each)

Nearest city total – all cities

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

Waterbody city Question responses

(%)

McHenry 37 (6.6) Parkton 7 (1.3)

Frederick 17 (3.1) Rockville 7 (1.3)

Oakland 16 (2.9) Thurmont 7 (1.3)

Cumberland 15 (2.7) Boonsboro 6 (1.1)

Eldersburg 13 (2.3) Brunswick 6 (1.1)

Hagerstown 13 (2.3) Conowingo 6 (1.1)

Baltimore 10 (1.8) Dickerson 6 (1.1)

Williamsport 10 (1.8) Gaithersburg 6 (1.1)

Bowie 9 (1.6) Swanton 6 (1.1)

Clear Spring 9 (1.6) Annapolis 5 (0.9)

Friendsville 9 (1.6) Chestertown 5 (0.9)

Sykesville 9 (1.6) Columbia 5 (0.9)

Monkton 8 (1.4) Darlington 5 (0.9)

Towson 8 (1.4) Grantsville 5 (0.9)

Germantown 7 (1.3) Randallstown 5 (0.9)

La Plata 7 (1.3) Westernport 5 (0.9)

Total responses 557 268 cities mentioned only once (0.2% each)

A28

7. Including you, how many people went on this fishing trip?

Number of People on Fishing Trip Per Season

Number of people Winter 2015

(%)

Spring 2015

(%)

Summer 2015

(%)

Fall 2015 (%) All seasons

(%)

1 26 (32.9) 74 (27.6) 41 (23.3) 21 (35) 162 (27.7)

2 37 (46.9) 106 (39.6) 70 (39.8) 27 (45) 240 (41.2)

3 10 (12.7) 42 (15.7) 35 (19.9) 6 (10) 93 (16.0)

4 5 (6.3) 25 (9.3) 18 (10.2) 4 (6.7) 52 (8.9)

≥5 1 (1.3) 21 (7.9) 12 (6.8) 2 (3.3) 36 (6.2)

Total question

responses

79 268 176 60 583

8. How many nights were you away from home on this trip?

Number of Nights Away from Home Per Season

# Of nights

away

Winter 2015

(%)

Spring 2015

(%)

Summer 2015

(%) Fall 2015 (%)

All seasons

(%)

0 74 (93.7) 223 (84.1) 135 (76.7) 52 (88.1) 484 (83.6)

1 1 (1.3) 5 (1.9) 9 (5.1) 2 (3.4) 17 (2.9)

2 4 (5.1) 18 (6.8) 12 (6.8) 3 (5.1) 37 (6.4)

3 - 9 (3.4) 5 (2.8) 1 (1.7) 15 (2.6)

4 - 3 (1.1) 5 (2.8) 1 (1.7) 9 (1.5)

5 - 4 (1.5) 2 (1.1) - 6 (1.0)

6 - 1 (0.4) 3 (1.7) - 4 (0.7)

7 - 1 (0.4) 4 (2.3) - 5 (0.9)

8 - 1 (0.4) 1 (0.6) - 2 (0.3)

Question

Responses 79 265 176 59 579

A29

9. Which fishing types and methods did you use on this trip? (Check all that apply)

____Natural Bait

____Artificial Lures

____Fly Fishing

____Ice Fishing

____Watercraft (with motor)

____Watercraft (without motor)

____Shore/Wading

Fishing types/methods used per season*

Fishing types/methods Winter 2015

(%)

Spring 2015

(%)

Summer 2015

(%)

Fall 2015

(%)

All Seasons

(%)

Natural bait 39 (49.4) 146 (54.3) 114 (63.7) 26 (43.3) 325 (55.4)

Artificial lures 57 (72.2) 184 (68.4) 124 (69.3) 45 (75) 410 (69.9)

Fly fishing 14 (17.7) 42 (15.6) 17 (9.5) 12 (20) 85 (14.5)

Ice fishing 9 (11.4) 0 0 0 9 (1.5)

Watercraft w/ motor 10 (12.7) 51 (19) 45 (25.1) 16 (26.7) 122 (20.8)

Watercraft w/o motor 4 (5.1) 23 (12.9) 23 (12.9) 6 (10) 56 (9.5)

Shore/wading 39 (49.4) 111 (41.3) 71 (39.7) 25 (41.7) 246 (41.9)

Total question responses 79 269 179 60 587

*There were multiple responses available for each method, so the percentages reported are the fishing

type/method by season divided by total question responses. The percentages do not add up to 100% for

rows or tables.

A30

10. Which fish species did you target on this trip?

Number of times a species was targeted per season*

Species Winter 2015

(%)

Spring 2015

(%)

Summer 2015

(%)

Fall 2015 (%) All Seasons

(%)

Smallmouth

bass

9 (11.5) 45 (16.9) 43 (24.4) 11 (18) 108 (18.6)

Largemouth

bass

14 (18.0) 58 (21.7) 36 (20.5) 16 (26.2) 124 (21.3)

Bass 26 (33.3) 117 (43.8) 84 (47.7) 31 (50.8) 258 (44.3)

Bluegill/sunfish 3 (3.9) 34 (12.7) 33 (18.8) 9 (14.8) 79 (13.6)

Crappie 12 (15.4) 21 (7.9) 14 (8) 9 (14.8) 56 (9.6)

White perch 3 (3.9) 6 (2.3) 2 (1.1) 5 (8.2) 16 (2.8)

Yellow perch 4 (5.1) 10 (3.8) 7 (4) 3 (4.9) 24 (4.1)

Shad 0 3 (1.1) 0 0 3 (0.5)

Stocked trout 16 (20.5) 47 (17.6) 14 (8) 8 (13.1) 85 (14.6)

Brown trout 4 (5.1) 19 (7.1) 6 (3.4) 5 (8.2) 34 (5.8)

Brook trout 1 (1.3) 12 (4.5) 5 (2.8) 0 18 (3.1)

Trout 32 (41) 88 (33) 23 (13.1) 13 (21.3) 156 (26.8)

Walleye 8 (10.3) 13 (4.9) 6 (3.4) 6 (9.8) 33 (5.7)

Pike 1 (1.3) 2 (0.8) 4 (2.3) 4 (6.6) 11 (1.9)

Musky 1 (1.3) 1 (.4) 3 (1.7) 0 5 (0.9)

Total

responses

78 267 176 61 582

*There were multiple responses available for each method, so the percentages reported are the species

targeted by season divided by total question responses. The percentages do not add up to 100% for rows or

tables.

11. When thinking about this previous fishing trip, please indicate how much you

agree or disagree with the following statements. Ranging from strongly disagree,

disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree.

‐ Catch (ex: size, # of fish) met or exceeded my expectations

‐ Environmental quality met or exceeded my expectations

‐ Fishing was the primary reason for taking a trip to this area

‐ I plan on taking a fishing trip to this location again

Winter 2015 (January - March)

Strongly

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly

Agree

(%)

Survey

Responses

Catch (ex: size, # of fish) met

or exceeded my expectations

7

(8.9)

18

(22.8)

27

(34.2)

27

(34.2) 0 79

Environmental quality met or

exceeded my expectations

1

(1.3)

7

(9)

21

(26.9)

44

(56.4)

5

(6.4) 78

Fishing was the primary

reason for taking a trip to this

area

1

(1.3)

3

(3.8)

3

(3.8)

36

(45.6)

36

(45.6) 79

I plan on taking a fishing trip

to this location again 0

2

(2.5)

2

(2.5)

34

(43.1)

41

(51.9) 79

A31

Spring 2015 (April - June)

Strongly

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly

Agree

(%)

Survey

Responses

Catch (ex: size, # of fish) met

or exceeded my expectations

20

(7.5)

55

(20.6) 75 (28.1)

93

(34.8)

24

(9) 267

Environmental quality met or

exceeded my expectations

13

(4.9)

16

(6) 55 (20.7)

150

(56.4)

32

(12) 266

Fishing was the primary

reason for taking a trip to this

area

1

(.4)

11

(4.1)

23

(8.6)

100

(37.5)

132

(49.4) 267

I plan on taking a fishing trip

to this location again

3

(1.1)

6

(2.3)

21

(7.9)

96

(36.1)

140

(52.6) 266

Summer 2015 (July - September)

Strongly

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly

Agree

(%)

Survey

Responses

Catch (ex: size, # of fish) met or

exceeded my expectations

21

(11.9)

39

(22.2)

59

(33.5)

50

(28.4)

7

(4) 176

Environmental quality met or

exceeded my expectations

5

(2.8)

14

(7.9)

47

(26.4)

89

(50)

23

(12.9) 178

Fishing was the primary reason

for taking a trip to this area

7

(3.93)

14

(7.87)

24

(13.48)

63

(35.4)

70

(39.3) 178

I plan on taking a fishing trip to

this location again

5

(2.8)

4

(2.3)

14

(8)

86

(48.9)

67

(38.1) 176

Fall 2015 (October - December)

Strongly

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly

Agree

Survey

Responses

Catch (ex: size, # of fish) met or

exceeded my expectations

2

(3.3)

18

(29.5)

16

(26.2)

17

(27.9)

8

(13.1) 61

Environmental quality met or

exceeded my expectations

2

(3.3)

6

(9.8)

15

(24.6)

27

(44.3)

11

(18) 61

Fishing was the primary reason

for taking a trip to this area 0

2

(3.3)

2

(3.3)

23

(37.7)

34

(55.7) 61

I plan on taking a fishing trip to

this location again

1

(1.6) 0 0

25

(41)

35

(57.4) 61

A32

All Seasons 2015

Strongly

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly

Agree

(%)

Survey

Responses

Catch (ex: size, # of fish) met or

exceeded my expectations

50

(8.6)

130

(22.3)

177

(30.4)

187

(32.1)

39

(6.7) 583

Environmental quality met or

exceeded my expectations

21

(3.6)

43

(7.4)

138

(23.7)

310

(53.2)

71

(12.2) 583

Fishing was the primary reason

for taking a trip to this area

9

(1.5)

30

(5.1)

52

(8.9)

222

(38.0)

272

(46.5) 585

I plan on taking a fishing trip to

this location again

9

(1.6)

12

(2.1)

37

(6.4)

241

(41.4)

283

(48.6) 582

A33

Fishing in Maryland Non-Tidal Waterways in 2015 Questions

12. For the same trip as above, please enter the dollar amount of your share of

expenditures for each category below. Please be as accurate as possible - if

unsure, provide your best estimate. If you made no expenditures for a

category, please enter a “0”.

Transportation (ex: Gas and Tolls) Entertainment

Boat Expenses (ex: Gas and Launch fees) Bait, Lures, and Tackle

Groceries/snacks/Drinks Guide Fees

Restaurant/ Takeout Lodging

Other

Expenditures Winter 2015 (January - March)

Expenditures N Minimum Maximum Average Median

Transportation (ex: gas & tolls) 76 $0 $94 $13.12 $7.5

Boat expenses (ex: gas &

launch fees) 77 $0 $100 $3.96 $0

Groceries/snacks/drinks 77 $0 $50 $9.00 $6

Restaurant/takeout 77 $0 $50 $3.88 $0

Entertainment 77 $0 $20 $.25 $0

Bait, lures, & tackle 76 $0 $100 $18.46 $12

Guide fees 77 $0 $0 $0 $0

Lodging 77 $0 $250 $3.89 $0

Other 77 $0 $250 $4.61 $0

Trip total 76 $0 $374 $57.53 $30

Expenditures Spring 2015 (April - June)

Expenditures N Minimum Maximum Average Median

Transportation (ex: gas & tolls) 262 $0 $250 $20.29 $10

Boat expenses (ex: gas &

launch fees) 262 $0 $1400 $12.90 $0

Groceries/snacks/drinks 262 $0 $30 $19.28 $6.5

Restaurant/takeout 262 $0 $300 $11.77 $0

Entertainment 261 $0 $200 $3.16 $0

Bait, lures, & tackle 261 $0 $500 $19.14 $10

Guide fees 262 $0 $300 $5.40 $0

Lodging 262 $0 $2000 $25.49 $0

Other 262 $0 $500 $4.59 $0

Trip total 261 $0 $2900 $122.01 $40

Expenditures Summer 2015 (July - September)

Expenditures N Minimum Maximum Average Median

Transportation (ex: gas & tolls) 170 $0 $200 $24.09 $10

Boat expenses (ex: gas &

launch fees) 168 $0 $1000 $23.98 $0

Groceries/snacks/drinks 170 $0 $300 $25.39 $10

Restaurant/takeout 170 $0 $500 $18.87 $0

Entertainment 170 $0 $500 $7.45 $0

Bait, lures, & tackle 170 $0 $500 $24.65 $10

Guide fees 170 $0 $600 $3.52 $0

Lodging 170 $0 $5000 $108.23 $0

Other 170 $0 $50 $1.47 $0

Trip total 168 $0 $5450 $236.72 $40

A34

Expenditures Fall 2015 (October - December)

Expenditures N Minimum Maximum Average Median

Transportation (ex: gas & tolls) 59 $0 $100 $17.57 $6

Boat expenses (ex: gas & launch

fees) 59 $0 $500 $18 $0

Groceries/snacks/drinks 59 $0 $200 $15.03 $8

Restaurant/takeout 59 $0 $200 $8.22 $0

Entertainment 59 $0 $25 $.76 $0

Bait, lures, & tackle 59 $0 $200 $17.06 $0

Guide fees 59 $0 $0 $0 $0

Lodging 59 $0 $900 $23.47 $0

Other 59 $0 $10 $.33 $0

Trip total 59 $0 $1925 $100.47 $31

Expenditures All Seasons 2015

Expenditures N Minimum Maximum Average Median

Transportation (ex: gas & tolls) 567 $0 $250 $20.19 $10

Boat expenses (ex: gas & launch

fees) 566 $0 $1,400 $15.51 $0

Groceries/snacks/drinks 568 $0 $300 $19.28 $10

Restaurant/takeout 568 $0 $500 $12.46 $0

Entertainment 567 $0 $500 $3.80 $0

Bait, lures, & tackle 566 $0 $500 $20.49 $10

Guide fees 568 $0 $600 $3.55 $0

Lodging 568 $0 $5,000 $47.12 $0

Other 568 $0 $500 $3.22 $0

Trip Total 76 $0 $5450 $145.24 $37

13. Please list the number of fishing trips you took to Maryland nontidal

rivers/streams during each season below. Winter (January 2015 - March 2015)

Spring 2015 (April 2015 - June 2015)

Summer 2015 (July 2015 - September 2015)

Fall 2015 (October 2015 - December 2015)

Number of fishing trips taken to nontidal rivers/streams

Season N Min Max Average Median Total trips

Winter 2015 700 0 50 1.08 0 755

Spring 2015 700 0 51 4.50 2 3143

Summer 2015 700 0 51 4.89 2 3425

Fall 2015 700 0 35 2.25 0 1575

All year 700 0 156 12.71 5 8898

A35

14. Please list the three Maryland nontidal rivers/streams where you went

fishing the most in 2015. For each waterbody, also list the county, # of trips,

and species targeted.

Nontidal river/stream Question

responses

(%)

# of

trips

Nontidal river/stream Question

responses

(%)

# of

trips

Potomac River 145 (32.7) 1304 Tuckahoe Creek 7 (1.6) 46

Gunpowder River 60 (13.5) 302 Middle Creek 6 (1.4) 63

Patapsco River 33 (7.4) 247 Little Falls 5 (1.1) 49

Savage River 31 (7) 183 Middle Patuxent River 5 (1.1) 27

Monocacy River 29 (6.5) 234 15 Mile creek 4 (0.9) 18

Patuxent River 23 (5.2) 105 Marshyhope Creek

watershed

4 (0.9) 112

Susquehanna River 23(5.2) 147 Seneca Creek 4 (0.9) 27

Deer Creek 19 (4.3) 51 Severn River 4 (0.9) 12

Youghiogheny River 17 (3.8) 108 Big Elk Creek 3 (0.7) 18

North Branch Potomac

River

15 (3.4) 112 Licking Creek 3 (0.7) 8

Casselman River 14 (3.2) 58 Northeast River 3 (0.7) 9

Beaver Creek 13 (2.9) 89 Pocomoke River 3 (0.7) 14

Wills Creek 13 (2.9) 86 Shenandoah River 3(0.7) 12

Big Hunting Creek 11 (2.5) 61 Town Creek 3 (0.7) 32

Evitts Creek 11 (2.5) 97 Wicomico River 3 (0.7) 25

Antietam Creek 10 (2.3) 53 Beaver Dam Creek 2 (0.5) 33

Bear Creek 10 (2.3) 59 Blackwater River 2 (0.5) 2

Jennings Run 10 (2.3) 79 Little Youghiogheny River 2 (0.5) 7

Little Gunpowder River 10 (2.3) 32 Mattawoman Creek 2 (0.5) 8

Little Patuxent River 9 (2) 28 Octoraro Creek 2 (0.5) 2

Catoctin Creek 8 (1.8) 17 Owens Creek 2 (0.5) 6

Choptank River 8 (1.8) 45 Severn Run 2 (0.5) 5

Conococheague Creek 7 (1.6) 96 Sideling Hill Creek 2 (0.5) 10

Morgan Run 7 (1.6) 19 Winters Run 2 (0.5) 14

Total Question

Responses

444 (170 area received one mention @ 0.25% each)

15. Please list the number of fishing trips you took to Maryland Lakes, Ponds, or

Reservoirs during each season below. Winter (January 2015 - March 2015)

Spring 2015 (April 2015 - June 2015)

Summer 2015 (July 2015 - September 2015)

Fall 2015 (October 2015 - December 2015)

Number of fishing trips taken to lakes, ponds, or reservoirs

Season N Min Max Average Median Total

Winter 2015 700 0 51 0.71 0 496

Spring 2015 700 0 51 2.63 0 1840

Summer 2015 700 0 51 2.95 1 2066

Fall 2015 700 0 40 1.37 0 957

All Year 700 0 153 7.66 2 5359

A36

16. Please list the three Maryland lakes, ponds, or reservoirs where you went

fishing the most in 2015. For waterbody, also list the # of trips, county and

species targeted. Lake, pond, or reservoir Question

responses

(%)

# of

trips

Lake, pond, or reservoir Question

responses

(%)

# of

trips

Deep Creek Lake 96 (18.9) 476 Savage River Reservoir 4 (0.8) 7

Loch Raven Reservoir 51 (10) 283 Youghiogheny Lake 4 (0.8) 24

Liberty Reservoir 41 (8.1) 307 Battie Mixon Pond 3 (0.6) 8.0

Little Seneca Lake 28 (5.5) 110 C&O Canal 3 (0.6) 13.0

Piney Run Reservoir 26 (5.1) 105 Carroll County Farm

Museum Pond

3 (0.6) 14.0

Centennial Lake 23 (4.5) 83 Hamburg Pond 3 (0.6) 11.0

Prettyboy Reservoir 23 (4.5) 129 Herrington Lake 3 (0.6) 5.0

Triadelphia Reservoir 23 (4.5) 132 Hutchins Pond 3 (0.6) 10

Rocky Gap Lake 18 (3.5) 53 Johnson’s Pond 3 (0.6) 18

Conowingo Reservoir 17 (3.3) 113 Lake Roland 3 (0.6) 17

Blair’s Valley Lake 14 (2.8) 72 Local Ponds 3 (0.6) 17

Greenbrier Lake 14 (2.8) 52 Rising Sun Pond 3 (0.6) 10

Cunningham Falls Lake 13 (2.6) 54 Schumaker Pond 3 (0.6) 23

Rocky Gorge Reservoir 12 (2.4) 104 Smithville Lake 3 (0.6) 6

Piney Reservoir 11 (2.2) 66 Urbana Lake 3 (0.6) 20

Big Pool Lake 10 (2) 34 APL Pond 2 (0.4) 13.0

Lake Needwood 9 (1.8) 67 Cosca Lake 2 (0.4) 23.0

New Germany Lake 9 (1.8) 26 Culler Lake 2 (0.4) 3.0

Broadford Lake 8 (1.6) 43 Evitts Creek Pond 2 (0.4) 7.0

Clopper Lake 8 (1.6) 31 Funks Pond 2 (0.4) 0.0

Pond 8 (1.6) 173 Greenbelt Lake 2 (0.4) 1.0

Tuckahoe Lake 8 (1.6) 40 Hunting Creek Lake 2 (0.4) 3.0

Cash Lake 7 (1.4) 62 Lake Hashawha 2 (0.4) 10

Unicorn Lake 6 (1.2) 13 ML King Jr. Pond 2 (0.4) 7

Wheatley Lake 6 (1.2) 26 Middletown Pond 2 (0.4) 18

Allen Pond 5 (1) 14 Newtown Park Lake 2 (0.4) 13

Farm Pond 5 (1) 19 Parkers Pond 2 (0.4) 15

Lake Elkhorn 5 (1) 4 Pine Lake 2 (0.4) 1

Lake Waterford 5 (1) 56 Random House Park Pond 2 (0.4) 4

Leonard’s Mill Pond 5 (1) 38 St. Mary’s Lake 2 (0.4) 16

Myrtle Grove Ponds 5 (1) 11 Urieville Lake 2 (0.4) 6

Jennings Randolph Lake 4 (0.8) 22 Wilde Lake 2 (0.4) 6

Lake Artemesia 4 (0.8) 16 Wye Mills Lake 2 (0.4) 9

Lake Linganore 4 (0.8) 57

Total question responses 508 (106 area received one mention only @ 0.2% each)

A37

County of targeted lake, pond or impoundment.

County Question

Responses (%)

# of Trips County Question

Responses (%)

# of Trips

Garrett 123 (18.3) 1079 Charles 14 (2.1) 261

Baltimore 88 (13.1) 1109 Queen Anne’s 14 (2.1) 88

Frederick 74 (11) 673 Caroline 12 (1.8) 194

Washington 73 (10.9) 816 Wicomico 11 (1.6) 189

Montgomery 71 (10.6) 509 Calvert 9 (1.3) 55

Carroll 49 (7.3) 320 Kent 9 (1.3) 57

Howard 46 (6.8) 286 Dorchester 8 (1.2) 33

Allegany 39 (5.8) 453 Saint Mary’s 7 (1) 70

Harford 38 (5.7) 232 Baltimore City 3 (.4) 16

Prince George’s 30 (4.5) 231 Talbot 3 (.4) 3

Cecil 27 (4) 179 Worcester 3 (.4) 56

Anne Arundel 24 (3.6) 159 Somerset 2 (.3) 13

Total Question Responses 560 (217 received one mention only @ 0.15% each)

Species targeted in lakes, ponds and impoundments.

Species targeted Question responses

(%)

Species targeted Question responses

(%)

Largemouth bass 219 (33.7) Shad 14 (2.2)

Smallmouth bass 181 (27.9) Stocked Trout 144 (22.2)

Bass 389 (59.9) Brown Trout 54 (8.3)

Bluegill/sunfish 184 (28.4) Brook Trout 37 (5.7)

Crappie 129 (19.9) Trout 248 (38.2)

Catfish 108 (16.6) Walleye 66 (10.2)

White perch 29 (4.5) Pike 24 (3.7)

Yellow perch 51 (7.9) Musky 13 (2.0)

Total question responses 649

A38

17. For this question, only consider your 2015 fishing in Maryland nontidal

waterways.

Check all of the fishing types and methods you used to target each non-tidal fish

below. Types of fishing include artificial lures, natural bait, and fly fishing. Fish

methods include shore/wading, watercraft with a motor, watercraft without a motor

and ice fishing.

Type of fishing (%)* Fishing methods (%) Species

total

(%)

Species Artificial

lures

Natural

bait

Fly

fishing

Shore/

wading

Watercraft

- motor

Watercraft

– no motor

Ice

fishing

Largemouth bass 376 (86.6) 204 (47) 35

(8.1)

218 (50.2) 149 (34.3) 79 (18.2) 5 (1.2) 434

(66.1)

Smallmouth bass 317 (83.9) 175

(46.3)

40

(10.6)

177

(46.8)

127

(33.6)

73

(19.3)

3

(.8)

378

(57.5)

Striped bass

(non-tidal)

101

(74.8)

81

(60)

8

(5.9)

54

(40)

44

(32.6)

19

(14.1)

2

(1.5)

135

(20.5)

Bluegill/ sunfish 196

(58.2)

239

(70.9)

45

(13.4)

197

(58.8)

74

(22)

51

(15.1)

9

(2.7)

337

(51.3)

Carp 27

(33.3)

65

(80.2)

9

(11.1)

44

(54.3)

11

(13.6)

10

(12.3)

1

(1.2)

81

(12.3)

Channel catfish 47

(25)

166

(88.3)

7

(3.7)

101

(53.7)

40

(21.3)

16

(8.5)

1

(.5)

188

(28.6)

Flathead catfish 24

(23.5)

90

(88.2)

1

(1)

58

(56.9)

22

(21.6)

10

(9.8)

2

(2)

102

(15.5)

Crappie 168

(74.3)

145

(64.2)

14

(6.2)

119

(52.7)

69

(30.5)

43

(19)

9

(4)

226

(34.4)

Musky 37

(74)

22

(44)

2

(4)

21

(42)

18

(36)

4

(8)

1

(2)

50

(7.6)

Northern pike 59

(80.8)

36

(49.3)

2

(2.7)

28

(38.4)

28

(38.4)

8

(11)

3

(4.1)

73

(11.1)

White perch 82

(56.6)

114

(78.6)

4

(2.8)

80

(55.2)

35

(24.1)

12

(8.3)

4

(2.8)

145

(22.1)

Yellow perch 110

(59.1)

147

(79)

7

(3.8)

93

(50)

54

(29)

21

(11.3)

10

(5.4)

186

(28.3)

Pickerel 67

(80.7)

43

(51.8)

4

(4.8)

43

(51.8)

26

(31.3)

16

(19.3)

4

(4.8)

83

(12.6)

Shad 22

(55)

20

(50)

5

(12.5)

22

(55)

2

(5)

2

(5)

1

(2.5)

40

(6.1)

Stocked trout 177

(68.1)

134

(51.5)

73

(28.1)

178

(68.5)

16

(6.2)

12

(4.6)

3

(1.2)

260

(39.6)

Wild brown trout 50

(45)

47

(42.3)

53

(47.7)

73

(65.8)

2

(1.8)

2

(1.8)

1

(.8)

111

(16.9)

Wild brook trout 55

(46.2)

46

(38.7)

58

(48.7)

80

(67.2)

3

(2.5)

1

(.8)

1

(.8)

119

(18.1)

Walleye 89

(77.4)

72

(62.6)

4

(3.5)

41

(35.7)

46

(40)

10

(8.7)

11

(9.6)

115

(17.5)

Method total 512

(77.9)

427

(65.0)

125

(19.0)

392

(59.7)

211

(32.1)

115

(17.5)

21

(3.2) 657

*Multiple answers were possible so percentages are derived from the species total divided by the method

total. Column and row totals do not equal 100%.

A39

Maryland Trout Fishing Questions

18. In the past 10 years, have you fished for trout in Maryland?

A. Yes

B. No

Did you fish for trout in Maryland

in the past 10 years?

Survey responses (%)

Yes 407 (45.6)

No 485 (54.4)

Total question responses 892

19. In 2015, how many fishing trips did you take in Maryland?

# of trout fishing trips taken in Maryland

N Min Max Average Median Total

367 0 51 6.8 3 2486

20. When fishing for trout in Maryland, please indicate how much you agree or

disagree with the following statements. Ranging from strongly disagree,

disagree, neutral agree, and strongly agree.

- Most trout I catch are within the typical catch sizes

‐ In most years I catch a trout that fits the trophy criteria above

‐ I prefer to fish in areas that have a specific species of trout

‐ I prefer to fish for trout where catch-and-release is required

‐ I prefer to use natural bait when fishing for trout

‐ The ability to harvest that I can catch is important

‐ I prefer to fish for trout where I might catch a “trophy” fish

‐ I prefer to fish for trout where I can catch many fish

‐ Distance is a factor when deciding where to go trout fishing

‐ I prefer to fish in a location where I can catch wild trout

‐ Aesthetic beauty of area influences where I fish for trout

‐ I would rather fish for trout in a river/stream than a lake or pond

‐ Environmental quality of area influences where I fish for trout

‐ I prefer to fish for trout where I see few or no other people

A40

Strongly

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Neutral

(%) Agree (%)

Strongly

Agree (%)

Most trout I catch are within the typical

catch sizes above (see survey)

11

(2.9)

37

(9.7)

50

(13.1)

197

(51.6)

87

(22.8)

In most years I catch a trout that fits the

trophy criteria above (see survey)

128

(33.4)

134

(35.0)

54

(14.1)

52

(13.6)

15

(3.9)

I prefer to fish in areas that have a

specific species of trout

32

(8.4)

71

(18.7)

193

(50.8)

64

(16.84)

20

(5.26)

I prefer to fish for trout where catch-

and-release is required

67

(17.5)

84

(22)

126

(32.9)

56

(14.7)

49

(12.8)

I prefer to use natural bait when fishing

for trout

66

(17.2)

78

(20.4)

133

(34.7)

67

(17.5)

39

(10.18)

The ability to harvest trout that I catch

is important to me

67

(17.4)

49

(12.7)

95

(24.6)

104

(26.9)

71

(18.4)

I prefer to fish for trout where I might

catch a “trophy” fish

21

(5.6)

47

(12.4)

135

(35.7)

104

(27.5)

71

(18.8)

I prefer to fish for trout where I can

many fish

10

(2.8)

23

(6.1)

99

(26.1)

161

(42.4)

87

(22.9)

Distance is a factor when deciding

where to go trout fishing

15

(3.9)

50

(13)

90

(23.4)

182

(47.4)

47

(12.2)

I prefer to fish in a location where I can

catch wild trout

11

(2.9)

35

(9.1)

170

(44.3)

121

(31.5)

47

(12.2)

Aesthetic beauty of area influences

where I fish for trout

11

(2.9)

44

(11.6)

115

(30.3)

138

(36.3)

72

(19)

I would rather fish for trout in

river/stream than a lake/pond

14

(3.6)

35

(9.1)

112

(29.1)

107

(27.8)

117

(30.4)

Environmental quality of area

influences where I fish for trout

6

(1.8)

22

(5.7)

75

(19.6)

171

(44.7)

109

(28.5)

I prefer to fish for trout where I will see

few or no other people

4

(1)

19

(4.9)

94

(24.4)

177

(46)

91

(23.6)

A41

21- 29. Questions about Preferred Trout Fishing Sites

To examine individual preferences for and willingness-to-pay associated with trout

fishing sites, staff estimated two logit models. First, they estimated a conditional logit

model, which assumed that all parameters are fixed and as such do not account for

preferences varying throughout the population of anglers. Then, they estimated a mixed

logit model of trout angling in Maryland. The mixed logit models allow the parameters

associated with the four restrictive trout fishing regulations (catch & release only, two

fish harvest limit, artificial lures & flies only, and fly fishing only) to vary, with the

assumption that preferences for these regulations have a normal (Gaussian) distribution.

Using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to assess relative quality of each model,

we find the mixed logit model, which accounts for angler heterogeneity of preferences in

the fishing regulations, to be the preferred model. As such, the mixed logit model

estimates are presented in Table A, along with willingness-to-pay estimates and

preference distributions for fishing regulations.

Table A. Trout angler site choice mixed logit model.

Site attribute Coefficient

(mean)

Std.

error

P-value Coefficient

(std. deviation)

Std. error P-value

Travel cost -0.0070*** 0.0012 P<0.01 N/A N/A N/A

Waterbody

(river/stream) 0.4257*** 0.1085 P<0.01 N/A N/A N/A

Trophy possibility 0.4622** 0.2243 P=0.039 N/A N/A N/A

Catch rate 0.1409*** 0.0348 P<0.01 N/A N/A N/A

Stocked brown trout 0.0648 0.0916 P = 0.479 N/A N/A N/A

Wild brown trout 0.5837*** 0.1703 P < 0.01 N/A N/A N/A

Wild brook trout 0.0940 0.1753 P = 0.592 N/A N/A N/A

Catch-and-release -0.6912*** 0.1658 P<0.01 1.6016 0.3081*** P<0.01

Limit 2 -0.3194*** 0.0761 P<0.01 0.0268 0.0352 P=0.446

Fly fishing only -0.7175*** 0.1785 P<0.01 1.6507 0.2951*** P<0.01

Lure fishing only -0.1366 0.0910 P = 0.133 0.3560 0.3627 P=0.326

***=statistically significant at 1% level; ** = statistically significant at the 5% level

The mathematical sign of the mean coefficients in the table above reflects the directional

influence that a change in the level of the site attribute has on the probability an

individual chooses that site. For example, the travel cost variable is negative and

statistically significant at the 1 percent level. The negative sign on the travel cost

A42

coefficient reveals that holding all other site attributes constant, an increase in round-trip

travel reduces the probability that an individual will choose that site. As the travel cost

coefficient is statistically significant at the 1 percent level, it is highly unlikely that this is

an artifact of the data collection process and there is a very high degree of confidence that

increasing travel costs to a trout fishing site does indeed reduce the probability that an

individual takes a trip to that fishing site. Generally, signs of other mean coefficients are

as expected. All else equal, increases in catch rate and probability of catching a trophy-

sized trout at a fishing site increase the likelihood of an individual choosing that fishing

site. Mean coefficients on all gear and harvest regulations are negative, indicating that the

average angler is less likely to choose a site with greater restrictions, relative to the least

restrictive regulation. For example, mean coefficients on “Catch & release only” and

“Limit 2” restrictions are negative, meaning that all else equal, individuals are on average

less likely to choose a site with these restrictions, relative to the least restrictive harvest

regulation (5 fish harvest limit). Similarly, mean coefficients on “Artificial lures & flies

only” and “Fly fishing only” restrictions are negative, meaning that all else equal,

individuals on average are less likely to choose a site with these restrictions, relative to

the least restrictive lure/bait regulation (no restrictions). Angler preferences for different

types and species of trout at a fishing site were evaluated against stocked rainbow trout.

Model results indicate that anglers did not have strong preferences for stocked brown

trout versus stocked rainbow trout, as the mean coefficient on stocked brown trout was

not statistically significant at conventional levels of measurement. Similarly, there was

no difference between mean angler preferences between wild brook trout and stocked

rainbow trout. However, relative to stocked rainbow trout, the average angler preferred to

fish for wild brown trout. Finally, mean angler preferences were stronger for fishing in

moving bodies of water (rivers/streams) than in still bodies of water (lakes/ponds).

In the above paragraph, mean angler preferences for fishing site attributes were

described. However, an advantage of the mixed logit model is that variation in

preferences for fishing site attributes across the angler population can be examined. As

stated previously, the model presented within this report allows for angler preferences for

four types of fishing regulations to vary across the angler population through a normal

distribution. That is, these parameters associated with these regulations have a mean (as

with all site attributes in the model), but also have a standard deviation which captures

how preferences vary across the population. The standard deviation associated with the

two most-strict regulations - “Catch & release only” and “Fly fishing only” are

statistically significant at the 1 percent level, revealing that preferences for these

regulations vary across the trout angler population. For the two less-restrictive regulations

- “Limit 2” and “Artificial lures and flies only”, there was weaker evidence that

preferences for these regulations vary across the population. The standard deviation

associated with “Artificial lures and flies only” and “Limit 2” are not statistically

significant at conventional levels of measurement.

Given the modeling assumption that these regulation variables have normally-distributed

preferences across the angling population, this enables the use of mean and standard

deviation estimates to calculate the proportion of anglers that are “better off” or “worse

A43

off” with different regulations (relative to the least restrictive regulations). That is, while

angler mean preferences for these regulations are negative, the statistically significant

standard deviation estimates imply that some anglers are “better off” with these

restrictive regulations, all other site attribute levels held constant. For the two most strict

gear and harvest regulations (“Fly fishing only” and “Catch-and-release only”), about

one-third of anglers are “better off” with these regulations, while just less than two-thirds

of trout anglers are “better off” (see Table B below). While model results show that the

majority of trout anglers do not have positive preferences for strict regulations, it is

noteworthy that a sizable minority of anglers (holding all other site attribute levels

constant) prefer these strict regulations. This conforms with previous findings from

Knoche and Lupi (2016), who also found that some trout anglers prefer to fish in strictly

regulated waterways. It is important to remember that the statistical model holds site

attributes constant that might be perceived by anglers to be correlated with regulations

(such as trout catch rate and catch size). As such, the positive preferences amongst these

trout anglers for strict regulations are unlikely to be influenced by expectations of higher

quality catch site attributes and other site attributes included in the choice scenarios.

However, it is possible that anglers, when making their choice of where to go trout

fishing, are inferring that more highly regulated waterways are signals for higher quality

site attributes not included in the choice scenarios, such as less angler congestion or

higher levels of environmental quality/scenic beauty. It may also be the case that some

anglers view the choice scenarios as an opportunity to register their overarching

regulatory preferences, as opposed to answering the question as intended (i.e. where

would the angler prefer to go fishing. Finally, it also may be the case that fishing in

regulated waterways provide angler with psychological rewards that are independent of

expectations of related improvements in other site attributes.

Table B: “Catch & release only” and “Limit_2” evaluated against the “Harvest limit 5

regulation. The gear restriction “Fly fishing only” is evaluated against the “No

restrictions” (i.e., natural bait allowed) regulation.

Evaluate the first restrictions impacts

on fishing as compared to the second

Better off

(%)

Worse off

(%)

Catch & release only and Limit 2 versus

harvest limit 5

33.3 66.7

Fly fishing only versus

no restrictions

33.2 66.8

In Table C, we provide trout angler willingness-to-pay estimates for improvements in site

characteristics for all site attributes that are found to influence angler site choice

(P<0.05). As stated previously, the interpretation of willingness to pay is trout anglers

would be willing to incur an increase of per-trip travel costs up the amount listed in Table

C in order to receive a change in the level of the site attribute. Trout anglers have mean

willingness-to-pay for river/stream attribute of $60.82, meaning that anglers, on average,

would be willing to incur an increase in per-trip travel costs of up to $60.82 to fish for

A44

trout in a river/stream as opposed to a lake/pond. The average trout angler would not

incur travel costs greater than $60.82 to fish in a river/stream. Given these necessary

increased travel costs, a trout angler would prefer to fish in a lake/pond. Finally, if the

additional required travel costs were exactly $60.82, a trout angler would be indifferent

between incurring these travel costs and fishing in a river/stream, and not incurring these

travel costs and fishing in a lake/pond.

Regarding species preference, model results indicate strong preference for fishing for

wild brown trout, with a mean angler willingness-to-pay of $83.39 to fish at an area with

wild brown trout relative to an area with stocked rainbow trout. This result suggests that

the average angler places a high priority on fishing for wild brown trout, and that the

creation, maintenance and enhancement of fishing sites with wild brown trout are

important to trout anglers. Trout anglers have positive willingness-to-pay for catch rate

and catch size, with willingness-to-pay for a 1 trout per hour increase in catch rate of

$20.14, and willingness-to-pay for a 10 percent increase in the possibility of catching a

trophy-sized trout at a fishing site of $6.60. Due to possible fisheries management

tradeoff decisions between catching more fish and catching bigger fish, and in particular

the optimization decision facing hatchery managers (i.e., incur less costs by releasing

trout into waterbodies as soon a minimum catchable-size is met or incur greater costs by

holding trout longer until they reach a larger size), it is useful to examine the break-even

(indifference) point for anglers with respect to trout catch rate and catch size. The ratio

of catch rate willingness-to-pay of $20.14 and trophy possibility willingness-to-pay of

$6.60 implies that anglers would be indifferent between an increase in catch rate of one

per hour and an increase in the probability of catching a trophy-sized trout by 33 percent.

That is, the average trout angler would need a greater than 33 percent increase in per-trip

trophy trout probability to prefer that increase over a 1 trout per hour increase, whereas

with a trophy trout increase of less than 33 percent, trout anglers would prefer a one trout

per hour increase over the change in trophy potential. Finally, Table C shows that the

average trout angler would be willing to incur greater travel costs to fish in less regulated

waterways versus more regulated waterbodies. This is particularly the case with the

most-strict regulations, with the average angler willing to incur additional travel costs to

avoid fly fishing only areas and also to avoid areas that have harvest restrictions more

stringent that a five fish limit (i.e., limit 2 or catch-and-release only).

A45

Table C. Trout angler mean willingness-to-pay (95% confidence intervals) for fishing

Maryland attributes.

Site Attribute Change Interpretation Willingness-to-Pay

River/stream

River/stream instead of lake/pond

$60.82

($29.24 — $106.76)

Trophy 10 percent increase in probability of

catching trophy-sized fish on trip

$6.60

($0.58 — $149.07)

Catch Increase in catch of 1 trout per hour $20.14

($10.63 — $34.49)

Wild brown trout Fishing site has wild brown trout as

opposed to stocked rainbow trout

$83.39

($31.88 — $164.66)

Catch & release only Fishing site is catch & release only,

as opposed to harvest limit of 5.

-$98.76

(-$54.83 — -$158.55)

Limit 2 Fishing site has harvest limit of 2, as

opposed to harvest limit of 5.

-$45.64

(-$23.50 — -$75.23)

Fly fishing only

Fishing site is fly fishing only, as

opposed to having no restrictions

(i.e., natural bait allowed).

-$102.50

(-$56.27 — -$167.15)

A46

General Questions about Fishing in Maryland Nontidal Waterways

29. For this question, please think about what factors affect how often you go

fishing in Maryland nontidal waterways. Please indicate how much you agree

or disagree with the following statements. Ranging from strongly disagree,

disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree.*

- I was able to catch more fish - fishing areas were less crowded

- access to fishing sites was better - fishing was less expensive

- I knew when and where to fish - I had somebody to go with

- environmental quality was higher - I was able to catch larger fish

- regulations were less restrictive - I had more leisure time

Strongly

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Neutral

(%) Agree (%)

Strongly

Agree (%)

I would go fishing

more often in

Maryland non-tidal

waterways if…...

I was able to catch

more fish

33

(4)

79

(9.6)

255

(31.1)

291

(35.5)

162

(19.8)

access to fishing

sites was better

26

(3.2)

85

(10.4)

257

(31.5)

302

(37)

146

(17.9)

I knew when and

where to fish

44

(5.4)

79

(9.9)

246

(30.2)

307

(37.6)

140

(17.2)

environmental

quality was higher

34

(4.2)

78

(9.6)

332

(40.9)

256

(31.5)

122

(13.8)

regulations were

less restrictive

75

(9.3)

169

(20.9)

365

(45.1)

136

(16.8)

65

(8)

fishing areas were

less crowded

38

(4.7)

95

(11.6)

302

(37)

265

(32.4)

117

(14.3)

fishing was less

expensive

70

(8.6)

155

(19.1)

354

(43.5)

158

(19.4)

76

(9.4)

I had somebody to

go with

76

(9.4)

143

(17.6)

310

(38.1)

207

(25.4)

78

(9.6)

I was able to catch

larger fish

43

(5.3)

81

(9.9)

284

(34.8)

267

(32.7)

141

(17.3)

I had more leisure

time

37

(4.5)

57

(6.9)

219

(26.5)

243

(29.4)

270

(32.7)

* Multiple answers are possible, columns do not add up to 100%, but row totals do.

A47

30. With your favorite Maryland nontidal fishing area in mind, please check Yes

or No for each of the following statements.

- I go there because I always catch something

- The bigger the fish, the better the trip

- I release all the fish I catch there

- I prefer to leave with a stringer full of fish

- The trip is a total loss if I don't catch any fish

- I fish for sport and pleasure rather than food

- I give away some or all of the fish I catch

* The purpose of this question was to compare the findings to a previous Maryland

nontidal angler survey (Rivers, 2004). The question content is exactly the same in this

survey as in the 2002 survey.

2002 2016

Survey question Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%)

I go there because I always catch something 790

(80.8)

231

(19.2)

436

(54.4)

365

(45.6)

The bigger the fish, the better the trip 567

(47.2)

634

(52.8)

416

(52.1)

383

(47.9)

I release all the fish I catch there 648

(54)

553

(46)

458

(57.3)

342

(42.8)

I prefer to leave with a stringer full of fish 206

(17.1)

995

(82.9)

178

(22.4)

617

(77.6)

I fish for sport and pleasure rather than food 970

(80.8)

231

(19.2)

622

(78.2)

173

(21.8)

I give away some or all of the fish I catch 375

(31.2)

826

(68.8)

223

(28.4)

562

(71.6)

A48

31. Which waterbody were you thinking of when responding to Question 30

above?

Favorite waterbody Question responses

(%)

Favorite waterbody Question responses

(%)

Potomac River 85 (11.3) Evitts Creek 3 (0.4)

Deep Creek Lake 71 (9.5) Greenbrier Lake 3 (0.4)

Gunpowder River 28 (3.7) Hutchins Pond 3 (0.4)

Loch Raven Reservoir 28 (3.7) Lake Elkhorn 3 (0.4)

Patapsco River 19 (2.5) Lake Linganore 3 (0.4)

Liberty Reservoir 18 (2.4) Little Falls 3 (0.4)

Patuxent River 15 (2) Marshyhope Creek 3 (0.4)

Monocacy River 14 (1.9) Middle Creek 3 (0.4)

Deer Creek 12 (1.6) Morgan Run 3 (0.4)

Savage River 12 (1.6) Myrtle Grove 3 (0.4)

Conowingo Reservoir 11 (1.5) Pocomoke River 3 (0.4)

Susquehanna River 11 (1.5) Smithville Lake 3 (0.4)

Little Seneca Lake 10 (1.3) Tuckahoe 3 (0.4)

North Branch Potomac

River

9 (1.2) Tuckahoe Creek 3 (0.4)

Triadelphia Reservoir 9 (1.2) 15 Mile Creek 2 (0.3)

Beaver Creek 8 (1.1) Fishing Creek 2 (0.3)

Prettyboy Reservoir 8 (1.1) Back River 2 (0.3)

Rocky Gap Lake 8 (1.1) Big Elk Creek 2 (0.3)

Pond 7 (0.9) Blackwater River 2 (0.3)

Youghiogheny River 7 (0.9) Blair’s Valley Lake 2 (0.3)

Bear Creek 6 (0.8) Catoctin Creek 2 (0.3)

Centennial Lake 6 (0.8) Clopper Lake 2 (0.3)

Antietam Creek 5 (0.7) Cunningham Falls

Lake

2 (0.3)

Jennings Run 5 (0.7) Lake Artemesia 2 (0.3)

Lake Waterford 5 (0.7) Lake Hashawha 2 (0.3)

Piney Run Reservoir 5 (0.7) Lake Roland 2 (0.3)

Allen Pond 4 (0.5) Leonard's Mill Pond 2 (0.3)

Big Hunting Creek 4 (0.5) Little Gunpowder

River

2 (0.3)

Chester River 4 (0.5) Little Patuxent River 2 (0.3)

Lake Needwood 4 (0.5) Little Seneca Creek 2 (0.3)

Piney Reservoir 4 (0.5) Middle Patuxent River 2 (0.3)

Piney Run 4 (0.5) Northeast River 2 (0.3)

Private Pond 4 (0.5) Octoraro Creek 2 (0.3)

Rocky Gorge Reservoir 4 (0.5) Schoolhouse Pond 2 (0.3)

St. Mary's Lake 4 (0.5) Seneca Lake 2 (0.3)

Unicorn Lake 4 (0.5) Severn River 2 (0.3)

Big Pool Lake 3 (0.4) Sideling Hill Creek 2 (0.3)

Broadford Lake 3 (0.4) Town Creek 2 (0.3)

Bush River 3 (0.4) Urieville Lake 2 (0.3)

Cash Lake 3 (0.4) Wheatley Lake 2 (0.3)

Casselman River 3 (0.4) Wills Creek 2 (0.3)

Choptank River 3 (0.4) 167 other areas were reported by only one

angler but are not listed to conserve space

A49

County of favorite waterbody

Favorite waterbody

county

Question responses

(%)

Favorite waterbody

county

Question responses

(%)

Garrett 108 (16.1) Queen Anne's 14 (2.1)

Baltimore 95 (14.1) Saint Mary's 14 (2.1)

Washington 63 (1.5) Calvert 12 (1.8)

Montgomery 61 (9.1) Charles 12 (1.8)

Frederick 51 (7.6) Caroline 11 (1.6)

Allegany 42 (6.3) Dorchester 10 (1.5)

Harford 39 (5.8) Kent 10 (1.5)

Howard 32 (4.8) Worcester 7 (1.1)

Prince George's 25 (3.7) Talbot 4 (.6)

Anne Arundel 22 (3.3) Somerset 3 (.5)

Cecil 21 (3.1) Carroll 2 (.3)

Nontidal Angler Demographics

32. Who is filling out this survey?

A. The person the invitation was addressed to

B. Another household member

C. Someone else

Responsible for the survey Question responses (%)

The person the invitation was addressed to 819 (94.8)

Another household member 39 (4.5)

Someone else 6 (0.7)

Total question responses 864

33. What is your gender?

A. Male

B. Female

Gender Question responses (%)

Male 756 (87.4)

Female 109 (12.6)

Total question Responses 865

A50

34. In what year were you born?

Year born Question responses (%)

1990 - 1999 56 (7.4)

1980 - 1989 79 (10.4)

1970 - 1979 114 (15.1)

1960 - 1969 170 (22.5)

1950 - 1959 160 (21.1)

1940 - 1949 142 (18.8)

1920 - 1939 36 (4.8)

Total question responses 757

35. What is your race/ethnicity?

A. White

B. Black/African American

C. Hispanic/Latino

D. Asian

E. American Indian

F. Other

Race/Ethnicity Question Responses (%)

White 748 (87.6)

Black/African American 57 (6.7)

Hispanic/Latino 19 (2.2)

Asian 17 (2.0)

American Indian 10 (1.2)

Other 18 (2.1)

36. What is the highest degree or level of schooling you have completed?

A. Less than high school

B. High school or equivalent

C. Some college, no degree

D. Associate's degree

E. Bachelor's degree

F. Graduate or professional degree

Highest level of schooling completed Question responses (%)

Less than high school 24 (2.8)

High school or equivalent 228 (26.8)

Some college, no degree 189 (22.2)

Associate's degree 70 (8.2)

Bachelor’s degree 169 (19.8)

Graduate or professional degree 172 (20.2)

Total question responses 852

A51

37. Do any of the following live in your household? (check all that apply)

____Spouse or significant other

____Children age 5 and under

____Children age 6 - 17

____Other immediate family

____Extended family or other adults

____None of these

Household members Question responses

(%)

Spouse or significant other 636 (75.5)

Children age 5 and under 73 (8.7)

Children 6-17 198 (23.5)

Other immediate family 160 (19.0)

Extended family or other adults 61 (7.2)

None of these 86 (10.2)

38. What is your approximate annual household income?

A. Less than $25,000

B. $25,000 to $34,999

C. $35,000 to 49,999

D. $50,000 to $74,999

E. $75,000 to $99,999

F. $100,000 to $149,999

G. $150,000 to $199,999

H. $200,000 or more

Annual household income Question responses (%)

Less than $25,000 59 (7.8)

$25,000 to $34,900 66 (8.7)

$35,000 to $49,999 89 (11.7)

$50,000 to $74,999 132 (17.4)

$75,000 to $99,999 142 (18.7)

$100,000 to $149,999 141 (18.6)

$150,000 to $199,999 79 (10.4)

$200,000 or more 51 (6.7)

Total question responses 759

A52

39. What is your employment status?

A. Employed at hourly wage

B. Employed at annual salary

C. Out of work & looking for work

D. Out of work & not looking for work

E. Self-employed

F. Homemaker

G. Student

H. Military

I. Retired

J. Unable to work

Employment status Question responses (%)

Employed at hourly wage 243 (28.7)

Employed at annual salary 231 (27.2)

Out of work & looking for work 49 (5.8)

Out of work & not looking for work 9 (1.1)

Self-employed 39 (4.6)

Homemaker 13 (1.5)

Student 30 (3.5)

Military 11 (1.3)

Retired 270 (31.8)

Unable to work 6 (0.7)

Total question responses 848

A1

Appendix B: Hard copy survey version: Version 1 out of 84.

Maryland Recreational Fisheries Management Survey

We need your help!

Please complete the Maryland Recreational Fisheries Management Survey

and return it in the postage-paid envelope.

YOUR input is needed even if you did not fish in the previous year.

If you have misplaced your postage-paid envelope, please return survey to:

Dr. Scott Knoche Morgan State University Patuxent Environmental and Aquatic Research Laboratory Box <Survey ID> 10545 Mackall Road Saint Leonard, MD 20685

THANK YOU!

Recreational Fishing in Maryland

1. Did you go fishing in Maryland in 2015?

☐ Yes Proceed to the next question

☐ No Skip to question 18

Fishing Trip Definition: For this survey, a fishing trip is an outing involving fishing. A trip may begin from

your primary residence, vacation home or another place. A trip may last an hour, a day, or multiple days.

2. How many fishing trips did you take in Maryland in 2015?

☐ 1-5 ☐ 6-10 ☐ 11-15 ☐ 16-20 ☐ More than 20

Fishing in Non-Tidal Waterways and Tidal Waterways in Maryland

When responding to questions in this survey, it is important to distinguish between your fishing in Non-Tidal

Waterways and Tidal Waterways in Maryland. These two types of waterways are defined below.

Tidal Waterways – Chesapeake Bay & tidal tributaries, Coastal Bays & Atlantic Ocean

Non-Tidal Waterways – Non-tidal rivers & streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

3. Where did you fish in Maryland during 2015? (please check only one)

☐ Both Non-Tidal Waterways & Tidal Waterways Proceed to the next question

☐ Non-Tidal Waterways Only Proceed to the next question

☐ Tidal Waterways Only Skip to question 18

Maryland Non-Tidal Fishing Trip Questions

4. During which seasons did you fish in Maryland Non-Tidal waterways? (check all that apply)

☐

Winter 2015 (Jan. 2015 – Mar. 2015)

☐

Spring 2015 (Apr. 2015 – June 2015)

☐

Summer 2015 (July 2015 – Sept. 2015)

☐

Fall 2015 (Oct. 2015 – Dec. 2015)

BEFORE PROCEEDING, look back to Question 4 and identify the first season you checked,

from Left to Right. We are interested in details of the FIRST Maryland Non-Tidal fishing trip you took during this specific season. On the rest of this page, think back to this trip when answering questions.

5. During which month was this fishing trip? (see above for instructions)

Name of the waterbody and nearest city/town where you fished

6.

Waterbody Nearest city/town

7. Including yourself, how many people went on this fishing trip?

8. How many nights were you away from

home on this trip? (if none, enter “0”)

9. Which fishing types and methods did you use on this trip? (check all that apply)

☐ Natural Bait ☐ Fly Fishing ☐ Watercraft (with motor) ☐ Shore/Wading

☐ Artificial Lures ☐ Ice Fishing ☐ Watercraft (without motor)

10. Which fish species did you target on this trip?

12. For the same trip as above, please enter the dollar amount of your share of expenditures for each category below. Please be as accurate as possible – If unsure, provide your best estimate. If you made no expenditures for a category, please enter a “0”.

Transportation (ex: gas & tolls) $

Restaurant/ Takeout $

Guide

Fees $

Boat Expenses (ex: gas & launch fees) $

Entertainment $

Lodging $

11. When thinking about this previous fishing trip, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree

Catch (ex: size, # of fish) met or exceeded my expectations ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Environmental quality met or exceeded my expectations ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Fishing was the primary reason for taking a trip to this area ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I plan on taking a fishing trip to this location again ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Groceries/Snacks/ Drinks $

Bait, Lures, & Tackle $

Other $

Fishing in Maryland Non-Tidal Waterways in 2015

In this section, we are interested in your 2015 Maryland fishing activity in two types of Non-Tidal Waterways:

Non-Tidal Rivers/Streams & Lakes, Ponds, or Reservoirs. When responding to questions 13-16, please

only consider your fishing activity in these waterbodies.

13. Please list the number of fishing trips you took to Maryland Non-Tidal Rivers/Streams during each season below. (If you took no trips during a season, please enter “0”)

Winter 2015

(Jan. 2015 – Mar. 2015) Spring 2015

(Apr. 2015 – June 2015) Summer 2015

(July 2015 – Sept. 2015) Fall 2015

(Oct. 2015 – Dec. 2015)

# of trips

14. Please list the three Maryland Non-Tidal Rivers/Streams where you went fishing the most in 2015. For each waterbody, also list the county, # of trips, and species targeted. (If you did not fish in a Maryland Non-Tidal River/Stream in 2015, please skip to question 15.)

Non-Tidal River/Stream

County (list multiple, if necessary)

# of trips

Species Targeted (list multiple, if necessary)

15. Please list the number of fishing trips you took to Maryland Lakes, Ponds, or Reservoirs during each season below. (If you took no trips during a season, please enter “0”)

Winter 2015

(Jan. 2015 – Mar. 2015) Spring 2015

(Apr. 2015 – June 2015) Summer 2015

(July 2015 – Sept. 2015) Fall 2015

(Oct. 2015 – Dec. 2015)

# of trips

16. Please list the three Maryland Lakes, Ponds, or Reservoirs where you went fishing the most in 2015. For each waterbody, also list the county, # of trips, and species targeted. (If you did not fish in a Maryland Lake, Pond, or Reservoir in 2015, please skip to question 17.)

Lake, Pond, or Reservoir County # of trips

Species Targeted (list multiple, if necessary)

Fishing in Maryland Non-Tidal Waterways in 2015

17. For this question, ONLY consider your 2015 fishing in Maryland NON-TIDAL waterways. Check ALL of the fishing types and methods you used to target each non-tidal fish below.

TYPE OF FISHING FISHING METHODS

Artificial

Lures Natural

Bait Fly

Fishing Shore/ Wading

Watercraft (with motor)

Watercraft (w/o motor)

Ice Fishing

Bass, Largemouth ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Bass, Smallmouth ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Bass, Striped (non-tidal only) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Bluegill/Sunfish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Carp ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Catfish, Channel ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Catfish, Flathead ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Crappie ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Musky ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Northern Pike ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Perch, White ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Perch, Yellow ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Pickerel ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Shad ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Trout, Stocked ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Trout, Wild Brown ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Trout, Wild Brook ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Walleye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Other ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Maryland Trout Fishing

19. In 2015, how many trout fishing trips did you take in Maryland?

MARYLAND TROUT SPECIES REVIEW

Below are the three Maryland trout species targeted by recreational anglers. Typical Catch Size and Trophy

Criteria were established through conversations with Maryland fisheries biologists.

Brown Trout Rainbow Trout Brook Trout

Typical Catch Size: 8” – 13” Typical Catch Size: 8” – 13” Typical Catch Size: 6” – 8”

Trophy Criteria: 18” or above Trophy Criteria: 18” or above Trophy Criteria: 10” or above

18. In the past 10 years, have you fished for trout in Maryland?

☐ Yes Proceed to the next question ☐ No Skip to question 29

20. When fishing for trout in Maryland, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree

Most trout I catch are within the typical catch sizes above ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

In most years I catch a trout that fits the trophy criteria above ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I prefer to fish in areas that have a specific species of trout ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I prefer to fish for trout where catch-and-release is required ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I prefer to use natural bait when fishing for trout ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The ability to harvest trout that I catch is important to me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I prefer to fish for trout where I might catch a “trophy” fish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I prefer to fish for trout where I can catch many fish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Distance is a factor when deciding where to go trout fishing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I prefer to fish in a location where I can catch wild trout ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Aesthetic beauty of area influences where I fish for trout ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I would rather fish for trout in a river/stream than a lake/pond ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Environmental quality of area influences where I fish for trout ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I prefer to fish for trout where I will see few or no other people ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

EXAMPLE PAGE: Trout Fishing Site Choice Scenarios

In this section, you will be asked to compare the characteristics at two trout fishing sites – Fishing Site A and

Fishing Site B – and then identify the trout fishing site where YOU would go fishing.

The table and question below is an EXAMPLE of a choice you will be asked to make on the following pages.

Please review, and then proceed to the next page when you are finished reviewing.

Ex. Choice X: Where would you go trout fishing? (check only one)

Fishing Site Characteristics Fishing Site A Fishing Site B

Waterbody Type of Waterbody Lake/Pond River/Stream

Catch

Type of Trout Stocked Brown Trout Wild Brook Trout

Typical Catch Rate 1 trout per hour 1 trout per 2 hours

Trophy Possibility

1 trophy per 5 trips (Brown Trout 18” or

above)

1 trophy per 20 trips (Brook Trout 10” or above)

Regulations

Lure/Bait No Restrictions Lures & Flies Only

Creel Limit 2 trout 5 trout

Distance

Driving Distance 35 miles 10 miles

Where would you go fishing? (Please Check Only One) ☒

☐

Ex. Which of the following would you rather do? (check only one)

☒ Go trout fishing at the site you selected above

☐ Go trout fishing at my usual location

☐ Do something else (go fishing for another species, stay home, etc.)

Compare trout fishing regulations

Compare type of waterbody

Compare type of trout, catch rate, & trophy possibility

Compare driving distance

Answer follow up question

*Please note that the fishing sites described in the following choice questions do not necessarily describe actual

trout fishing sites, nor do they reflect specific management and regulatory objectives under review.

Choose where you would go fishing!

Trout Fishing Site Choice Scenarios – Where would you go trout fishing?

21. Choice 1: Where would you go trout fishing? (check only one box below)

Fishing Site Characteristics Fishing Site A Fishing Site B

Waterbody Type of Waterbody Lake/Pond River/Stream

Catch

Type of Trout Stocked Brown Trout Stocked Rainbow Trout

Typical Catch Rate 1 trout per 2 hours 1 trout per 30 minutes

Trophy Possibility

1 trophy per 2 trips (Brown Trout 18" or above)

No trophy trout available (Rainbow Trout 18" or above)

Regulations

Lure/Bait No Restrictions Artificial Lures & Flies Only

Creel Limit 2 trout 5 trout

Distance

Driving Distance 10 miles 75 miles

Where would you go fishing? (Please Check Only One) ☐

☐

22. Which of the following would you rather do? (check only one)

☐ Go trout fishing at the site you selected above ☐

Go trout fishing at my usual location ☐

Do something else (go fishing for another species, stay home, etc.)

23. Choice 2: Where would you go trout fishing? (check only one box below)

Fishing Site Characteristics Fishing Site A Fishing Site B

Waterbody Type of Waterbody River/Stream River/Stream

Catch

Type of Trout Wild Brown Trout Wild Brown Trout

Typical Catch Rate 1 trout per 15 minutes 1 trout per 4 hours

Trophy Possibility

1 trophy per 2 trips (Brown Trout 18" or above)

No trophy trout available (Brown Trout 18" or above)

Regulations

Lure/Bait Fly Fishing Only Artificial Lures & Flies Only

Creel Limit 5 trout Catch & Release Only

Distance

Driving Distance 50 miles 10 miles

Where would you go fishing? (Please Check Only One) ☐

☐

24. Which of the following would you rather do? (check only one)

☐ Go trout fishing at the site you selected above ☐

Go trout fishing at my usual location ☐

Do something else (go fishing for another species, stay home, etc.)

Trout Fishing Site Choice Scenarios – Where would you go trout fishing?

25. Choice 3: Where would you go trout fishing? (check only one box below)

Fishing Site Characteristics Fishing Site A Fishing Site B

Waterbody Type of Waterbody River/Stream River/Stream

Catch

Type of Trout Stocked Rainbow Trout Wild Brown Trout

Typical Catch Rate 1 trout per hour 1 trout per 4 hours

Trophy Possibility

1 trophy per 5 trips (Rainbow Trout 18" or above)

No trophy trout available (Brown Trout 18" or above)

Regulations

Lure/Bait Artificial Lures & Flies Only Fly Fishing Only

Creel Limit 2 trout Catch & Release Only

Distance

Driving Distance 125 miles 20 miles

Where would you go fishing? (Please Check Only One) ☐

☐

26. Which of the following would you rather do? (check only one)

☐ Go trout fishing at the site you selected above ☐

Go trout fishing at my usual location ☐

Do something else (go fishing for another species, stay home, etc.)

27. Choice 4: Where would you go trout fishing? (check only one box below)

Fishing Site Characteristics Fishing Site A Fishing Site B

Waterbody Type of Waterbody River/Stream River/Stream

Catch

Type of Trout Stocked Rainbow Trout Wild Brook Trout

Typical Catch Rate 1 trout per 45 minutes 1 trout per hour

Trophy Possibility

1 trophy per 5 trips (Rainbow Trout 18" or above)

1 trophy per 2 trips (Brook Trout 10" or above)

Regulations

Lure/Bait Fly Fishing Only Fly Fishing Only

Creel Limit 2 trout 5 trout

Distance

Driving Distance 125 miles 35 miles

Where would you go fishing? (Please Check Only One) ☐

☐

28. Which of the following would you rather do? (check only one)

☐ Go trout fishing at the site you selected above ☐

Go trout fishing at my usual location ☐

Do something else (go fishing for another species, stay home, etc.)

General Questions about Fishing in Maryland Non-Tidal Waterways

Which waterbody were

29. For this question, please think about what factors affect how often YOU go fishing in Maryland Non-Tidal Waterways. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

I WOULD GO FISHING MORE OFTEN IN MARYLAND

NON-TIDAL WATERWAYS

IF…

I was able to catch more fish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

access to fishing sites was better ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I knew when and where to fish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

environmental quality was higher ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

regulations were less restrictive ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

fishing areas were less crowded ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

fishing was less expensive ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I had somebody to go with ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I was able to catch larger fish ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I had more leisure time ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

30. With your FAVORITE Maryland Non-Tidal fishing area in mind, please check “Yes” or “No” for each of the following statements:

YES NO

I go there because I always catch something ☐ ☐

the bigger the fish, the better the trip ☐ ☐

I release all the fish I catch there ☐ ☐

I prefer to leave with a stringer full of fish ☐ ☐

the trip is a total loss if I don’t catch any fish ☐ ☐

I fish for sport and pleasure rather than food ☐ ☐

I give away some or all of the fish I catch ☐ ☐

31. you thinking of when responding to Question 30 above?

Waterbody County

About You: Summaries of the following questions help us represent the fishing activities of all

types of anglers. Individual answers are CONFIDENTIAL.

32. Who is filling out this survey?

☐ The person the invitation was addressed to ☐ Another household member ☐ Someone else

33. What is your gender? ☐ Male ☐ Female

35. What is your race/ethnicity?

☐ White ☐ Hispanic/Latino ☐ American Indian

☐ Black/African American ☐ Asian ☐ Other

36. What is the highest degree or level of schooling you have completed?

☐ Less than High School ☐ Some College, no degree ☐ Bachelor’s Degree

☐ High School or equivalent ☐ Associate’s Degree ☐ Graduate or Professional Degree

37. Do any of the following live in your household? (check all that apply)

☐ Spouse or significant other ☐ Children age 6-17 ☐ Extended family or other adults

☐ Children age 5 and under ☐ Other immediate family ☐ None of these

38. What is your approximate annual household income?

☐

Less than $25,000 ☐

$35,000 to $49,999 ☐

$75,000 to $99,999 ☐

$150,000 to $199,999

☐

$25,000 to $34,999 ☐

$50,000 to $74,999 ☐

$100,000 to $149,999 ☐

$200,000 or more

39. What is your employment status?

☐

Employed at hourly wage ☐

Out of work & looking for work ☐

Self- employed ☐ Student ☐ Retired

☐

Employed at annual salary ☐

Out of work & not looking for work ☐ Homemaker ☐ Military ☐

Unable to work

34. In what year were you born?

Thank you!

Please Return Survey in Postage-Paid Envelope!

Please provide any comments below:

Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey

Introduction

The 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference survey was initiated by the Maryland Department of

Natural Resources Fishing and Boating Services to gather data on angler attitudes and

preferences towards brook trout angling and management in the Upper Savage River system.

Additionally, several questions were included to assess angler attitudes towards statewide wild

trout fishing in general. In 2007, Fishing and Boating Services implemented a “Zero Creel Limit

Area – Brook Trout” regulation for the native brook trout populations in the Upper Savage River

watershed. The area consisted of all tributaries upstream of the Savage River dam and the Savage

River mainstem, excluding Savage River Reservoir, Savage River mainstem downstream of

Poplar Lick Run, and New Germany Lake. The regulation was established to conserve the brook

trout resource, improve public angling opportunities and quality, and sustain the economic

benefits from the angling resource. Anglers are required to release all brook trout caught, tackle

is restricted to artificial flies and lures, and the season is open year round.

Public support for the regulation has been considered strong based on feedback received during

public meetings held in 2006, 2009, and 2012. However, there was some opposition voiced

during the proposal period and for several years after the regulation was adopted. Overall

comments received at the public meetings were positive and supportive of the regulation

(personal communication, S. Rivers) and trending upwards (2006 = 70 percent in favor, 2009 =

80 percent, 2012 = 83 percent). Angler reports to staff have complimented the quantity and

quality of the brook trout fishing and the Savage fishery was featured by Trout Unlimited in their

“Ten Special Places" publication as “Maryland’s premier brook trout fishery” (Trout Unlimited,

online).

Fisheries management requires information on the biological, conservation, and social

components related to the resource. The biological component is monitored annually by Fishing

and Boating Services in conjunction with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental

Science (Appalachian Laboratory) to assess the impact of the regulation on the Upper Savage

River brook trout population. The conservation component is being fulfilled using past and

current research studies, partnership with the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, through the

2015 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, habitat restoration and protection work, and

through the statewide Brook Trout Fishery Management Plan. The social component has not

been studied/researched extensively and information for this component is sorely needed.

This survey was initiated to address the social component need. It was designed to obtain and

quantify the opinions of anglers regarding the Upper Savage River brook trout angling

regulation, its effect on the quality of the fishing, and angler use of the resource. In addition

several questions were added to assess angler opinions towards wild trout fishing in general in

Maryland.

Methods

The survey followed the principles of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007) to determine

the sample size of anglers needed to obtain statistically valid results. Anglers who purchased a

freshwater fishing license and trout stamp in 2015 were used as the angling population. This

included individuals who held one of the following types of fishing licenses and a trout stamp:

Resident annual non-tidal, Non-resident annual non-tidal, Non-Resident 3-day non-tidal,

Resident 7-day non-tidal, Non-Resident 7-day non-tidal, and Senior Consolidated. All Senior

Consolidated anglers were included in the population since the senior non-tidal license includes

the trout stamp. From fishing license sales, the 2015 license holder population was rounded off

to 81,000; covering 55,000 anglers who bought qualified licenses listed above and trout stamps,

and 26,000 Senior Consolidated licenses.

Sampling error tolerance for the survey was set at +/-5 percent (95 percent confidence level).

This level was selected for dual reasons; 1) this is a standard error tolerance typically chosen in

surveys, and 2) it allowed us to work within existing budgetary constraints and still conduct the

survey with adequate precision. To meet this confidence level for the population of 81,000

anglers, it was determined that a minimum of 381 individual angler responses were needed.

Assuming a 25 percent angler survey response rate (S. Knoche, personal communication), it was

calculated that 3,960 license holders needed to be contacted to meet the 95 percent confidence

level. Using this methodology allowed us to ascribe the survey responses to the whole angling

population. For example, if 90 percent of anglers responded “Yes” to a question, we would be 95

percent certain the true population “Yes” response value would be between 85 percent and 95

percent. The minimum number of anglers to be contacted was rounded up from 3,960 to 4,000

and the anglers to be surveyed were randomly selected (using a random number generator) from

the angling population (N=81,000).

The survey questions were developed to 1) obtain anglers opinions towards the special brook

trout regulation and fishery quality in the Upper Savage River, 2) obtain anglers opinions

towards brook trout management statewide, and 3) obtain basic information on how many

anglers fish for wild trout in general and what method(s) they use when doing so. A total of 11

questions were developed. Question 1 determined if an angler fished for wild trout exclusively,

wild trout and stocked trout, or stocked trout only. If the angler fished for stocked trout only,

they were excluded from answering any of the remaining wild trout questions and were directed

to the end of the survey. Anglers who responded they fished for wild trout (exclusively) or wild

trout and stocked trout (combined) were asked to answer all questions for the survey.

Freshwater Fisheries Program staff developed 11 survey questions with assistance from Dr. Scott

Knoche (Morgan State University). Staff used design methodology described by Dillman (2011)

to finalize the survey questions after numerous staff reviews and edits. Two focus group

meetings were used to obtain stakeholder input and comment on the questions and content of the

survey. The first meeting was held in the eastern part of Maryland with anglers from local and

regional Trout Unlimited chapters. The second focus group was held in western Maryland and

included general anglers, Trout Unlimited members, and Garrett College natural resources

students. Participants were asked to fill out the survey and provide feedback to staff and round

table discussions were held with both groups afterwards. Staff timed how long it took for focus

group participants to complete the survey, and most were completed in less than five minutes and

none took longer than 10 minutes. Staff used comments and suggestions from the focus group to

edit and finalize the survey questions. Specific concerns addressed included editing descriptive

text in the “Zero Creel Limit” paragraph to eliminate potential bias, changing the order of

questions to improve organization and flow of the survey, and changing the wording of questions

to improve clarity and simplify comprehension. The time it took for respondents to complete the

survey met the objective of keeping the survey short and simple (Dillman, 2011). The final

survey is shown in Appendix A.

Outreach to anglers was achieved through multiple mailings. Anglers selected for the survey

were first contacted by mail (N=4,000) on April 18, 2016 through a cover letter mailed to their

home address in which their assistance was requested. The cover letter included a brief

description of the importance of their responses to management decisions. Recipients were asked

to take the survey online by entering a website address that included a unique descriptor for each

angler. The survey was hosted online through the Survey Monkey website. Following this initial

mailing reminder, postcards were sent on April 26, 2016 to the anglers (N=3,900) eight days

later encouraging them, if they had not already done so, to take the online survey. After another

eight days (May 3, 2016) anglers (N=3,849) were mailed a hardcopy of the survey (including a

postage paid return envelope) and asked to fill out and return the survey if they had not

participated online. Contact information for anglers who had already responded was removed

from each distribution list prior to the postcard and hard copy mailings to reduce the effort and

costs and to reduce the bother to those anglers who had responded. No hard deadline was given

for angler responses to gain as much feedback as possible. Data analysis began after September

30, 2016. Surveys received after that date were not included. However, questions or inquiries

anglers submitted in the late surveys were answered as time permitted.

Angler responses for the online survey were controlled through the Survey Monkey website with

parameters set in the study design. Anglers who answered Question #1 that they fished for

stocked trout only were immediately directed to the end of the survey as they were not wild trout

anglers. Those anglers who responded that they fished for wild trout exclusively or wild trout

and stocked trout were directed to complete the survey on the Survey Monkey website. Anglers

were not required to answer every question to complete the survey. The option of “No opinion”

was available for questions #5 – 9, as these were subjective, opinion-based questions. For

Questions #1 and 4 – 8, anglers were only allowed to enter one answer as more than one answer

would have been illogical.

Angler responses from hard copy surveys were entered into the Survey Monkey website by

Fishing and Boating Services. Staff followed specific guidelines to reduce data entry errors and

to ensure only properly filled out surveys were entered. The majority of data entry of hard copy

surveys was conducted by teams of two to three staff members at the Appalachian Laboratory on

June 13, 2016. Each team was provided written guidelines for entering the surveys and a set

process for entering the data was used. One team member entered the data, and the other

member(s) read the information to the data entry person. For each answer, the data entry person

repeated the information back while the person reading the data double checked the data on the

computer screen as it was entered (extra members double checked both the entry and reading of

the answers).

Once survey data entry was completed, the dataset was reviewed by staff for data errors and the

presence of more than one survey respondents’ individual identifying numbers. If a problem was

noted and the issue could not be resolved, the survey was not included in the dataset. The

completed and quality-proofed dataset was provided to Dr. Scott Knoche of Morgan State

University for review and subsequent analysis. Analysis by angler group (resident vs. non-

resident), angler age, and statewide geographic region was conducted to determine if there were

response biases.

Results

Anglers completed 294 surveys online (7.4 percent response rate) and returned 748 hard copy

surveys (18.7 percent response rate). The overall response rate was 26.1 percent, which

exceeded the target response rate (25 percent). After data cleanup and eliminating improperly

filled out and duplicate surveys, there were 999 valid surveys.

For Question 1, anglers responded that they fished for wild trout and stocked trout both (n=615;

61.6 percent of responses), wild trout exclusively (n=84; 8.4 percent of responses), and stocked

trout only (n=300; 30.0 percent of responses; Table 1). Anglers that fished only for stocked trout

were not included in data analysis, leaving 699 surveys for data review. This exceeded the

minimum response rate of 381 to achieve the desired 95 percent confidence level. All results

reported in this section are at the 95 percent confidence level unless otherwise stated.

Question 2 asked anglers to describe their specific angling method(s) from three options

(artificial lures, fly fishing, and bait fishing) that they use when fishing for wild trout, and to

describe it with a numerical choice related to frequency (4 = Exclusively, 3 = Commonly, 2 =

Rarely and 1 = Never). Table 2 lists the percentages and frequency of use for each angling

method. For anglers that responded that they used one method “exclusively”, artificial lures was

chosen by 19.0 percent of anglers (n = 107; N = 562), fly fishing by 37.3 percent (n = 214; N =

574), and bait by 31.8 percent (n = 176; N = 553). For anglers that responded that they “never”

used one method, artificial lures was chosen by 14.1 percent of anglers (n = 79; N = 562), fly

fishing by 26.5 percent (n = 152; N = 574), and bait by 10.5 percent (n = 58; N = 553). Table 2

also shows the percentages when “rarely” and “never” options were paired, and when

“exclusively” and “commonly” were paired. This suggested a relatively similar trend among the

three types of fishing. For artificial lures “exclusively/commonly” accounted for 41.8 percent of

anglers answers, for fly fishing it was 54.5 percent, and for bait it was 49.9 percent. For the

“rarely/never” pairing, artificial lures accounted for 58.2 percent of anglers answers, for fly

fishing it was 45.5 percent, and for bait it was 50.1 percent.

Responses to Question 3 indicated that anglers similarly target all three wild trout species

available in Maryland (Table 3). Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (71.0 percent, n = 496)

was selected by the highest percentage of anglers, followed by brown trout (Salmo trutta; 66.8

percent, n = 467) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis; 64.5 percent, n = 451).

The next section of the survey before Question 4 contained a preface explaining the Upper

Savage River Zero Creel Limit Area – Brook Trout regulation to provide background on the

timing and reasons for implementation (Appendix A). Questions 4 – 6 were directly related to

the Savage River fishery and angler opinions toward the regulation and the fishery quality. For

Question 4 anglers that have fished for brook trout in the Upper Savage River special

management area were in the minority (13.9 percent, n = 96). The majority of anglers had not

fished the area (86.1 percent, n = 597); Table 4. Question 5 asked anglers if they thought the

special regulations had improved fishing in the Upper Savage River area. A large majority of

anglers who answered the question (n = 91) chose “Yes” (77.7 percent), believing that it had

improved (Table 5). The percentage of anglers who had “No Opinion” for Question 5 was

similar to the percentage of anglers that had answered that they had not fished the Upper Savage.

In Question 6, for those anglers who had an opinion (n = 380), the vast majority (92.4 percent, n

= 351) “Agreed” with the current angling regulation in place for Zero Creel Limit Area – Brook

Trout (Table 6). Only 7.6 percent (n = 29) said they “Disagree” with the current regulation.

Questions 7 and 8 were related to statewide brook trout opinions, not just for the Upper Savage

River area. For Question 7 anglers were asked if they agree with the current statewide generic

wild trout regulation (2 fish creel limit per day, no minimum size, no tackle restrictions, no

closed season) as it pertains to brook trout. For those anglers that had an opinion (82.5 percent, n

= 570), the majority (55.6 percent, n = 317) agreed with the current regulation, while 36.8

percent (n = 210) felt the regulation was not restrictive enough, and 7.5 percent (n = 43)

answered that the regulation was too restrictive (Table 7). Of the anglers in Question 8 who had

an opinion (76.9 percent, n = 532), the vast majority (85.7 percent, n = 455) “Agreed” they

would support more restrictive brook trout regulations statewide outside of the Savage

watershed, while only 14.3 percent (n = 76) would “Disagree” (Table 8).

Anglers were asked their opinion in Question 9 on regulation options that would most benefit

brook trout fisheries statewide, with the intent to maximize angler use/opportunity and to

conserve the resource. Four regulation options were listed (Appendix A), along with “No

Opinion” and “Do not support more restrictive regulations” options. Anglers had the option to

choose more than one choice, thus the total responses (n = 1,042) exceeded the number of

anglers who answered the question (n = 699). Results for this question are shown in Table 9. For

those anglers who expressed an opinion (n=938), “Catch-and-Release only” was the most

selected option (35.9 percent, n = 337), followed by “Fishing tackle restrictions” (20.8 percent, n

= 195), “Closed seasons” (20.7 percent, n = 194), “Decrease creel limit” (11.8 percent, n = 111),

and “…do not support…” was the least at 10.8 percent (n=101). For the total responses where

anglers expressed opinions, 89.2 percent (n = 837) chose one or more of the four more restrictive

regulation options as opposed to the “…do not support more restrictive regulations…” option

(10.8 percent, n = 101).

For Question 10, anglers were asked to rate seven attributes that describe what makes angling for

brook trout valuable to them (Appendix A). Survey design allowed anglers to rate any or all of

the choices, thus total number of responses per choice varied. The rating scale was from 1 (not

important at all) to 10 (most important). The mean rating per category was calculated, and

“Natural surroundings” was rated the highest (mean = 8.59 +/- 0/.18, n = 613) while “Harvest”

was rated the lowest (mean = 4.23 +/- 0.27, n = 595; Table 10). The frequency of a score of 10

was low for both “Harvest” (n= 71) and “Other” (n=49). Scores of 10 were selected most

frequently for “Natural surroundings” (n = 338), “Unique resource” (n = 248), and “Less

crowded” (n = 230). The most anglers selected a score of 1 (Least important) for “Harvest” (n =

212 - more than three times as much as the next closest low score), followed by “Tradition” (n =

77), with the remaining six categories selected at much lower frequencies (range 15 – 28).

A brief narrative describing current Fishing and Boating Services’ fisheries management in

relation to stocking Put-and-Take trout in wild trout streams and impacts this may have on wild

trout populations was provided as a preface to Question 11 (Appendix A). Anglers were

provided three wild trout scenarios and asked if stocking where wild trout occur should be

discontinued, or if current practices should continue. The most responses to stop stocking where

wild trout occur was for brook trout (n = 336), followed by brown trout (n = 236) and rainbow

trout (n = 225; Table 11). For the choice “Continue current stocking practices where wild trout

occur”, 316 (45 percent) anglers selected this option.

The survey data set was tested for response biases among age groups, residency, and geographic

location within the state. While some response bias was observed for the age group, residency,

and location categories, the level of bias was extremely low (<0.6 percent) in all cases and

considered irrelevant for the analysis (Scott Knoche, personal communication). Results are thus

reported as actual and weighting was not necessary in the data analysis.

Discussion

Angler response to the survey exceeded the minimum number of responses needed to achieve the

desired 95 percent confidence level. The majority of the trout angling community fished for both

wild and stocked trout (61.6 percent), and those who targeted only wild trout were a small

minority (8.4 percent). The importance of the wild trout component to Maryland anglers overall

is very evident since 70 percent of anglers fish for wild trout at least some of the time. This

supports the continued efforts to manage and increase wild trout angling opportunities in

Maryland. Furthermore, the results revealed an increase in anglers pursuing wild trout from the

Fishing and Boating Services’ 2002 survey (Rivers, 2004), when it was estimated that 41.3

percent of anglers fished for wild trout.

Special fishery management regulation areas that restrict angling to specific angling methods,

such as fly fishing only, artificial lures only, or catch-and-release, can illicit strong emotional

responses within the fishing community (Gigliotti and Peyton, 1993). Stereotypical perceptions

between differing angler user groups is widespread in the angling community and can result in

conflict between the varying groups. The implementation of the Upper Savage River brook trout

Catch-and-Release regulation in 2007 was an example of this. Bait anglers voiced displeasure

that the fly fishing community was being favored over them. Interestingly, the results of this

preference survey suggest that Maryland trout anglers are generalists overall in relation to their

desired angling method, and the percentage of anglers that prefer a given method are similar

among the three groups we asked about (artificial lures, fly fishing, and bait). Of anglers who

chose “Exclusively” for their method, bait (31.8 percent) and fly fishing (37.3 percent) had

strong but similar preferences. And anglers who chose “Never” for their method, bait (10.5

percent) and artificial lures (14.1 percent) were very low and similar, while fly (26.5 percent)

was somewhat higher. This suggests, as expected from the stereotypes, that there is a cadre of

strong proponents for bait fishing and fly fishing that specialize in these methods. But overall,

trout anglers fishing in Maryland can be characterized as being generalists in relation to method

when the “Exclusively” and “Commonly” choices are combined, showing that approximately

half frequently utilize one of the three types of angling (artificials 41.8 percent, fly 54.5 percent,

bait 49.9 percent).

When developing Question 3, staff anticipated a potential misunderstanding by anglers as to

what constitutes a wild trout population. To address this, a definition describing a wild trout

population was included in Question 1 at the very beginning of the survey. While there are a

handful of wild rainbow trout populations in the state, the overwhelming majority of the wild

trout streams are brook and/or brown trout. Conversely rainbow trout comprise the

overwhelming majority of trout that are stocked for anglers in Maryland. Rainbow trout were

selected by anglers as the most targeted (71 percent) of the three wild trout species options. It is

highly unlikely that such a high percentage of anglers are truly targeting the very few, limited

wild rainbow trout populations that exist. Even with the definition of a wild trout stream, these

results suggested that some anglers did not differentiate stocked rainbow trout from wild trout.

Because of this likely misunderstanding, the results from Question 3 were not considered

representative and were not used in any analysis or discussion.

The results pertaining to the Upper Savage River brook trout special management area were

specifically striking. The percentage of trout anglers that have fished the area for brook trout

(13.9 percent) is a substantial portion of the angling community, especially since the area is far

removed from the vast majority of anglers and many other, more convenient brook trout/wild

trout opportunities exist statewide. This reinforces that the Upper Savage River is a destination

fishery and that anglers will travel great distances to fish this location. Question 5 elicited a

strong angler response, with the vast majority of anglers (77.7 percent) responding that fishing

had improved in the Upper Savage River since the regulation was implemented. Similarly for

Question 6, anglers who had an opinion overwhelmingly (92.4 percent) responded that they

agreed with the current Zero Creel regulation. This continued a long term pattern of public

support. Angler comments received at public informational meetings on the Upper Savage River

regulation progressively increased from 70 percent favorable in 2006, to 80 percent in 2009, and

83 percent in 2012 (Susan Rivers, personal communication). Based on these past responses and

the results from this survey, statewide angler support for the Upper Savage River brook trout

special management regulation is unequivocally endorsed.

A general statewide trout regulation exists for areas with wild trout populations that are not

under special management and are not stocked with trout for Put-and-Take fishing. These areas

are open year round, with no minimum size, no restrictions on tackle, and two trout can be

harvested per day. The vast majority of these areas are native brook trout and wild brown trout

streams. A slight majority of anglers for Question 7 agreed (55.6 percent) with this regulation in

relation to statewide brook trout populations, while a considerable percentage (36.8 percent) felt

that the regulations were not restrictive enough. Mirroring the strong support for the more

restrictive Upper Savage River regulation, an overwhelming majority (85.5 percent) of anglers

responding to Question 8 agreed that they would support more restrictive brook trout regulations

statewide. With the support for the Zero Creel Limit for Brook Trout regulation, the results from

these two questions indicated strong statewide angler support for more conservative brook trout

regulations. The results from Question 9 illustrated what direction new regulations should take to

most benefit brook trout fisheries in Maryland. These results further supported enacting more

restrictive regulations statewide (85.5 percent in favor, 14.5 percent not in favor of more

restrictive regulations; Table 9). This support for more conservative management of the resource

is also apparent based on angler responses in Question 10 with regards to what anglers most

value about the brook trout fishery. Mean angler responses were highest (range 6.01 - 8.59) for

intangible/aesthetic reasons, and lowest for harvest (4.32). Harvest was selected the most by

anglers as “Not important at all” (n =212) and the least as “Most important” (n = 71), further

supporting that anglers view and value the brook trout resource more as a non-consumptive

resource that should be managed with more restrictive regulations (Table 10).

In summary the results of this survey provided the vital information needed for the social

component of the brook trout fishery management information triumvirate. State wild trout

anglers are generalists in their angling method, and the vast majority fish for wild and stocked

trout. Support for the Upper Savage River brook trout special management regulation was

unequivocal, and anglers responded that they believe the fishery has improved since the

regulation was implemented. Support for more conservative brook trout regulations statewide

was also extremely strong. Anglers favored more restrictive regulations, including Catch-and-

Release only and tackle restrictions in particular for statewide brook trout management

regulation options. A majority supported not stocking hatchery trout where wild brook trout

occur. The option to harvest brook trout was the least important aspect of why anglers value

brook trout fishing, further supporting that anglers viewed the value of the brook trout resource

as a limited harvest resource.

Table 1. Angler responses to Question 1, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

Table 2. Angler responses to Question 2, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

For each angling method listed below, please assign a number to describe your use when fishing

for wild trout using the scale: 4 = Exclusively, 3 = Commonly, 2 = Rarely, 1 = Never. Enter a

number in each box.

Percentage chosen

Artificial lures Fly fishing Bait

Exclusively 19.0 (n=107) 37.3 (n=214) 31.8 (n=176)

Commonly 22.8 (n=128) 17.3 (n=99) 18.1 (n=100)

Rarely 44.1 (n=248) 18.9 (n=109) 39.6 (n=219)

Never 14.1 (n=79) 26.5 (n=152) 10.5 (n=58)

Exclusively and commonly,

combined

41.8 (n=235) 54.6 (n=313) 49.9 (n=276)

Rarely and never, combined 58.2 (n=327) 45.4 (n=261) 50.1 (n=277)

Totals 100.0 (n=562) 100.0 (n=574) 100.0 (n=553)

Table 3. Angler responses to Question 3, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

When fishing for wild trout in Maryland, what species do you target?

Check each box that applies.

Brook trout Brown trout Rainbow trout

Responses (N=699) 451 467 496

Percentage 64.5 66.8 71.0

Trout fishing in Maryland includes angling for stocked trout (hatchery reared) and wild trout.

Wild trout are self-sustaining through natural reproduction; hatchery stocking does not contribute

to the population. Wild trout include native Brook Trout and non-native Brown and Rainbow

trout populations. From the following options please select which best describes the type of trout

fishing you participate in. Check only one box.

Fish for wild

trout only

Fish for wild and

stocked trout

Fish for stocked

trout only

Totals

Responses 84 615 300 999

Percentage 8.4 61.6 30.0 100.0

Table 4. Angler responses to Question 4, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

A Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout regulation for native Brook Trout was enacted for the

Upper Savage River watershed on January 1, 2007 (all tributaries upstream of Savage River

dam and Savage River mainstem upstream of the mouth of Poplar Lick Run). Maryland DNR’s

Fisheries Service implemented the regulation to conserve the resource, improve public angling

opportunities and quality, and sustain the economic benefits from angling use. The regulation

requires anglers to release all Brook Trout, restricts tackle to artificial flies and lures (natural or

live bait prohibited), and fishing is open year round.

Have you fished for native Brook Trout in the Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout

areas in the upper Savage River watershed since 2007?

Check the appropriate box.

Yes No

Responses 96 597

Percentage 13.9 86.1

Table 5. Angler responses to Question 5, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

Do you believe that angling for native Brook Trout has improved in the upper Savage

River watershed since the Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout regulation was

adopted? Please check only one box.

Yes No No Opinion

Responses 91 26 572

Percentage of those who

answered “Yes or No”

77.8 22.2 NA

Table 6. Angler responses to Question 6, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

Do you agree or disagree with the current Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout

regulation in areas of the upper Savage River watershed? Please check only one box.

Agree Disagree No opinion

Responses 351 29 319

Percentage of those who

answered “Yes or No”

92.4 7.6 NA

Table 7. Angler responses to Question 7, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

Do you agree or disagree with the current statewide regulations for wild trout (2 fish creel limit per day,

no minimum size, no tackle restrictions, no closed season) as they apply to native Brook Trout in fishing

areas not under special management? Please check only one box.

Agree Disagree, not

restrictive enough

Disagree, too

restrictive

No opinion

Responses 317 210 43 229

Percentage of those who

answered other than “No

opinion”

55.6 36.8 7.5 NA

Table 8. Angler responses to Question 8, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

To further conserve native Brook Trout in Maryland would you agree or disagree with enacting special

regulations in areas outside of the Savage River watershed? Please check only one box.

Agree Disagree No opinion

Responses 455 76 167

Percentage of those who responded “Agree or

disagree”

85.7 14.3

Table 9. Angler responses to Question 9, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

Which of the following special regulations do you believe would most benefit the native Brook

Trout fisheries in Maryland to maximize angler use/opportunity and to conserve the resource?

Please check all that apply.

Responses (for those

who had an opinion)

Percentage

Catch-and-Release only 337 35.9

Fishing tackle restrictions 195 20.8

Closed seasons 194 20.7

Decrease creel limit (currently 2 per day) 111 11.8

I do not support more restrictive regulations 101 10.8

No opinion 104 NA

Table 10. Angler responses to Question 10, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

What aspects of angling for native Brook Trout make the experience valuable to you as an

angler? Rate each aspect on a scale of 1 - 10 with 1 being not important at all and 10 being the

most important. Enter a number in each box. Mean rating Number of times

selected as most

important

(Choice 10)

Number of times

selected as least

important

(Choice 1)

Natural surroundings (scenery,

wildness)

8.59 338 15

Less crowded with other anglers 8.00 230 20

Unique resource 7.91 248 27

Conservation 7.74 216 23

Other 7.21 49 20

Challenge 7.20 161 28

Tradition 6.01 114 77

Harvest 4.32 71 212

Table 11. Angler responses to Question 11, 2016 Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey.

Current fisheries management practices in Maryland include Put-and-Take trout stocking in some

streams where wild trout exist. Research has shown that this practice can result in detrimental

effects to wild trout populations. Should stocking hatchery trout in streams where wild trout

occur be discontinued in Maryland?

Check all boxes that apply for the specific situation.

Responses

Stop stocking if native brook trout population exists 336

Stop stocking if wild brown trout population exists 236

Stop stocking if wild rainbow trout population exists 225

Continue current stocking practices where wild trout occur 316

Appendix A. Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey Questionnaire.

Wild Trout Angler Preference Survey

This survey is being conducted to determine angler preferences and attitudes toward wild trout

management in Maryland. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey and you

will be entered into a drawing to win one of two $50 Bass Pro Shops gift cards!

1. Trout fishing in Maryland includes angling for stocked trout (hatchery reared) and wild

trout. Wild trout are self-sustaining through natural reproduction; hatchery stocking does

not contribute to the population. Wild trout include native Brook Trout and non-native

Brown and Rainbow trout populations. From the following options please select which

best describes the type of trout fishing you participate in. Check only one box.

Fish for wild trout only, continue to Question 2

Fish for wild trout and stocked trout, continue to Question 2

Fish for stocked trout only, proceed to Question 11

2. For each angling method listed below, please assign a number to describe your use when

fishing for wild trout using the scale: 4 = Exclusively, 3 = Commonly, 2 = Rarely, 1 =

Never. Enter a number in each box.

Artificial Lures

Fly Fishing

Bait

3. When fishing for wild trout in Maryland, what species do you target? Check each box

that applies.

Brook Trout

Brown Trout

Rainbow Trout

A Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout regulation for native Brook Trout was enacted for the

Upper Savage River watershed on January 1, 2007 (all tributaries upstream of Savage River dam

and Savage River mainstem upstream of the mouth of Poplar Lick Run). Maryland DNR’s

Fisheries Service implemented the regulation to conserve the resource, improve public angling

opportunities and quality, and sustain the economic benefits from angling use. The regulation

requires anglers to release all Brook Trout, restricts tackle to artificial flies and lures (natural or

live bait prohibited), and fishing is open year round.

4. Have you fished for native Brook Trout in the Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout

areas in the upper Savage River watershed since 2007? Check the appropriate box.

Yes

No

5. Do you believe that angling for native Brook Trout has improved in the upper Savage

River watershed since the Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout regulation was adopted?

Please check only one box.

Yes

No

No Opinion

6. Do you agree or disagree with the current Zero Creel Limit Area - Brook Trout

regulation in areas of the upper Savage River watershed? Please check only one box.

Agree

Disagree

No Opinion

7. Do you agree or disagree with the current statewide regulations for wild trout (2 fish

creel limit per day, no minimum size, no tackle restrictions, no closed season) as they

apply to native Brook Trout in fishing areas not under special management? Please

check only one box.

Agree

Disagree, not restrictive enough

Disagree, too restrictive

No Opinion

8. To further conserve native Brook Trout in Maryland would you agree or disagree with

enacting special regulations in areas outside of the Savage River watershed? Please check

only one box.

Agree

Disagree

No Opinion

9. Which of the following special regulations do you believe would most benefit the native

Brook Trout fisheries in Maryland to maximize angler use/opportunity and to conserve

the resource? Please check all that apply.

Decrease Creel Limit (currently 2 per day)

Catch-and-Release Only

Closed Season(s)

Fishing Tackle Restrictions

No Opinion

I do not support more restrictive regulations for Brook Trout statewide

10. What aspects of angling for native Brook Trout make the experience valuable to you as

an angler? Rate each aspect on a scale of 1 - 10 with 1 being not important at all and 10

being the most important. Enter a number in each box.

Natural surroundings (scenery, wildness)

Less crowded with other anglers

Challenge

Tradition

Conservation

Harvest

Unique resource (native, beauty, rarity)

Other (write in) _________________________________________________

11. Current fisheries management practices in Maryland include Put-and-Take trout

stockings in some streams where wild trout exist. Research has shown that this practice

can result in detrimental effects to wild trout populations. Should stocking hatchery trout

in streams where wild trout occur be discontinued in Maryland? Check all boxes that

apply for the specific situation.

Stop stocking if native Brook Trout population exists

Stop stocking if wild Brown Trout population exists

Stop stocking if wild Rainbow Trout population exists

Continue current stocking practices where wild trout occur

12. In the space below please share any additional information in regards to your thoughts

on wild trout management in Maryland.

Literature Cited

Dillman, D.A. 2007. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method--2007

Update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. John Wiley & Sons Hoboken,

New Jersey.

Haab, T. C., and K. E. McConnell. 2003. Valuing environmental and natural resources:

the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Northhampton, Massachusetts.

Kanninen, B. J. (Ed.). 2007. Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies:

a common sense approach to theory and practice (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business.

Media, Netherlands.

McFadden, D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Institute of Urban

& Regional Development. Berkeley, California.

Parsons, G. R. 2003. The travel cost model. In A primer on nonmarket valuation (pp.

269-329). Springer, Netherlands.

Rivers, S. E. 2004. Angler’s preference survey. Study I, Job 2, In Survey and Management of

Maryland’s fishery resources, Annual performance report 2004, Federal Aid in Sportfish

Restoration project F-48-R-14. Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Fisheries Service,

Inland Fisheries Division, Annapolis, Md.

Train, K. E. 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDOI]. (2013). 2011 National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation—Maryland. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

DNR Legislative Report – Draft 4/11/2018

New Laws of Interest to DNR

SB112 Natural Resources - Tidal Fish Licenses The bill allows a commercial tidal fish licensee to add or change a license beneficiary at any point during the license year and adds crabs of the genus Cancer, or “Cancer crabs” to the conch, turtle, lobster license. SB113 Natural Resources - Recreational License Incentive Discount Program The bill allows the department to continue recreational license discount programs previously in place under a similar law that sunsetted in September 2017. SB149/HB104 Natural Resources - Electronic Licensing - Voluntary Donations The bill requires the Department of Natural Resources to establish a process through which an individual who purchases a license, permit, or registration through the electronic licensing system may make a voluntary monetary donation to the Chesapeake Bay Trust and the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays 2010 Trust Fund at the time the license, permit, or registration is purchased; requiring the Department to collect the donations made electronically under the Act and distribute the proceeds in a certain manner. SB153/HB572 Income Tax Oyster Shell Recycling Credit Maximum Allowable Amount and Sunset Extension The bill increases the tax credit from $750 to $1500 and changes the sunset date to June 30, 2021. SB501 State Lakes Protection and Restoration Fund, Purpose, Use, and Funding and Alterations The bill alters the purpose and use of the State Lakes Protection and Restoration Fund; requiring the Governor, beginning in a certain fiscal year, to include in the annual budget bill a certain appropriation to the Fund; requiring the Department of Natural Resources to report to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before a certain date; providing for the termination of this Act on June 30, 2022. The purpose would now include: (1) removing sediment; (2) treating contaminated sediment; (3) preventing the spread of invasive species; (4) improving ecological and recreational value; and (5) taking any other action the department determines is necessary. HB1137 Natural Resources - Fisheries - Commercial Oyster Divers This bill, as amended, modifies the tidal fish license and oyster authorization requirements for persons aboard a boat who are using diving apparatus to catch oysters for commercial purposes from the waters of the State. Further, the bill alters the catch limits for certain commercial oyster divers. The bill prohibits more than two commercial oyster divers from working on a boat at a time. Additionally, the bill limits the oyster catch to no more than twice the daily limit as written in regulation, and requires each commercial oyster diver to have an attendant on the boat.

HB1172 Oyster Poaching - Administrative Penalties The bill, as amended, extends the time frame in which the department holds a hearing and requires the department to hold a hearing only if the department were to revoke an authorization under this authority. The bill also requires the department to report out to the General Assembly on the number of citations for offenses listed in this statute and the administrative actions or penalties imposed under this statute each year. HB1485 Natural Resources - Shellfish - Harvesting by Wharf Owners As amended, the bill allows a pier owner exclusive rights under certain circumstances to grow oysters for non-commercial purposes near their pier. The oysters grown under the provision are not for human consumption.

DNR Legislative Report – Draft 4/11/2018

New Laws of Interest to DNR

SB112 Natural Resources - Tidal Fish Licenses The bill allows a commercial tidal fish licensee to add or change a license beneficiary at any point during the license year and adds crabs of the genus Cancer, or “Cancer crabs” to the conch, turtle, lobster license. SB113 Natural Resources - Recreational License Incentive Discount Program The bill allows the department to continue recreational license discount programs previously in place under a similar law that sunsetted in September 2017. SB149/HB104 Natural Resources - Electronic Licensing - Voluntary Donations The bill requires the Department of Natural Resources to establish a process through which an individual who purchases a license, permit, or registration through the electronic licensing system may make a voluntary monetary donation to the Chesapeake Bay Trust and the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays 2010 Trust Fund at the time the license, permit, or registration is purchased; requiring the Department to collect the donations made electronically under the Act and distribute the proceeds in a certain manner. SB153/HB572 Income Tax Oyster Shell Recycling Credit Maximum Allowable Amount and Sunset Extension The bill increases the tax credit from $750 to $1500 and changes the sunset date to June 30, 2021. SB501 State Lakes Protection and Restoration Fund, Purpose, Use, and Funding and Alterations The bill alters the purpose and use of the State Lakes Protection and Restoration Fund; requiring the Governor, beginning in a certain fiscal year, to include in the annual budget bill a certain appropriation to the Fund; requiring the Department of Natural Resources to report to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before a certain date; providing for the termination of this Act on June 30, 2022. The purpose would now include: (1) removing sediment; (2) treating contaminated sediment; (3) preventing the spread of invasive species; (4) improving ecological and recreational value; and (5) taking any other action the department determines is necessary. HB1137 Natural Resources - Fisheries - Commercial Oyster Divers This bill, as amended, modifies the tidal fish license and oyster authorization requirements for persons aboard a boat who are using diving apparatus to catch oysters for commercial purposes from the waters of the State. Further, the bill alters the catch limits for certain commercial oyster divers. The bill prohibits more than two commercial oyster divers from working on a boat at a time. Additionally, the bill limits the oyster catch to no more than twice the daily limit as written in regulation, and requires each commercial oyster diver to have an attendant on the boat.

HB1172 Oyster Poaching - Administrative Penalties The bill, as amended, extends the time frame in which the department holds a hearing and requires the department to hold a hearing only if the department were to revoke an authorization under this authority. The bill also requires the department to report out to the General Assembly on the number of citations for offenses listed in this statute and the administrative actions or penalties imposed under this statute each year. HB1485 Natural Resources - Shellfish - Harvesting by Wharf Owners As amended, the bill allows a pier owner exclusive rights under certain circumstances to grow oysters for non-commercial purposes near their pier. The oysters grown under the provision are not for human consumption.

Updated 4/10/2018 1

Fishing and Boating Services Regulatory & Penalty Update

Dates Covered: 1/13/18 to 4/9/18

Public Notices Issued View Public Notices at http://dnr.maryland.gov/Fisheries/Pages/Pub_Notices.aspx

Black Sea Bass

o 2018 Recreational Black Sea Bass Fishery — Effective 3/1/18 — Posted on website

2/21/18

Blue Crab

o Chesapeake Bay Commercial Mature Female Hard Crab Catch Limits and Crew

Requirements — April 2018 through June 2018 — Posted on website 3/19/18

Cobia

o 2018 Recreational Cobia Fishery — Effective 4/6/18 — Posted on website 4/3/18

Invitation for Bids

o Invitation for Bids: Maryland Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Spawning Area

Experimental Drift Gill Net Survey — Posted on website 2/2/18

Shark

o 2018 Commercial Shark Catch Limits — Effective 2/24/18 — Posted on website

2/21/18

Shellfish Aquaculture

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — PJH Oyster Leases, LLC & Philip J.

Harrington, III — Dorchester County — Posted on website 1/18/18

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — William E. Abey & Paul S. Abey —

Talbot County — Posted on website 1/18/18

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — Jamie Raul — Talbot County —

Posted on website 1/26/18

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — Jason A. Abbott — Somerset County

— Posted on website 1/30/18

o Public Information Session on Proposed Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — Hollywood

Oyster Company, LLC — St. Mary’s County — Posted on website 2/1/18

o Public Information Session on Proposed Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — Robert L.

Lumpkins — St. Mary’s County — Posted on website 2/1/18

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — William E. Abey & Paul S. Abey

Talbot County — Posted on website 2/2/18

o Public Information Session on Proposed Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — Robert L.

Lumpkins — St. Mary’s County — Posted on website 2/7/18

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — Derrick A. Gambrill & Leah B.

Gambrill — Wicomico County — Posted on website 2/21/18

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — Scott Budden & Richard Budden —

Kent County— Posted on website 2/22/18

o Application for Shellfish Aquaculture Lease — PJH Oyster Leases, LLC & Philip J.

Harrington, III — Somerset County— Posted on website 2/28/18

Shellfish Closures/Openings

o Partial Opening of Public Shellfish Fishery Area 81 — Effective 1/16/18 — Posted

on website 1/12/18

Updated 4/10/2018 2

Striped Bass

o Commercial Striped Bass Common Pool Gill Net Season Modification — Posted on

website 2/1/18

o Commercial Striped Bass Common Pool Gill Net Season Modification — Posted on

website 2/16/18

Summer Flounder

o 2018 Summer Flounder Season, Size Limit and Creel Limit — Effective 4/1/18 —

Posted on website 3/26/18

Tautog

o Changes to the Recreational and Commercial Tautog Fishery — Effective 5/16/18 —

Posted on website 4/3/18

Yellow Perch

o Commercial Yellow Perch Closure on the Chester River — Posted on website 3/1/18

o Commercial Yellow Perch Opening on the Chester River— Posted on website 3/6/18

o 2018 Commercial Yellow Perch Closure On The Chester River — Posted on website

3/19/18

Regulations that became Effective View regulations at http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/regulations/changes.aspx

Oysters — 08.02.04.17 — Effective 1/29/18 — Declassification of PSFA 109 and 110

Clams/Oysters — 08.02.02.12; 08.02.04.15; 08.02.07.03 — Effective 1/29/18 — Allows

clamming in the Chester Oyster Recovery Area Zone A Sanctuary

Shellfish General — Jonah Crabs — 08.02.08.06 — Effective 2/26/18 — Removes the

claw permit; size requirements if claws are harvested at sea; bycatch rules.

Striped Bass — 08.02.15.04 and .07 — Effective 3/26/18 — commercial in-season transfers

Blue Crab — 08.02.03.08 and .14 — Effective 3/26/18 — flexibility for the import of

female crabs

Fishing in Nontidal Waters — 08.02.11.01 — Effective 3/26/18 — Creates a new delayed

trout fishing area on the Patapsco River

Cobia — 08.02.05.17 and 08.02.12.03 — Effective 3/26/18 — Commercial and

recreational regulations

Fishery Management Plans — 08.02.01.01 — Effective 3/26/18 — Incorporates the fishery

management plans for Largemouth bass and Spanish mackerel into regulation

Gear — 08.02.25.01 — Effective 3/26/18 — Clarifies what we mean by stinger hook

Striped Bass — 08.02.15.08 and .11 — Effective 3/26/18 — size and creel limits

License Free Fishing Areas — 08.02.01.07 — Effective 3/26/18 — Adds 3 new areas

Commercial License Targets — 08.02.01.05 — Effective 3/26/18 — Adjusts targets

Regulations that have been Proposed and are Following the APA Process View Maryland Register at http://www.dsd.state.md.us/MDR/mdregister.html

View Proposed Regulations at http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/regulations/changes.aspx

Fish, Striped Bass, Gear — Proposed — 08.02.05.02; 08.02.15.03, .09 and .10; and

COMAR 08.02.25.01 and .03

Maryland Register 4/27/18, Comment Period Ends 5/29/18, Scheduled Effective 7/2/18

Rules for May 16-Dec 15 (2018 and 2019) – circle hooks, j hooks (no size restrictions),

striped bass size and season. Identical to emergency action

Fish, Striped Bass, Gear — Emergency — 08.02.05.02; 08.02.15.03, .09 and .10; and

COMAR 08.02.25.01 and .03

Updated 4/10/2018 3

Pending AELR Approval

Rules for May 16-Dec 15, 2018 and May 16-Dec 15, 2019 – circle hooks, j hooks (no size

restrictions), striped bass size and season

Emergency Regulations Withdrawn

Fish, Striped Bass, Gear — Emergency — 08.02.05.02; 08.02.15.03, .09 and .10; and

COMAR 08.02.25.01 and .03 — Rules for May 16-Dec 15 – circle hooks, j hooks with size

restrictions, striped bass size and season

ACTION WITHDRAWN 4/6/18 — withdrawn based on stakeholder feedback; worked

with members of the AELR committee for agreement on new proposal submitted 4/9/18

Emergency Regulations in Effect None

Commercial Fishing Suspension and Revocation List View List at

http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Commercial_SuspensionsRevocations.pdf

Recreational Fishing Suspension and Revocation List View List at http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/RecSuspensions.pdf

Page 1 of 5

Fishing and Boating Services Regulatory Scoping April 2018

Please review the following possible regulatory changes. DNR is looking for your advice on how

to proceed with scoping (i.e. open houses, web feedback only, etc.).

Blue Crabs — Housekeeping The department intends to clarify terminology in the trotline regulation.

Discussion: Currently, a trotline is required to have floats attached to each end and each float

must be marked with the owner’s identification. The regulation uses the terms float and buoy.

The plan is to change float to buoy to clarify the language and to be consistent with other blue

crab regulations that require marking of buoys.

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Charter Boat Reporting

The department plans to clarify who needs to submit the Commercial Charter Boat Captain’s

Daily Log.

Discussion: When someone purchases a charter boat license they are issued a decal to attach to

their vessel. The Annotated Code of Maryland requires commercial licensees to provide reports

as the department requests. Currently, the regulation only requires the person who purchases the

charter boat license decal to report their trips. A licensed fishing guide must operate the charter,

but anyone can purchase the decal. It is common for charter boat owners to hire a captain

(licensed guide) for their vessel. A licensed fishing guide that is operating a charter should be

expected to be responsible for completing the reports. Making this change will ensure that the

department knows who should be completing the form. Without complete reporting,

management of the recreational fisheries is more heavily dependent on NOAA Fisheries Marine

Recreational Information Program estimates rather than data directly reported by captains.

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Oysters — Oyster Gardening

The department intends to adopt regulations for an oyster gardening program. Regulations are

required by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).

Discussion: Shellfish gardening guidelines are established in Section II of the National Shellfish

Sanitation Program’s Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish: 2015 Revision. The

National Shellfish Sanitation Program is the federal/state cooperative program recognized by the

U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference

(ISSC) for the sanitary control of shellfish produced and sold for human consumption. The

purpose of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program is to promote and improve the sanitation of

shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels and scallops) moving in interstate commerce through

federal/state cooperation and uniformity of State shellfish programs. The guide defines shellfish

gardening as non-commercial shellfish culture for the purposes of enhancing water quality, or

enhancing natural stocks and not for sale for consumption.

Oyster gardening is the practice of growing oysters at private piers for ecological

benefits. The goal is to protect the young oysters during their vulnerable first year of life, so they

may be planted on local sanctuaries where the oysters can enrich the ecosystem and the oyster

Page 2 of 5

population. Through the efforts of the citizen partners, an oyster sanctuary will be enhanced

both with oysters and the abundance of living creatures associated with an oyster reef.

New regulations will establish the parameters for oyster gardening (application, permit,

who may apply for the permit, where activities may occur, penalties, etc.). A permit may be

issued to an individual oyster gardener or a regional coordinator. Individual oyster gardeners not

associated with the larger coordinated efforts will be required to apply for their own permit. The

permit will outline the waters included in the permit, the activities allowed under the permit and

any conditions for growing oysters within the area. If the permit is issued to a regional

coordinator, the coordinator will be required to maintain an updated list of the gardeners in their

permitted area. Conditions of the permit will include things like depth requirements of the oyster

cages/floats; prohibitions for consumption or sale; guidance for planting on a sanctuary;

reporting requirements; and reasons for revocation. There will not be a fee for the permit. All

activities conducted under the permit will be required to be complete within one year.

Additional Information: National Shellfish Sanitation Program’s Guide for the Control of

Molluscan Shellfish: 2015 Revision

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Oysters — Recreational Harvest

The department would like to limit the recreational harvest of oysters.

Discussion: The topic of managing the recreational harvest of oysters has been discussed at prior

advisory commission meetings. The current recreational limit is 1 bushel/person/day. This limit

has created a situation where multiple people on a boat are catching many bushels per day and

selling the oysters. The sale of recreationally caught oysters is prohibited for many reasons.

The department has discussed the topic internally and would like to scope the idea of

limiting harvest from a boat. The idea is very similar to recreational crab harvest from a boat,

and therefore will create consistency for recreational harvest policy. If there are 2 or more

people on a boat, the limit of oysters would be 2 bushels/boat/day. The proposed limit will deter

illegal harvest by keeping bushel quantities low and still allow recreational harvest by those

seeking some oysters for personal consumption.

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Shellfish Aquaculture — Housekeeping

1) Change the definition of SAV Protection Zone in regulation to match the language used in

Natural Resources §4-11A-01.

Discussion: The definition was changed in statute, but not changed in regulation. We are

updating the definition. "SAV Protection Zone" means an area of submerged aquatic

vegetation as mapped in aerial surveys by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences in 1 or

more of the 5 years preceding the designation of an Aquaculture Enterprise Zone or an

application for a lease under this subtitle.”

2) The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has changed their name to the Department of

Health. We will be updating all references.

Level of Controversy: Low. These are housekeeping changes for clarification.

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Page 3 of 5

Shellfish — General — Deliver Product the Same Day of Harvest

The department plans to require that shellfish (oysters and clams) be delivered to a buy station on

the same day of harvest.

Discussion: The National Shellfish Sanitation Program’s Guide for the Control of Molluscan

Shellfish (Model Ordinance) requires delivery of shellfish on the same day of harvest. The

National Shellfish Sanitation Program is the federal/state cooperative program recognized by the

U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference

(ISSC) for the sanitary control of shellfish produced and sold for human consumption. The

purpose of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program is to promote and improve the sanitation of

shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels and scallops) moving in interstate commerce through

federal/state cooperation and uniformity of State shellfish programs.

The Model Ordinance requires delivery on the same day of harvest during the wild

season, but the department only prohibits having oysters on your vessel more than 2 hours after

sunset and any time before sunrise. The current regulations do not say you have to deliver them

to a buy station on the same day of harvest. The Model Ordinance is very detailed, but the

department and harvesters will be in compliance if delivery to a buy station is required on the

same day of harvest. This action will apply to wild oysters, aquaculture oysters, soft clams and

hard clams. Harvesters must comply with this already since it is a requirement in Department of

Health regulations. However, because it is not in the department’s regulations, not all harvesters

are aware of the requirement. Putting it into our regulations makes it clear for harvesters and

Natural Resources Police officers.

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Striped Bass - Housekeeping The department needs to update the coordinates for Sandy Point and Turkey Point. The

coordinates appear in different regulations, but are not identical.

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Striped Bass — Susquehanna River Catch & Release Upper Boundary

The department is seeking input for the upper boundary of the catch and release area in the

Susquehanna River.

Discussion: The current regulation states that the line is from the boat ramp in Lapidum to Twin

Rocks to Tomes Wharf. This is somewhat confusing because it is not a straight line and the

coordinates do not match with Tomes Wharf. The coordinates associated with Tomes Wharf

describe Lee's Landing Dock Bar, which is a couple hundred yards upstream from Tomes Wharf.

The Sport Fisheries Advisory Commission has asked the department to create a clear straight line

in that area that will help anglers and enforcement officers. The department is considering the

four options listed below. Please see the map (linked below) to see the location of the lines.

Option 1

A readily identifiable line is the I-95 bridge. This is the most obvious and most

enforceable line. All of the tidal/nontidal dividing lines are dams or bridges, so this

would create consistency with the department’s policy.

Page 4 of 5

Option 2

This option draws a line from the Lapidum ramp to Lee's Landing. This is basically the

bottom of the breakwater, which maintains status quo with coordinates, but eliminates the

point at Twin Rocks. These points are easily identifiable from both sides of the river and

provide anglers a straight line.

Option 3

This option draws a line from the Lapidum ramp to Tome's Wharf . This is status quo

with the landmarks, but eliminates the point at Twin Rocks. These points are easily

identifiable from both sides of the river and provide anglers a straight line.

Option 4

This option was requested by an angler. The department has researched this possibility

and an issue with this request is that there are no identifiable points or obvious landmarks

on either river bank. This could lead to confusion since someone could very easily be off

by 50 to 100 yards and not know it.

Additional Information: A map will be provided at the meeting and will be linked when we post

the information on the website.

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Yellow Perch — Commercial Fishery The Commercial Yellow Perch Workgroup, consisting of members from both the Sport and

Tidal Fisheries Advisory Commissions asked the department to consider three modifications to

the current commercial regulations. They are as follows:

1) The expansion of the commercial fishery to include the Choptank and Nanticoke Rivers.

Discussion: Currently, these rivers are closed to commercial harvest. The department would

set small quotas (e.g. 2,500 lbs) for each river to allow for the harvest of yellow perch as by-

catch in other commercial fisheries (i.e. gill and fyke nets). Daily catch limits could also be

set in an effort to keep a directed fishery from developing. A permit and tags would be

distributed by the department to the fisherman after a declaration has been made to fish in

either the Choptank or Nanticoke Rivers.

2) Remove the provision in the current regulations that requires a department staff person to be

present during the sale of yellow perch in the live market.

Discussion: Current regulations require the licensee to contact the department at least 24 hours

prior to loading yellow perch into a container in which they will be transported and wait until

the department representative is present before loading. Under this rule change, the

department would still require the fisherman to notify the department 24 hours prior to the live

market transaction. However, the sale of the live market yellow perch could take place

without a department representative witnessing the transaction. The 24 hour notification

allows a department representative to be present if he/she can be there, but it would not be

required.

3) Open the month of December for commercial harvest.

Discussion: Yellow perch begin to show up in the rivers in the month of December and while

not caught in large numbers, some yellow perch harvest in the month of December could add

a little income for those fishermen still fishing that time of year. Any fish caught in

December would be accounted for against the following year's quota.

Page 5 of 5

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Yellow Perch — Fishery Management Plan The department plans to incorporate Amendment 1 to the 2002 Maryland Tidewater Yellow

Perch Fishery Management Plan (December 2017) into regulation. The amendment formally

updates the yellow perch management framework in Maryland.

Discussion: Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) are found throughout most of the freshwater areas

in Maryland and have adapted to estuarine habitats within the Chesapeake Bay. Adult yellow

perch have a “semi-anadromous” life history strategy. Adults migrate into tidal and non-tidal

freshwater to spawn, then move downstream to estuarine waters to complete their life history.

Yellow perch are important for both the commercial and recreational fisheries in Maryland. They

provide the first angling opportunity for recreational fishermen during the late winter/early

spring spawning runs and are an important regional commercial fishery. A Maryland fishery

management plan was adopted in 2002. Since then, there have been changes in the yellow perch

management approach.

A Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service Plan Review Team met

in 2013 to assess the goals, objectives, strategies, and actions in the 2002 Maryland Tidewater

Yellow Perch Fishery Management Plan and to discuss their application to current practices and

future needs of tidewater yellow perch management. The Fisheries Allocation Review Policy

(2012) was also used during the review process. The draft yellow perch review report was

presented to the Tidal Fisheries and Sport Fisheries Advisory Commissions for their input as part

of the review process. The plan review team also reviewed comments submitted by other

stakeholders. The team concluded that the fishery management plan goal is still appropriate to

the overall tidewater yellow perch management framework. However, since changes in yellow

perch management occurred in 2008 and 2009, some objectives, strategies and actions need to be

updated. As a result, the team recommended the development of an amendment to the fishery

management plan. Amendment 1 to the 2002 Maryland Tidewater Yellow Perch Fishery

Management Plan revises the management plan objectives, incorporates the status of the stock

and presents the current management approach.

Additional Information: Amendment 1 to the 2002 Maryland Tidewater Yellow Perch Fishery

Management Plan (December 2017)

Scoping Recommendation: Scope on the Department’s website, GovDelivery Communications,

Facebook and Twitter.

Curre

nt

Line

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 1 (I-95 Bridge)

Twin RocksTwin Rocks Tome's WharfTome's Wharf

Lapidum RampLapidum Ramp

Lee's LandingLee's Landing

0 0.5 10.25Miles

´Susquehanna Catch and Release Boundary

MDNR Fishing & Boating Service (bg)580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401

April 12, 2018

Weakfish Life History and Current Stock Status

April 2018

Range and Migration

• Range from Massachusetts to Florida, but are most common from New York through North Carolina.

• Migrate northward and inshore in spring and summer, and offshore and southward in fall.

• Are considered non-migratory in the southern most part of the range.

Age and Growth

• Rapid growth rate and early maturity.• 90% – 97% mature at age one.• Maximum age 17 (Delaware Bay), fish over

12 years old are rare.• Spawning occurs from March to September

Coastwide (May- August in our region).• Variable length at age due to long spawning

season.

Coastwide Weakfish Landings

Maryland Landings

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,00019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

1220

1320

1420

1520

16

Poun

ds R

ecre

atio

nal

Poun

ds C

omm

erci

al

Year

Commercial Landings

MRIP Estimates

Total Mortality from 2015 Assessment

Spawning Stock Status from 2015 Assessment

Maryland Pound Net Ages

Year Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 # of Ages2003 8.8 72.6 15.7 2.9 482004 55.9 39.2 4.9 592005 39.8 55.2 4.8 0.3 1092006 70.1 22.2 7.6 0.1 622007 67.8 24.2 7.9 0.1 612008 85.7 7.1 7.1 412009 77.3 22.7 222010 100.0 452011 80.8 15.4 262012 54.2 42.3 3.5 712013 34.7 51.9 13.4 522014 33.3 16.7 50.0 62015 47.6 52.4 212016 85.9 14.2 632017 77.8 22.2 27

Maryland Atlantic AgesYEAR Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 # of Ages

2001 3.6 58.5 25.9 8.8 2.1 1.0 1932002 36.6 34.1 19.5 7.3 2.4 412003 47.4 42.2 7.1 3.2 1542004 27.0 48.3 13.5 2.2 6.7 1.1 1.1 892005 4.1 41.4 52.7 1.8 16920062007 20.0 61.9 17.2 0.9 2152008 68.1 24.2 7.7 912009 80.5 19.5 412010 61.7 37.4 0.9 11520112012 54.0 38.0 8.0 502013 3.0 45.5 48.5 3.0 332014 77.6 2.4 11.8 4.7 3.5 85

Status Summary

• Coastwide stock of Weakfish is currently depleted.

• Fishing mortality has been reduced to acceptable levels.

• Elevated natural mortality is preventing stock recovery.

• Weakfish availability in Maryland will increase when natural mortality decreases.

Fishing & Boating ServicesSport Fisheries Advisory Commission – April 17, 2018

1

WeakfishPresented by Harry Rickabaugh

Fishing & Boating ServicesSport Fisheries Advisory Commission – April 17, 2018

2

Commercial Black Drum FisheryUpdate on ASMFC Addendum I

Fishing & Boating ServicesSport Fisheries Advisory Commission – April 17, 2018

3

Cobia Update on 2018 Cobia Recreational Regulations

Season: June 1 through September 30, 2018. Recreational anglers may keep: 1 cobia per person per day; or up to 3 cobia per vessel per day if there are 3 or more individuals on the vessel. The recreational minimum size for cobia is 40 inches total length.

Fishing & Boating ServicesSport Fisheries Advisory Commission – April 17, 2018

4

SheepsheadUpdate on Fishery & Management Authority

•South Atl. Fishery Management Council – Snapper/Grouper Complex•Removed Sheepshead from the complex in 2012•We have regulations that reflect the time when they were managed federally•NOW: Managed by states in the south…plus a few states north of NC•DNR can follow up at a future meeting about next steps

Fishing & Boating ServicesSport Fisheries Advisory Commission – April 17, 2018

5

Striped Bass Update on Circle Hook and 19 inch minimum

•Chumming and Live-Lining Only• 2 Year Sunset

Fishing & Boating ServicesSport Fisheries Advisory Commission – April 17, 2018

6

ASMFC / MAFMC UpdatesASMFC: April 30 – May 3, 2018 (Crystal City, VA)•(Joint) Black Seas Bass – Recreational Appeal (Mass- NY); Consequences•(Joint) Bluefish Amendment – Commercial and Recreational Allocation•Mako Sharks – EMERGENCY size limit changes (54 to 83 inch min)

Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus)

Life History Identification: • silvery to greenish yellow bodies; • six to seven vertical dark bars; • oval body with a deep compressed cavity • dorsal fin with 10-12 spines • forked caudal fin • long pectoral fins usually reaching to the origin of

the anal fins; • incisors and molars used for breaking molluscs and

crustacean shells (Murdy et. al. 2002). Size, Age and Maturity: Sheepshead can grow up to 35 inches, weigh up to 18 pounds and live up to 15 years (FishBase 2017). Two Maryland record breaking sheepshead were caught in 2017: Atlantic (18 pounds), Chesapeake Bay (13.7 pounds). Sheepshead reach sexual maturity at age two and grow rapidly until age six (Winner 2017). In a Florida study, the majority of fish caught were between the ages of two and four. Fish older than six were rare (Winner 2017). Habitat: Sheepshead tolerate brackish to saltwater and range from Nova Scotia to Brazil, including: Assawoman, Isle of Wight, Sinepuxent, Newport, Chincoteague and Chesapeake bays (FishBase 2017). They are commonly found around natural and manmade edifices that extend into or are submerged in water. Juveniles use shallow seagrass beds as a nursery and then move to structure-like habitats as adults (Winner et. al. 2017). Diet: Sheepshead are omnivorous but feed mainly on mollusks and crustaceans (FMNH 2017). Recreational Fishery: Sheephead are typically found in Ocean City around the jetties and bridges from June to October. The fish that are caught range from six inches up to 35 inches. Most of the sheepshead caught in Ocean City are caught by hook and line using sand fleas, lady crabs and invasive green crabs as a form of bait. A small number of spear fishermen target them a few weeks each year when there is clear water, typically in May, June or September. Water clarity rarely makes this possible.

Management Sheepshead are managed in the state of Maryland in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council as part of the snapper grouper complex. The recreational creel limit was 20 or in combination with other species

included in that complex. There are no commercial fishing regulations for this species. Only COMAR that is relevant to sheepshead is copied below.

.29 Snapper Grouper Complex. A. Snapper Grouper Management Groups.

(3) Other. The remaining species of the snapper grouper complex are: (p) Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus);

B. Season. The season for taking species listed in §A of this regulation is January 1 through December 31.

C. Size Limit. There is no minimum or maximum size limit for the species listed in §A of this regulation.

D. Recreational. An individual may not catch or possess more than: (3) 20 of any species or any combination of the species listed in §A(3) of

this regulation. Enforcement from Sargent Matt Corbin, Ocean City: “This year (2017) fisherman have harvested an unusually high number of sheepshead in our area. That being said I have not seen anything that would cause an enforcement concern with the current regulations in place. It might be something fisheries may want to explore for the future.”

Virginia’s Non-Confidential Landings. Confidential landings could be higher, but are not shareable. Generally, if there are more than three fishermen and more than three dealers reporting, then it’s non-confidential.