Fishing Access in the United States

Produced by the American Sportfishing Association and Responsive Management

Conducted Under a Grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and Administered by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Multi-State Conservation Grant VA M-20-R

2010

FISHING ACCESS IN THE UNITED STATES

FINAL REPORT

PRODUCED UNDER MULTI-STATE CONSERVATION GRANT VA M-20-R

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION Gordon Robertson, Vice President

225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 420

Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: 703-519-9691

E-Mail: info@asafishing.org www.asafishing.org

RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT

Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate

Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate Tom Beppler, Research Associate

Andrea Criscione, Research Associate Weldon Miller, Research Associate Joanne Nobile, Research Associate

Amanda Ritchie, Research Associate Carol L. Schilli, Research Associate

Tim Winegord, Survey Center Manager Alison Lanier, Business Manager

130 Franklin Street

Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Telephone: 540-432-1888

E-Mail: mark@responsivemanagement.com www.responsivemanagement.com

ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725 Washington, DC 20001

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the views of independent state fish and wildlife agencies.

Although numerous people assisted with this project, any errors, omissions,

or typographical mistakes in the report are the sole responsibility of Responsive Management.

Fishing Access in the United States i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this project was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the myriad issues

concerning access to waters affecting anglers and landowners in the United States, as well as the

opinions and attitudes of Federal and state land management agency professionals who make

decisions regarding angler access. The study quantified the issues of greatest concern and

importance regarding fishing access to guide the development and advancement of programs

seeking to facilitate and improve access to waters by anglers.

As any effort to improve fishing access must depend on a solid foundation of facts derived from

research findings, it is only through the scientific assessment and measurement of the balance of

attitudes of anglers, landowners with water access, and land management agency professionals

that successful, long-term solutions to angler access issues may be developed. The ultimate goal

of this project was to provide the needed information by examining interaction among the three

groups most relevant to fishing access.

While there are many factors related to angler dissatisfaction and a decline in the overall number

of anglers across the United States, access is one of the most important. If anglers cannot access

areas in which to fish, they may change their fishing locations, or, more detrimentally, desert the

sport altogether, never to return. Numbers released from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation show a continued decline in fishing participation.

Needless to say, the consequences associated with a decrease in the total number of anglers are

profound.

Common reasons cited by anglers as factors negatively affecting their fishing participation

include many social factors, such as lack of time and work and family obligations. However,

upon separating social factors from resource-based angler dissatisfactions (i.e., factors on which

fish and wildlife agencies can effectively exert influence), access emerges as a consistently

identified resource-based issue of concern among anglers.

ii Responsive Management

METHODOLOGY The study entailed focus groups of those whose work pertains wholly or in part to fishing access,

such as state and federal agency employees (hereinafter referred to as “professionals”); focus

groups with landowners whose land has water access; focus groups of anglers; a multi-modal

survey of professionals; a telephone survey of landowners with water access nationwide; and a

telephone survey of anglers nationwide. Note that hereinafter, references to landowners in this

study specifically refer to landowners who have water access on, adjacent to, or running through

their property.

Focus Groups Focus groups entail an in-depth, structured discussion with a small group of participants (10

to 12) about select subjects. The use of focus groups is an accepted research technique for

qualitative explorations of attitudes, opinions, and perceptions. They allow for extensive

open-ended responses to questions; probing, follow-up questions; group discussions; and

observation of emotional responses to fishing access issues—aspects that cannot be measured in

a traditional quantitative survey.

The focus groups were conducted using a discussion guide designed to encourage participants to

provide their opinions on and attitudes toward fishing access issues. Responsive Management’s

researchers, in collaboration with the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), developed the

discussion guides based on their knowledge of fishing access issues. Each focus group was

moderated by one of the following professional moderators: Mark Damian Duda, Executive

Director of Responsive Management; Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate for Responsive

Management; or Tom Beppler, Research Associate for Responsive Management.

The moderator, through the use of a discussion guide, kept the discussion within design

parameters without exerting a strong influence on the discussion content. In this sense, the focus

groups were non-directive group discussions that exposed the spontaneous attitudes, insights,

and perceptions of anglers, landowners, and professionals regarding fishing access issues. All

focus group discussions were recorded for further analysis.

Fishing Access in the United States iii

The focus groups with anglers were conducted in Michigan, Texas, and Washington State; the

focus groups with landowners were conducted in Montana, Washington State, and Virginia; and

the focus groups with professionals were conducted in Montana and Oregon, as well as by

conference call.

For the focus groups of professionals, Responsive Management identified and contacted

professionals within various government agencies whose work affected angler access. For the

focus groups of landowners, Responsive Management identified and contacted landowners using

records of waterfront property ownership. For the focus groups of anglers, Responsive

Management identified and contacted anglers using fishing license records.

Multi-Modal Survey of Professionals For the survey of professionals, a multi-modal survey approach was used, as such an approach

allows each respondent to take the survey at the most convenient time and in the format with

which he/she is most comfortable. The completed surveys were entered into Responsive

Management’s database by data entry personnel (for professionals who chose to use the PDF

survey option) or were entered by telephone interviewers during the telephone interview (for

those professionals who chose to take the survey by telephone) using Questionnaire

Programming Language (QPL), which is software designed for telephone surveying and data

collection. The survey of professionals was conducted from February to October 2009.

Responsive Management obtained 400 completed questionnaires from professionals.

Telephone Surveys of Landowners and Anglers For the surveys of landowners and anglers, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling

medium because of the almost universal ownership of telephones among these groups.

Additionally, telephone surveys, relative to mail or Internet surveys, allow for more scientific

sampling and data collection for large heterogeneous groups and are more timely and more

cost-effective. Telephone surveys also have fewer negative effects on the environment than do

mail surveys because of reduced use of paper and reduced energy consumption for delivering

and returning the questionnaires.

iv Responsive Management

The landowner sample was obtained from a sample provider that used real estate records of landowners likely to have water on or by their property. The landowner sample was carefully obtained to be representative of the United States as a whole. From this sample, screener questions in the survey allowed interviewers to identify landowners with water access for the survey. The sample of anglers was obtained from fishing license records, and it too was scientifically proportioned to be representative of the United States as a whole (even accounting for the fact that some states with saltwater bodies do not require a fishing license for saltwater fishing). A central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house telephone interviewing facilities staffed by interviewers with experience conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews on the subjects of natural resources and outdoor recreation. The telephone survey questionnaires were developed cooperatively by Responsive Management and the ASA, with input from various other professionals. Responsive Management conducted pre-tests of the questionnaires to ensure proper wording, flow, and logic. The angler and landowner surveys were conducted by the interviewers using QPL. The software automatically skips the interview to the appropriate places, based on responses to questions given by the respondent. QPL also automatically inserts proper wording based on previous answers; for instance, a Great Lakes angler would have “the Great Lakes” inserted into the questions asking about various aspects of a respondent’s fishing experiences. The graphs indicate this by parentheses. For example, one question on the survey is shown as follows:

About how many days do you usually go (freshwater/saltwater) fishing (in/from) (body of water) each year?

QPL automatically inserted the angler’s primary body of water (previously named by the

respondent) into the question. For an angler who primarily fished in the Great Lakes, the

question would have been worded as follows:

About how many days do you usually go freshwater fishing in the Great Lakes each year?

Fishing Access in the United States v

The graphs show such wording substitutions in parentheses. When interpreting the graphs, it is

important to know that the actual interview used the wording appropriate to each respondent.

Also note that many questions in the angler survey pertained to each angler’s primary water

body used for fishing, which allowed for useful crosstabulations. Opinions and experiences

could be tied in the data to specific types of water.

Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday from

noon to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., local time. The survey of

landowners was conducted from September 2009 to February 2010. Responsive Management

obtained a total of 4,017 completed interviews with landowners. The survey of anglers was

conducted from March to December 2009. Responsive Management obtained a total of 4,131

completed interviews with anglers.

The software used for data collection was QPL. The survey data were entered into the computer

as each interview was being conducted. As discussed, the survey instrument was programmed so

that QPL branched, coded, and substituted phrases in the survey based on previous responses to

ensure the integrity and consistency of the data collection.

Data Analysis The analysis of data for this study was performed using Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management. Throughout

this report, findings of the telephone survey of anglers are reported at a 95% confidence interval

(or higher). For the entire sample of anglers, the sampling error is at most plus or minus 1.52

percentage points. Sampling error was calculated with a sample size of 4,131 anglers and a

population size of 29,957,000 anglers nationwide. No sampling error was determined for the

survey of professionals because there is no feasible way to determine the total population of

professionals in the United States who could have been interviewed. Likewise, no sampling

error was determined for the sample of landowners, again because the total population of

landowners with water access in the United States who could have been interviewed is not

precisely known.

vi Responsive Management

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS As discussed, the study included surveys of three different groups: state and federal employees

whose jobs involve them in fishing access and related issues (the “professionals” survey),

landowners whose properties have water access, and recreational anglers. Pertinent

characteristics from the three different groups are discussed below.

Professionals Respondents to the state/federal agency professionals survey included many state fish and

wildlife/natural resource agency personnel, U.S. Forest Service personnel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service personnel, and Bureau of Land Management personnel, as well as other agencies.

Fishing access appears to be a fairly important priority for state and federal agencies as they

engage in land management plans: just under half of the sample of state/federal agency

professionals say that fishing access is either an extremely high priority or a high priority for

their agencies when developing a land management plan; another quarter say it is a medium

priority.

Landowners Landowner respondents were well represented across a range of states, and they had many

different types of freshwater or saltwater bodies on, adjacent to, or running through their

properties. Overwhelmingly, landowners are supportive of fishing: almost all approve of legal,

regulated fishing, and a large majority of landowners say it is important to know that people have

the opportunity to fish.

Just under half of the landowners in the survey fish on their own properties. Just under two-

thirds allow others not living in their households to access the water from their properties for

fishing. This is tempered by the fact that the access granted by such landowners is often limited

to those who are personally known to the landowner or otherwise given permission by the

landowner, while only about a tenth of landowners open their properties to all public use for

fishing. About half of landowners allow others not living in their households to access the water

from their properties for recreational activities other than fishing. Only about 1% of landowners

Fishing Access in the United States vii

charge a fee for access to their properties. Finally, about a quarter of landowners display

“private,” “no trespassing,” or other similar signs near the water access areas on their properties,

which does not, however, preclude them from allowing access for fishing and/or other recreation.

Common reasons that landowners may disallow access include not knowing the person seeking

access, poor behavior by anglers and others, privacy concerns, and liability concerns.

Anglers Anglers in the survey were broadly distributed across states and showed a range of years of

fishing experience. Most anglers in the survey were avid (those who had not fished in the

previous 5 years were screened out of the survey): three-quarters had gone freshwater fishing all

5 of the past 5 years, and about a quarter had gone saltwater fishing all 5 of the past 5 years.

ACCESS CHARACTERISTICS AND RATINGS Just under half of anglers surveyed say they mostly fish in the same location every year (44%),

while just over a quarter say they fish in various locations each year (27%).

The majority of anglers surveyed (64%) access their primary water body mostly from public

land; only 16% do so mostly from private land, and 19% do so from public and private land

about equally.

Most anglers rate access to their most commonly fished body of water as excellent or good

(79%), with just a fifth (20%) describing it as fair or poor.

Public Land Regarding ratings of access from public land, 79% of anglers who accessed their primary water

body from public land say access is excellent or good. The majority of anglers who fished from

public land say access on public land has stayed the same (64%), although small percentages are

of the opinion that access from public land has gotten better (18%) or gotten worse (14%).

viii Responsive Management

The most common reasons for saying that public access has worsened include that there is not

enough access in general, that private land blocks public land or access to it, poor maintenance of

boat access, and crowding from other anglers.

Private Land Anglers who access their most commonly fished body of water from private land usually do so

via land owned by someone else (65% of those private land users), while about a fifth of them

(19%) do so from private land that they themselves own (nearly all the rest saying someone

else’s/their own land about equally). Private lands used by anglers to access waters are typically

owned by friends, family members, or acquaintances, although about a quarter of anglers who

use private lands say the lands are owned by someone who was not previously known to the

angler.

Anglers who use private lands owned by someone not known previously typically go through a

private business to gain access or are members of clubs that have leases or arrangements with

landowners.

Regarding ratings of access from private land, 70% of anglers who accessed their primary water

body from private land say access is excellent or good. Also, the majority of anglers who

accessed the water from private land say access from private land has stayed the same (65%)

over the past 5 years, and just 8% are of the opinion that access from private land has gotten

better; meanwhile, 21% say private land access has gotten worse over the past 5 years.

By far the most common reason for saying that private land access has worsened is that

landowners have closed their lands, followed by ownership changes resulting in closed lands,

development closing lands, or the cost of access.

Professionals’ Ratings of Public and Private Land Fishing Access State and federal agency professionals were also asked to rate fishing access and opportunities on

various types of lands, and they generally rate public land access higher than private land access.

Further, professionals tend to give the highest ratings to fishing access on the lands that their

Fishing Access in the United States ix

agency manages, as opposed to access in general or access on lands that their agency does not

manage. Conversely, freshwater fishing from private lands in their states receives the lowest

ratings from professionals.

Reasons for Private Land Closures In the landowner survey, landowners were asked about reasons that they might close their lands

to access, and privacy/not wanting anyone on the land (64% said this is very important), wanting

to allow only personal or family use of the access area (60%), pollution or litter (58%), liability

concerns (55%), poor behavior of other recreationists (53%), and poor behavior of anglers (51%)

were among the top reasons for closing access that were deemed very important by landowners.

Considerations for Determining Access Locations The most important factors anglers consider when deciding where to access fishing areas are that

the access area has boat access (54% of anglers say this factor is very important), that the access

area has well-maintained boat ramps (also 54%), that the access area is not crowded with

recreationists other than anglers (50%), and that the access area has a well-maintained parking

area (50%).

Another set of questions asked anglers about actions they may or may not take when deciding

where to fish. A majority of anglers ask a friend or family member where to access the water

(56% do so always or sometimes), use paper maps to find a place to access the water (45%),

research available places to access the water on the Internet (43%), and/or scout or physically

look for access places (43%).

PROBLEMS THAT AFFECT ACCESS Angler Perspectives The angler survey asked a series of questions about 41 possible problems that anglers may have

experienced in the past 5 years. The survey asked each question individually and then compared

the results across all 41 questions. At the top of the ranking by the percentage saying the given

problems have been major or moderate problems in the 5 years prior to the survey are the cost of

gas (52% said this was a major or moderate problem in the past 5 years), crowding on the water

x Responsive Management

(31%), crowding at fishing access areas (31%), crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

(30%), not enough places to access the water to fish (26%), fewer areas to fish due to

development (23%), not enough places to fish (22%), not enough parking at access areas or boat

launches (22%), access or user fees being expensive (22%), poorly marked boundaries of public

and private land in fishing areas (22%), less fishing access or boat access due to development

(21%), and poorly marked public access areas (21%)—all with more than a fifth of anglers

saying they are major or moderate problems.

Substantial percentages of anglers reported that the following situations had been major or

moderate problems while fishing in the 5 years prior to the survey: leaving an area because of

crowding from other anglers (25% of anglers say this situation has been a major or moderate

problem in the past 5 years), leaving an area because of crowding from recreationists other than

anglers (23%), leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than

anglers (23%), and leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior of anglers (19%). The

other situations presented to anglers had markedly lower percentages of respondents saying that

the situation had been either a major or moderate problem.

The angler survey asked anglers about several factors that could influence access to fishing in

general, and a few items in this listing had notable percentages of anglers saying that it is a major

or moderate problem in influencing access. At the top of the ranking is housing and commercial

development (27% of anglers said it is a major or moderate problem influencing fishing access),

followed by poor management of public fishing access and boat access areas (20%), not enough

public fishing access and boat access areas for those with disabilities (19%), lack of or unclear

signs marking public and private fishing access and boat access areas (18%), and unnecessary

closures of recreational fishing areas by state or federal agencies (18%).

Landowner Perspectives Despite the aforementioned reasons why some landowners close their properties to fishing

access, the large majority of landowners in the survey (89%) said that they had not experienced

any problems with anglers on their properties or accessing the water from their properties in the

5 years preceding the survey. Nonetheless, 11% of landowners reported having a problem with

Fishing Access in the United States xi

anglers on their property or accessing the water from their property. Also, 15% of landowners

surveyed had experienced problems with recreationists other than anglers.

In combining the results of the questions above, 23% of landowners have had a problem with

anglers and/or non-anglers in the past 5 years (the total is not simply the sum of the two “yes”

percentages in the two questions because some landowners answered “yes” to both questions

regarding whether they had experienced problems).

A set of questions in the landowner survey asked about 14 possible problems that landowners

may have had with anglers in the previous 5 years. For each problem, landowners rated it as

being a major problem, a moderate problem, a minor problem, or not a problem at all. Four

problems stand out at the top, each with 40% or more saying it has been a major or moderate

problem with anglers in the past 5 years: trespassing/use without permission (51%), loss of

privacy (51%), pollution/litter (47%), and poor stewardship/care of the land/water (40%).

Professional Perspectives As was done in the angler survey, professionals were asked about possible fishing access issues

that might be problems for anglers on the public lands their agencies manage. A majority of

professionals considered the following to be major or moderate problems for anglers: anglers

not having access to docks or piers from which to fish (65% of professionals say this is a major

or moderate problem for anglers), the cost of gas for anglers (62%), crowding at boat ramps,

launches, or put-in sites (55%), and not enough places to access the water to fish (54%).

Taken together, the data from the angler and professional surveys suggest that not having enough

places to fish, the cost of gas, and crowding in various places (at fishing access areas, boat

ramps, launches, or put-in sites) are among the most prevalent issues negatively affecting fishing

access.

xii Responsive Management

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ACCESS Angler Perspectives The angler survey asked 16 questions about the effectiveness of potential efforts that could be

undertaken to improve access. The top tier consists of 5 of the 16 items, all with more than 50%

saying it would be very effective at making access easier, most pertaining to information

dissemination. These top items are having up-to-date information on a website showing public

access areas and access from private lands open to the public (60% of anglers said this would be

very effective), having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (also 60%),

having up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that have been

closed (57%), having signs that clearly mark access to fishing areas from public and private

lands (55%), and having state agencies buy more land for fishing access and boat access areas

(52%).

Landowner Perspectives Landowners were asked about the effectiveness of programs or efforts to encourage landowners

to allow public access, or more public access than they currently allow, to the water from their

properties for fishing. Unfortunately, all of the items had a large majority of landowners rating

them as being not at all effective at encouraging landowners to allow fishing access on their

properties. Nonetheless, about a third of landowners (30%) say that it would be very or

somewhat effective if a state agency provided anglers with more information on water access

laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private

land. This is the top rated response among all landowners.

Professional Perspectives Respondents to the professionals survey were asked about certain agency efforts that could be

improved with regard to the public lands managed by the respondents’ agencies. A few items

have at least half of state/federal agency personnel in the survey saying that the effort could be

improved a lot or a moderate amount with regard to the public lands managed by their agencies:

providing easements or public rights-of-way on private land to access the water for fishing

(62%), buying more land for fishing access and boat access areas (58%), providing landowners

with more information on water access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are

Fishing Access in the United States xiii

on, adjacent to, or run through private land (52%), providing more boat ramps, launches, or

put-in sites (50%), and providing anglers with more information on water access laws and

regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

(50%).

PROGRAM AWARENESS AND INFORMATION SOURCES In general, all three groups that were surveyed would like there to be more information made

available to anglers and landowners to help them determine access areas, fishing opportunities,

regulations and policies specific to private and public lands, and liability concerns. Additionally,

there is generally low awareness of specific agency-sponsored or other programs designed to

help anglers and/or landowners with fishing access issues.

The vast majority of anglers surveyed (90%) are not aware of any specific programs designed to

assist anglers with accessing water for fishing (9% indicated being aware). Similarly, the vast

majority of landowners (96%) are not aware of specific programs or resources to assist

landowners who allow public access to the water from their properties (3% indicated being

aware).

By far the most common source of information anglers use to learn about access and places to

fish is friends/family/word of mouth. Just under a third of anglers (29%) have visited a state or

federal agency website to look for information on fishing access or places to fish. Among those

anglers who do consult state and federal agency websites for fishing access information, ratings

are positive regarding the usefulness of the information that they find on such sites. For each site

or type of site, no less than 50% rate the utility of the information on places to fish and on access

as excellent or good.

OPINIONS ON AN ACCESS FEE The majority of anglers (59%) would oppose a general access fee of $20 or less to support

fishing access programs.

xiv Responsive Management

IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS General Implications The data contained in this report have utility beyond the implications discussed below. The

report can be used as a continuing resource for information pertaining to access. The results, for

instance, can be used as baseline data for comparison to any future surveys and research that is

undertaken. While the researchers discuss many implications of the research in this section,

there may be other implications of the data that professionals and stakeholders may see that the

researchers did not see, including various nuances of the data or items that are particularly

important to certain professionals and stakeholders.

The implications that follow discuss ways to improve access, which does not always mean

increasing access. It may be that some areas or water bodies are at their carrying capacity or that

some fisheries are experiencing their maximum sustainable fishing pressure. In these situations,

more access does not necessarily mean improved access. In such situations, improved access

may mean dispersing the access over a greater area without necessarily increasing the amount of

access.

The Implications of the Locations of Anglers’ Fishing Activities Knowing the proportion of anglers who access the water from various types of land and in

various ways is important in improving access. As each type of land presents its own access

challenges, information on locations of fishing activities is useful for helping to improve access.

Among the important findings regarding anglers’ primary fishing locations:

• Two-thirds of anglers use public land “mostly”; the overwhelming majority use public

land either mostly or equally with private land.

• About half of freshwater anglers fish primarily in reservoirs and lakes; about a third of

freshwater anglers fish in rivers or streams.

• About half of freshwater anglers primarily use a boat while fishing, overwhelmingly

private boats. The remaining are mostly apportioned among those who describe their

fishing as from the bank or shore and those who fish from docks or piers.

Fishing Access in the United States xv

• Just under half of saltwater anglers fish in the ocean (more than half if surf fishing is

included); about a quarter fish in tidal bays and sounds, and the rest are apportioned

between the beach and tidal portions of rivers.

• About half of saltwater anglers primarily use a private boat; about a quarter of saltwater

anglers primarily use a chartered boat. In total, about three-quarters of saltwater anglers

primarily use a boat of some kind.

The above data have implications for providing access. For instance, while private land access is

important, prioritization of strategies must account for the fact that most anglers use public land

more than they do private land for accessing the water. Additionally, boat use is robust: about

half of freshwater anglers and a large majority of saltwater anglers use a boat to fish their

primary body of water. The section of this report titled “Locations of Anglers’ Fishing

Activities” provides valuable data on fishing locations, including the percentage of anglers who

could possibly be affected by an action as well as the percentage who would receive little benefit

from an action.

About half of anglers describe themselves as fishing in various locations each year (rather than

from the same location each year). This demonstrates a willingness to try different places for

fishing. (It is interesting to compare this with hunters: only 9% of hunters say that they hunt in

different locations each year.) Among saltwater anglers, those who describe their saltwater

fishing location as in the ocean and those who fish at the beach/on shore/in the surf are more

likely to fish various locations, when compared to anglers who fish either tidal bays/sounds or

tidal portions of rivers.

The survey shows that about 22% of all anglers access the water using private land owned by

someone they do not know. While private land access programs are important, the prioritization

of programs must account for the fact that private land access programs may not benefit a large

portion of anglers.

xvi Responsive Management

Public boat ramps and similar facilities are of great importance. As indicated above, more than

half of anglers typically use a boat when fishing, and the majority of boat users use a public

facility.

In a finding that pertains to the geographical distribution of fishing access sites, the survey found

that the median distance that anglers travel to go fishing is 35 miles. Nonetheless, more distant

travel is common, with about a third of anglers typically traveling more than 50 miles to go

fishing. Boat use was found to be correlated with saying that having the access area be close to

home is very important. This suggests that travel distances are more of a concern among anglers

using (and, perhaps, hauling behind their vehicle) a boat.

The Implications of the Ratings Given To Access for Fishing To start the discussion of fishing access ratings, it is important to realize that anglers are positive

about access ratings: a majority give an excellent or good rating to access in general, to access to

public land, and to access to private land. Additionally, in general, professionals’ ratings of

access are worse than anglers’ ratings. This situation is good in that it is better for professionals

to be more concerned than anglers rather than for professionals to be less concerned.

It is interesting to note that professionals generally give less positive ratings compared to anglers,

but professionals are more likely to say that public land access has gotten better than are anglers.

This suggests that anglers may be unaware of some of the access efforts undertaken by

professionals; if so, professionals may consider communicating why access is getting better.

Also in this line, professionals are more likely than are anglers to give negative ratings to private

land access. However, anglers’ ratings may, in the near future, approach the negativity of

professionals’ ratings, because anglers perceive private land access to be getting worse.

It is fortunate for professionals that anglers generally are positive about access. This means that

professionals are dealing with a group that is not overly pessimistic (at this point). Although

anglers’ ratings of fishing access are generally positive, in looking at types of freshwater bodies,

the lowest ratings are for access to rivers and streams (although still generally positive). The

Fishing Access in the United States xvii

crosstabulation of ratings by types of water bodies includes data on where access problems are

the greatest and provides a guide for efforts to improve access (see Figures 22, 23, 25, 26, 28

and 29 in the body of the report).

Factors in Anglers’ Decisions Regarding Where To Fish, and Constraints To Fishing Participation: The Implications for Access One finding of the angler survey is that access-related problems were the top type of

dissatisfaction named in an open-ended question—this reinforces the need to address access

problems. Lack of time was also commonly mentioned as a dissatisfaction with fishing. While

that may seem to be out of the control of professionals, lack of time might be lessened as a

constraint if better access reduces the time it takes to get to the fishing spot.

Among anglers, boat access is an important factor in their decisions regarding where to fish

(recall that about half of freshwater anglers and about three-fourths of saltwater anglers typically

use a boat when fishing). Maintenance of facilities is also of importance. Proximity of access is

of less importance than maintenance, particularly in light of the fact that many anglers currently

drive more than 50 miles to go fishing on a typical trip.

Crowding is commonly named as a constraint or dissatisfaction with fishing. In a large series of

potential problems that anglers may face regarding access, crowding emerged as important. It

may be that information about under-utilized access areas may help to better disperse anglers

attempting to access the water. Dispersing access to limit crowding may also help with fishing

pressure in some areas. The professionals focus group included a discussion that more access is

not always better access because some areas and fisheries could not support more access.

Behavior of anglers and other recreationists can affect access; more specifically, bad behavior

can exacerbate feelings of crowding. Professionals planning and administering access programs

and efforts would do well to consider the multiple links between recreationists’ behavior and

access.

It is also important to look at the actions that anglers typically take when deciding where to fish.

A majority of anglers typically ask a friend or family member where to fish when deciding where

xviii Responsive Management

to go fishing. Additionally, just under a majority use paper maps, research access places on the

Internet, and/or scout for locations to access the water for fishing. These findings should be of

use in developing strategies pertaining to access.

While paper maps are far less cost-effective in transmitting information to anglers when

compared to the Internet, it appears that, for the time being at least, many anglers still use paper

maps.

Note that the nonparametric analysis found some interesting correlations within this series of

questions to anglers. It found that use of paper maps was correlated with fishing in various

locations from year to year (rather than the same location). Use of paper maps was also

correlated to traveling farther. Also, asking a friend or family member as a strategy to find

access is correlated with having lived in the state for less than the median number of years.

Regarding ways to disseminate information, the Internet was the top source among anglers (other

than friends/family/word of mouth) for information about fishing locations and fishing access. It

was the top answer among anglers when they were asked to name their top preferred way to

receive information.

The Implications of Landowners’ Attitudes Toward Fishing Fortunately, there is little anti-fishing bias among landowners: the overwhelming majority of

landowners (92%) approve of legal, recreational fishing, and nearly the same amount (88%)

think that it is important to know that people have the opportunity to fish in their state.

Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access: The Implications for Access Recognizing that use of public lands for access far exceeds use of private lands, there is still a

substantial portion of anglers who use private land for access, suggesting that private land access

programs will help some anglers. Fortunately, the survey of landowners found that about two-

thirds of private landowners surveyed allow access for fishing. Additionally, the landowner

survey found that landowners are more willing to allow anglers than to allow other recreationists

on their land.

Fishing Access in the United States xix

In a related finding, about a quarter of landowners indicated that they posted signs, such as No

Trespassing, on their property. (Note that allowing fishing access and posting property are not

mutually exclusive; some landowners who posted land allowed access for fishing.)

The landowner survey found that landowners are mostly concerned about privacy, wanting to

personally use the water for fishing (which may tend to limit how much they want others to use

the same spot), littering and poor behavior of anglers and other recreationists, and liability.

The landowner survey found that not knowing a person is an important reason that landowners

disallow access. Furthermore, the landowner survey found that even landowners who allow

access are not, in general, allowing access to total strangers. This suggests a need for helping to

allay landowners’ concerns about strangers on their property—any efforts that facilitate

communication between anglers and landowners may help in this regard.

Landowners, in general, express much concern about the behavior of recreationists, including

anglers. While anglers may be unfairly getting the blame for some problems that they do not

cause, the net effect is that they will suffer the consequences of the negative behavior if the

landowner closes his/her land to water access. This suggests that programs that allow access to

private land in the context of allowing a responsible angler on the land may be good.

Despite expressing concern about liability (in a direct question, about three-fourths of

landowners indicated being concerned about liability), most landowners said that a program to

reduce landowners’ liability would not be effective at encouraging them to open their land to

fishing access. Nonetheless, 25% indicated that such a reduction of liability would be very or

somewhat effective at getting them to allow fishing access.

The surveys of each group found that anglers and professionals are more likely (compared to

landowners) to think that a program to reduce a landowner’s liability would be effective at

improving access. Compared to the 25% of landowners who think it would be effective, 66% of

anglers and 71% of professionals think such a program would be effective. A quite low

xx Responsive Management

percentage of landowners—only 1%—were aware of any laws in their state that reduce a

landowner’s liability for allowing access to the water.

The surveys included questions about private land incentive programs that provide either

financial or non-financial assistance to landowners who open their property to fishing access.

The survey found that only 2% of private landowners indicate that they would be very likely to

participate in a program that provides financial assistance, and only 10% would be very or

somewhat likely; fully 88% describe themselves as not at all likely to participate. The results are

equally negative regarding non-financial assistance.

In an open-ended question, landowners were asked to name any types of incentives or assistance

from the state that would make them more likely to allow fishing access. While the

overwhelming majority of landowners said that nothing would make them more likely to allow

fishing access, 4% gave an answer relating to lower taxes or other financial incentives, and 2%

gave an answer relating to assistance with land upkeep.

In the series of questions in the landowner survey about the effectiveness of things that might get

landowners to allow access for fishing, only 5% of landowners said that being allowed to charge

a fee for others to access their property would be effective in getting them to allow access.

These findings suggest that incentives would have only limited effect in encouraging

landowners’ to allow access for fishing, particularly monetary incentives.

One problem that was raised in focus groups was private land blocking access to public land for

accessing the water. A not insubstantial percentage of anglers (14%) said that this had been a

major or moderate problem with access in the past 5 years. Note that 30% of professionals

indicated that this is a major or moderate problem on land their agency manages.

The Implications of Landowners’ Interactions With Anglers and Other Outdoor Recreationists The landowner survey found that nearly a quarter of landowners had experienced a negative

interaction with an angler and/or other recreationist within the previous 5 years: 11% had

experienced a negative interaction with an angler, and 15% with an “other” recreationist, with

Fishing Access in the United States xxi

23% having experienced a negative interaction with either an angler or other recreationist (not

the sum of the two questions individually, because some landowners experienced problems with

both).

As discussed above, the umbrella of “other outdoor recreationists” is a problem: landowners

have a negative view of this “other” group, which can taint their view of anglers as well. A

communication strategy that reinforces to landowners the differences between anglers as a group

and non-anglers would serve the fishing community well, in light of the negative view of the

latter group.

The Implications of the Findings Regarding Strategies and Programs to Improve Access The particular demographic characteristics of anglers have implications on access strategies and

programs. Approximately three-fourths of anglers are male. Although there are, obviously,

exceptions, anglers are also slightly older than the general population as a whole, and they tend

to be fairly long-term residents of their state. The majority of anglers describe their residence as

in a rural area or a small city/town; nonetheless, about a third live in a large city/urban area or a

suburban area. The angler survey found that about three-fourths of anglers must travel to fish

(i.e., less than a quarter have access to water from their property).

The nonparametric analysis results on gender (contained in the section of this report titled,

“Years Fished, Avidity, Organization Memberships, and Angler Demographic Data”) that

examined the differences in behaviors and responses to questions between males and females

may be useful in developing and/or administering access strategies and programs. For instance,

the nonparametric analysis found that males tend to be more avid anglers; are more likely to have

fished in tournaments, to have saltwater fished, to have fished various locations (rather than the

same), and to have scouted for fishing access; and males show less concern than do females

about crowding from other anglers and encountering landowners while accessing the water.

Females tend to be more concerned about the maintenance of the access area, and they are more

likely than males to fish the same (i.e., familiar) location rather than various locations.

xxii Responsive Management

Awareness of fishing access programs and resources is low, with less than 1 in 10 anglers saying

that they are aware of any fishing access programs or resources. While it may be that some of

those not aware are in no need of assistance with access, certainly some of them may benefit

from access programs and/or resources. In other instances, they may benefit from an access

program or resource without realizing it; in such cases, it may be worthwhile for professionals to

publicize how the angler is actually benefiting from the program/resource.

Landowners are even less aware of any programs that assist landowners in providing access

(including any programs that may assist them with any problems pertaining to fishing access):

only 3% of landowners indicated being aware of any such programs.

It is worth noting that anglers as a group responded well in the survey to programs that provide

more information to anglers about access; as a group they tended to describe such efforts as

being effective in improving access.

Regarding information sources among anglers, it is notable that the leading source of information

about angler access and related issues is word of mouth. While this source is convenient—

perhaps even passively obtained with almost no effort from anglers—it is a source that may

provide (and perpetuate) misinformation or out-of-date information. Any actions agencies can

do to step into this information “void” would be helpful in the dissemination of accurate, timely

information.

The ratings of programs of which anglers were aware is positive. The section of the report titled,

“Strategies and Programs To Improve Access,” including Figures 188 through 203 in the main

body of the report, contains data on anglers’ ratings, including their reasons for giving the

various ratings, which may be of use to planning and administering access programs and

resources.

While the finding that two-thirds of landowners allow fishing access is positive, the survey found

less positive results regarding landowners’ responses to various strategies presented to them for

helping with fishing access and access problems. The landowner survey asked 11 questions

Fishing Access in the United States xxiii

about programs or efforts that might help landowners with problems they may have had with

people accessing the water from their property; no program or effort had more than 30% of

landowners saying that it would be very or somewhat effective.

Anglers as a group have relatively robust participation in sportsmen’s groups, such as Ducks

Unlimited, the National Rifle Association, and Trout Unlimited (the three top-named

organizations in the angler survey). Any cooperative efforts in communication or other access

improvement strategies should consider this; Figure 240 contains a fuller listing of not-for-profit

organizations to which anglers belonged.

xxiv Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................................1

Focus Groups...........................................................................................................................2 Focus Group Locations and Facilities.............................................................................3 Focus Group Recruiting ..................................................................................................3 Focus Group Discussion Guides .....................................................................................5 Focus Group Report ........................................................................................................5

Multi-Modal Survey of Professionals .....................................................................................5 Telephone Survey of Landowners and Anglers ......................................................................6

Telephone Interviewing Facilities...................................................................................6 Questionnaire Design......................................................................................................7 Interviewing Dates and Times ........................................................................................8 Telephone Survey Data Collection .................................................................................8

Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................8 Nonparametric Analysis..................................................................................................9 How To Read the Nonparametric Analysis Results......................................................10 Sampling Error ..............................................................................................................11

Notes on Reading the Text ....................................................................................................12 Results of Surveys..........................................................................................................................14

Locations of Anglers’ Fishing Activities ..............................................................................14 Ratings of Access for Fishing................................................................................................34 Factors in Anglers’ Decisions Regarding Where To Fish.....................................................77 Constraints To Fishing Participation, Including Access Problems .....................................141 Landowners’ Permission To Access Land for Fishing........................................................183

Landowners’ Attitudes Toward Fishing .....................................................................183 Landowners’ Attitudes Toward Anglers and Other Outdoor Recreationists ..............185 Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access .............................................192 Landowners’ Interactions With Anglers and Other Outdoor Recreationists ..............218

Strategies and Programs To Improve Access......................................................................231 Characteristics of Anglers, Landowners, and Their Properties ...........................................285

Years Fished, Avidity, Organization Memberships, and Angler Demographic Data ................................................................................................285

Property and Landowner Characteristics ....................................................................307 Implications of Findings ..............................................................................................................312

The Implications of the Locations of Anglers’ Fishing Activities ......................................312 The Implications of the Ratings Given To Access for Fishing ...........................................314 Factors in Anglers’ Decisions Regarding Where To Fish, and Constraints To Fishing

Participation: The Implications for Access ..................................................................315 The Implications of Landowners’ Attitudes Toward Fishing .............................................316 Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access: The Implications

for Access ......................................................................................................................316 The Implications of Landowners’ Interactions With Anglers and Other

Outdoor Recreationists ..................................................................................................319 The Implications of the Findings Regarding Strategies and Programs To

Improve Access .............................................................................................................319 About Responsive Management ..................................................................................................322

Fishing Access in the United States xxv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Tables Table 1. Locations, Dates, and Types of Focus Groups .................................................................3 Table 2. Locations of Fishing Access ...........................................................................................21 Table 3. Factors in Anglers’ Decisions Regarding Where To Access Their Primary

Body of Water That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey ...............................................77 Table 4. Things That Anglers Do When Deciding Where To Access Their Primary

Body of Water That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey .............................................107 Table 5. Potential Problems That May or May Not Have Been Problematic for Anglers

While Fishing in the Past 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey ...............149 Table 6. Potential Access Problems That Anglers May Have While Fishing on Lands

That the Respondent’s Agency Manages That Were Asked About in the Professionals Survey..............................................................................................................163

Table 7. Differences Between Federal Agency Personnel and State Agency Personnel Regarding Ratings of Severity of Problems...........................................................................170

Table 8. Potential Problems and Associated Consequences/Actions That Anglers May or May Not Have Experienced in the Past 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey ........................................................................................................................173

Table 9. Potential Problems That May or May Not Influence Access in General That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey ..............................................................................178

Table 10. The Importance of Potential Reasons Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey .....................................192

Table 11. Potential Reasons Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey ..............................................................................196

Table 12. Possible Problems Landowners May Have Had With Anglers in the Previous 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey .................................................222

Table 13. Possible Problems Landowners May Have Had With People Other Than Anglers in the Past 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey................................226

Table 14. Potential Efforts That Could Be Undertaken Whose Effectiveness Was Asked About in the Angler Survey ...................................................................................................259

Table 15. Possible Programs or Efforts That Would Encourage Landowners To Allow Access To the Water From Their Property That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey.......264

Table 16. Agency Efforts That Professionals Rated for Level of Needed Improvement That Were Asked About in the Professionals Survey ....................................................................268

Table 17. Comparison of Perceptions of Needed Improvement in Agency Efforts by Federal Versus State Agency Personnel ................................................................................272

List of Figures Figure 1. Z-Score Equation.............................................................................................................9 Figure 2. Sampling Error Equation...............................................................................................11 Figure 3. Types of Freshwater Bodies Fished by Anglers............................................................15 Figure 4. Types of Saltwater Bodies Fished by Anglers ..............................................................16 Figure 5. Methods of Freshwater Fishing by Anglers ..................................................................17 Figure 6. Methods of Freshwater Fishing by Anglers by Type of Freshwater Body ...................18

xxvi Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 7. Methods of Saltwater Fishing by Anglers .....................................................................19 Figure 8. Methods of Saltwater Fishing by Anglers by Type of Saltwater Body.........................20 Figure 9. Fishing in Same Versus Various Locations Each Year Among Anglers ......................22 Figure 10. Fishing in Same Versus Various Locations by Type of Freshwater Body..................23 Figure 11. Fishing in Same Versus Various Locations by Type of Saltwater Body ....................24 Figure 12. Accessing Fishing Locations From Public Versus Private Land ................................25 Figure 13. Fishing From Public Versus Private Land by Type of Freshwater Body....................26 Figure 14. Fishing From Public Versus Private Land by Type of Saltwater Body ......................27 Figure 15. Types of Private Land Used for Access ......................................................................28 Figure 16. Ownership of Land Among Anglers Using Another Person’s Land...........................29 Figure 17. Private Boat Access for Fishing Among Anglers........................................................30 Figure 18. Private Boat Access for Fishing Among Anglers by Type of Freshwater Body.........31 Figure 19. Private Boat Access for Fishing Among Anglers by Type of Saltwater Body ...........32 Figure 20. Anglers’ Typical Travel Distance ...............................................................................33 Figure 21. Anglers’ Overall Ratings of Fishing Access ...............................................................35 Figure 22. Anglers’ Overall Ratings of Fishing Access by Type of Freshwater Body ................36 Figure 23. Anglers’ Overall Ratings of Fishing Access by Type of Saltwater Body...................37 Figure 24. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Public Land ..............................................38 Figure 25. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Public Land by Type of

Freshwater Body ......................................................................................................................39 Figure 26. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Public Land by Type of

Saltwater Body.........................................................................................................................40 Figure 27. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Private Land .............................................41 Figure 28. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Private Land by Type of

Freshwater Body ......................................................................................................................42 Figure 29. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Private Land by Type of

Saltwater Body.........................................................................................................................43 Figure 30. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Public Lands .................45 Figure 31. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Public Lands

Agency Manages......................................................................................................................46 Figure 32. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Public Lands

Agency Does Not Manage .......................................................................................................47 Figure 33. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Private Lands ................48 Figure 34. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access: All Types of Lands...............49 Figure 35. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Public Lands....................50 Figure 36. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Public Lands

Agency Manages......................................................................................................................51 Figure 37. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Public Lands

Agency Does Not Manage .......................................................................................................52 Figure 38. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Private Lands...................53 Figure 39. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access: All Types of Lands .................54

Fishing Access in the United States xxvii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 40. Anglers’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Access From Public

Land Over the Past 5 Years .....................................................................................................55 Figure 41. Anglers’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Access From Private

Land Over the Past 5 Years .....................................................................................................56 Figure 42. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater

Access From Public Lands Over the Past 5 Years...................................................................58 Figure 43. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access

From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years ........................................59 Figure 44. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access

From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years..........................60 Figure 45. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access

From Private Lands Over the Past 5 Years..............................................................................61 Figure 46. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater

Access: All Lands ...................................................................................................................62 Figure 47. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access

From Public Lands Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency ..........................63 Figure 48. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access

From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency ............................................................................................................................64

Figure 49. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency ................................................................................................................65

Figure 50. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Private Lands by Federal Versus State Agency .............................................................66

Figure 51. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Over the Past 5 Years ...............................................................................68

Figure 52. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years ........................................69

Figure 53. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years..........................70

Figure 54. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Private Land Over the Past 5 Years ...............................................................................71

Figure 55. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access: All Lands ...................................................................................................................72

Figure 56. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Land Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency ............................73

Figure 57. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency ............................................................................................................................74

Figure 58. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency ................................................................................................................75

xxviii Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 59. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access

From Private Lands by Federal Versus State Agency .............................................................76 Figure 60. Very Important Factors Among Anglers in Deciding Where To Access the

Water Body ..............................................................................................................................78 Figure 61. Very or Somewhat Important Factors Among Anglers in Deciding Where To

Access the Water Body............................................................................................................79 Figure 62. Factors That Are Not Important at All Among Anglers in Deciding Where To

Access the Water Body............................................................................................................80 Figure 63. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is on Public Land by

Type of Freshwater Body.........................................................................................................83 Figure 64. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is on Private Land by

Type of Freshwater Body.........................................................................................................84 Figure 65. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Owned by Someone

Angler Knows by Type of Freshwater Body ...........................................................................85 Figure 66. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Close To Home by

Type of Freshwater Body.........................................................................................................86 Figure 67. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Boat Access by

Type of Freshwater Body.........................................................................................................87 Figure 68. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Not Crowded With

Other Anglers by Type of Freshwater Body............................................................................88 Figure 69. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained

Roads by Type of Freshwater Body.........................................................................................89 Figure 70. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Boat

Ramps by Type of Freshwater Body .......................................................................................90 Figure 71. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Docks

or Piers by Type of Freshwater Body ......................................................................................91 Figure 72. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained

Parking Areas by Type of Freshwater Body............................................................................92 Figure 73. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Land With Which They

Are Familiar by Type of Saltwater Body.................................................................................93 Figure 74. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Close To Home by Type

of Saltwater Body ....................................................................................................................94 Figure 75. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Boat Access by Type

of Saltwater Body ....................................................................................................................95 Figure 76. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Is Not Crowded With Recreationists

Other Than Anglers by Type of Saltwater Body .....................................................................96 Figure 77. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Not On/Near Private

Land Where There Is Possibility of Encounter While Accessing Water by Type of Saltwater Body.........................................................................................................................97

Figure 78. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Not On/Near Private Land Where There Is Possibility of Encounter While In/Leaving the Water by Type of Saltwater Body.........................................................................................................................98

Fishing Access in the United States xxix

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 79. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Boat

Ramps by Type of Saltwater Body ..........................................................................................99 Figure 80. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained

Docks or Piers by Type of Saltwater Body............................................................................100 Figure 81. Anglers’ Actions Always Done When Deciding Where To Access Water ..............108 Figure 82. Anglers’ Actions Always or Sometimes Done When Deciding Where To

Access Water .........................................................................................................................109 Figure 83. Anglers’ Actions Always, Sometimes, or Rarely Done When Deciding Where

To Access Water ....................................................................................................................110 Figure 84. Anglers’ Actions Never Done When Deciding Where To Access Water.................111 Figure 85. Typical Days Anglers Annually Spend Scouting for Places To Access the Water...112 Figure 86. Frequency of Asking a Friend/Family Member When Anglers Decide Where

To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body.....................................................................114 Figure 87. Frequency of Knocking on Landowner’s Door When Anglers Decide Where

To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body.....................................................................115 Figure 88. Frequency of Using Paper Maps When Anglers Decide Where To Access

Water by Type of Freshwater Body.......................................................................................116 Figure 89. Frequency of Using GPS When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by

Type of Freshwater Body.......................................................................................................117 Figure 90. Frequency of Researching Access on the Internet When Anglers Decide

Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body .........................................................118 Figure 91. Frequency of Scouting for Places To Access Water When Anglers Decide

Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body .........................................................119 Figure 92. Frequency of Asking a Friend/Family Member When Anglers Decide

Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body ............................................................120 Figure 93. Frequency of Knocking on Landowner’s Door When Anglers Decide

Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body ............................................................121 Figure 94. Frequency of Using Paper Maps When Anglers Decide Where To Access

Water by Type of Saltwater Body .........................................................................................122 Figure 95. Frequency of Using GPS When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by

Type of Saltwater Body .........................................................................................................123 Figure 96. Frequency of Researching Access on the Internet When Anglers Decide

Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body ............................................................124 Figure 97. Frequency of Scouting for Places To Access Water When Anglers Decide

Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body ............................................................125 Figure 98. Anglers’ Information Sources on Places To Fish and Access the Water ..................129 Figure 99. Accuracy of Information That Anglers Receive .......................................................130 Figure 100. Use of State and Federal Agency Websites in General Among Anglers ................131 Figure 101. Use of Specific State and Federal Agency Websites Among Anglers....................132 Figure 102. Anglers’ Ratings of Utility of Agency Websites That They Visited.......................133 Figure 103. Anglers’ Preferred Ways To Be Provided With Information About Places To

Fish and Fishing Access.........................................................................................................134

xxx Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 104. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To

Communicate To Anglers, Part 1...........................................................................................135 Figure 105. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To

Communicate To Anglers, Part 2...........................................................................................136 Figure 106. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To

Communicate To Landowners, Part 1 ...................................................................................137 Figure 107. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To

Communicate To Landowners, Part 2 ...................................................................................138 Figure 108. Comparison of Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies

Use To Communicate To Anglers and To Landowners, Part 1.............................................139 Figure 109. Comparison of Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies

Use To Communicate To Anglers and To Landowners, Part 2.............................................140 Figure 110. Things That Have Taken Away From Anglers’ Enjoyment of Fishing ..................141 Figure 111. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse

Over the Previous 5 Years .....................................................................................................143 Figure 112. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse

Over the Previous 5 Years by Type of Freshwater Body, Part 1...........................................144 Figure 113. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse

Over the Previous 5 Years by Type of Freshwater Body, Part 2...........................................145 Figure 114. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse

Over the Previous 5 Years by Type of Saltwater Body .........................................................146 Figure 115. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Private Land Access Has Gotten Worse

Over the Previous 5 Years .....................................................................................................147 Figure 116. People To Whom Landowners Typically Allow Access for Fishing......................148 Figure 117. Major Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1.................................................150 Figure 118. Major Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2.................................................151 Figure 119. Major Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3.................................................152 Figure 120. Major or Moderate Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1 ............................153 Figure 121. Major or Moderate Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2 ............................154 Figure 122. Major or Moderate Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3 ............................155 Figure 123. Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1 ...............156 Figure 124. Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2 ...............157 Figure 125. Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3 ...............158 Figure 126. Things That Have Not Been Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1 .............159 Figure 127. Things That Have Not Been Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2 .............160 Figure 128. Things That Have Not Been Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3 .............161 Figure 129. Professionals’ Opinions on Major Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands

Their Agencies Manage, Part 1..............................................................................................164 Figure 130. Professionals’ Opinions on Major Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands

Their Agencies Manage, Part 2..............................................................................................165 Figure 131. Professionals’ Opinions on Major or Moderate Fishing Access Problems on

Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 1........................................................................166

Fishing Access in the United States xxxi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 132. Professionals’ Opinions on Major or Moderate Fishing Access Problems on

Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 2........................................................................167 Figure 133. Professionals’ Opinions on Things That Are Not Fishing Access Problems on

Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 1........................................................................168 Figure 134. Professionals’ Opinions on Things That Are Not Fishing Access Problems on

Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 2........................................................................169 Figure 135. Types of Access Area Closures That Anglers Have Experienced ..........................172 Figure 136. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Been Major Among

Anglers in the Previous 5 Years.............................................................................................174 Figure 137. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Been Major or

Moderate Among Anglers in the Previous 5 Years ...............................................................175 Figure 138. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Been Major, Moderate,

or Minor Among Anglers in the Previous 5 Years ................................................................176 Figure 139. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Not Been Problematic

Among Anglers in the Previous 5 Years................................................................................177 Figure 140. Anglers’ Perceptions of Major Problems Influencing Fishing Access in

General...................................................................................................................................179 Figure 141. Anglers’ Perceptions of Major or Moderate Problems Influencing Fishing

Access in General ..................................................................................................................180 Figure 142. Anglers’ Perceptions of Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems Influencing

Fishing Access in General .....................................................................................................181 Figure 143. Anglers’ Perceptions of Things That Have Not Been Problems Influencing

Fishing Access in General .....................................................................................................182 Figure 144. Landowners’ Approval or Disapproval of Legal, Recreational Fishing .................183 Figure 145. Landowners’ Perceptions of the Importance That People Have the Opportunity

To Fish ...................................................................................................................................184 Figure 146. Fishing by Landowners on Their Properties ...........................................................185 Figure 147. Landowners’ Permission for Others To Fish on Their Properties...........................186 Figure 148. People To Whom Landowners Allow Access for Fishing ......................................187 Figure 149. Allowing Anglers Versus Other Recreationists on Landowners’ Properties ..........188 Figure 150. Allowing Anglers With Boats Versus Anglers Without Boats on

Landowners’ Properties .........................................................................................................189 Figure 151. Allowing Fishing Access in the Past Among Landowners Who Do Not

Currently Allow Access.........................................................................................................190 Figure 152. Allowing Access on Properties for Recreational Activities Other Than Fishing....191 Figure 153. Very Important Reasons for Disallowing Access Among Landowners..................193 Figure 154. Very or Somewhat Important Reasons for Disallowing Access Among

Landowners............................................................................................................................194 Figure 155. Not at All Important Reasons for Disallowing Access Among Landowners..........195 Figure 156. Anglers’ Perceptions of Very Important Reasons That Landowners Close

Their Lands To Fishing Access .............................................................................................197

xxxii Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 157. Anglers’ Perceptions of Very or Somewhat Important Reasons That

Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access ..............................................................198 Figure 158. Anglers’ Perceptions of Reasons That Are Not Important That Landowners

Close Their Lands To Fishing Access ...................................................................................199 Figure 159. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Reasons Landowners Are No Longer Allowing

Access To the Water From Their Properties..........................................................................200 Figure 160. Landowners’ Reasons for Disallowing Access .......................................................201 Figure 161. Effectiveness of Being Able To Charge an Access Fee at Getting

Landowners To Allow Public Access To the Water From Their Properties .........................203 Figure 162. Landowners Who Currently Charge an Access Fee................................................204 Figure 163. Landowners’ Opinions on Incentives or Assistance That Would Encourage

Them To Allow Fishing Access ............................................................................................205 Figure 164. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of a Program Providing Landowners

With Incentives for Allowing Public Access To the Water From Their Properties ..............206 Figure 165. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of a Collaborative Program

Providing Landowners With Incentives for Allowing Public Access To the Water From Their Properties......................................................................................................................207

Figure 166. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of a Collaborative Program Providing Landowners With Non-Financial Incentives for Allowing Public Access To the Water From Their Properties......................................................................................208

Figure 167. Landowners’ Concerns About Legal Liability When Considering Whether To Allow Access .........................................................................................................................210

Figure 168. Landowners’ Awareness of State Legislation Reducing Landowner Liability.......211 Figure 169. Landowners’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing

Landowner Liability at Encouraging Landowners To Allow Fishing Access.......................212 Figure 170. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing

Landowner Liability at Encouraging Landowners To Allow Fishing Access.......................213 Figure 171. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing

Landowner Liability at Increasing the Private Lands Open To Public Fishing Access ........214 Figure 172. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing

Landowner Liability at Encouraging Landowners To Allow Fishing Access.......................215 Figure 173. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Amount of Concern That Legal Liability

Is for Landowners ..................................................................................................................216 Figure 174. Posting of Landowners’ Properties .........................................................................217 Figure 175. Landowners Who Have Experienced Problems With Anglers in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................218 Figure 176. Landowners Who Have Experienced Problems With Non-Anglers in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................219 Figure 177. Landowners Who Have Experienced Problems With Boat Access in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................220 Figure 178. Types of Problems Landowners Have Experienced With Boat Access in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................221

Fishing Access in the United States xxxiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 179. Major Problems Landowners Have Had With Anglers in the Previous 5 Years ....223 Figure 180. Major or Moderate Problems Landowners Have Had With Anglers in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................224 Figure 181. Things That Landowners Say Have Not Been Problems With Anglers in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................225 Figure 182. Major Problems Landowners Have Had With Non-Anglers in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................227 Figure 183. Major or Moderate Problems Landowners Have Had With Non-Anglers in the

Previous 5 Years ....................................................................................................................228 Figure 184. Things That Landowners Say Have Not Been Problems With Non-Anglers in

the Previous 5 Years ..............................................................................................................229 Figure 185. How Anglers Obtained Permission To Access Fishing Areas on Private Land......230 Figure 186. Anglers’ Awareness of Programs/Resources To Assist Anglers With Access .......231 Figure 187. Types of Programs/Resources of Which Anglers Are Aware.................................232 Figure 188. Ratings of Types of Programs/Resources of Which Anglers Are Aware ...............233 Figure 189. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent:

Conservation Associations and Sportsmen’s Clubs...............................................................234 Figure 190. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good:

Conservation Associations and Sportsmen’s Clubs...............................................................235 Figure 191. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor:

Conservation Associations and Sportsmen’s Clubs...............................................................236 Figure 192. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent: State

Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources Departments.........................................................237 Figure 193. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: State Fish

and Wildlife and Natural Resources Departments.................................................................238 Figure 194. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor: State

Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources Departments.........................................................239 Figure 195. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent:

Internet Resources..................................................................................................................240 Figure 196. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good:

Internet Resources..................................................................................................................241 Figure 197. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor:

Internet Resources..................................................................................................................242 Figure 198. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent:

Publications for Anglers ........................................................................................................243 Figure 199. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: Publications

for Anglers .............................................................................................................................244 Figure 200. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor:

Publications for Anglers ........................................................................................................245 Figure 201. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent: Other

Government Programs/Departments......................................................................................246 Figure 202. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: Other

Government Programs/Departments......................................................................................247

xxxiv Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 203. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor:

Other Government Programs/Departments............................................................................248 Figure 204. Landowners’ Awareness of Programs/Resources To Assist Landowners With

Allowing Access ....................................................................................................................250 Figure 205. Types of Programs/Resources of Which Landowners Are Aware..........................251 Figure 206. Participation in Programs/Resources of Which Landowners Are Aware ...............252 Figure 207. Participation in Programs/Resources of Which Landowners Are Aware by

Type of Program ....................................................................................................................253 Figure 208. Ratings of Types of Programs/Resources at Making Access Easy of Which

Landowners Are Aware by Type of Program........................................................................254 Figure 209. Reasons Landowners Did Not Rate Programs/Resources Higher at Making

Access Easy ...........................................................................................................................255 Figure 210. Ratings of Types of Programs/Resources at Making Access Worthwhile of

Which Landowners Are Aware by Type of Program ............................................................256 Figure 211. Reasons Landowners Did Not Rate Programs/Resources Higher at Making

Access Worthwhile ................................................................................................................257 Figure 212. Landowners’ Perceptions of Things That Would Make Programs/Resources

More Effective .......................................................................................................................258 Figure 213. Efforts That Anglers Think Would Be Very Effective at Making Fishing

Access Easier .........................................................................................................................260 Figure 214. Efforts That Anglers Think Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at

Making Fishing Access Easier...............................................................................................261 Figure 215. Efforts That Anglers Think Would Not Be Effective at Making Fishing

Access Easier .........................................................................................................................262 Figure 216. Efforts That Landowners Think Would Be Very Effective at Helping Them

With Problems They Have Experienced With People Accessing the Water.........................265 Figure 217. Efforts That Landowners Think Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at

Helping Them With Problems They Have Experienced With People Accessing the Water......................................................................................................................................266

Figure 218. Efforts That Landowners Think Would Not Be Effective at Helping Them With Problems They Have Experienced With People Accessing the Water.........................267

Figure 219. Professionals’ Opinions of Agency Efforts That Could Be Improved a Lot ..........269 Figure 220. Professionals’ Opinions of Agency Efforts That Could Be Improved a

Lot or a Moderate Amount ....................................................................................................270 Figure 221. Professionals’ Opinions of Agency Efforts That Need No Improvement...............271 Figure 222. Landowners’ Likelihood To Participate in a Collaborative Program That

Provides Them With Incentives for Allowing Fishing Access on Their Properties..............273 Figure 223. Landowners’ Likelihood To Participate in a Collaborative Program That

Provides Them With Non-Financial Incentives for Allowing Fishing Access on Their Properties......................................................................................................................274

Figure 224. Anglers’ Support of or Opposition To a General Access Fee .................................276 Figure 225. Landowners’ Preferred Way To Be Provided With Information About

Fishing Access .......................................................................................................................277

Fishing Access in the United States xxxv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) Figure 226. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Place on

Fishing Access Development and Maintenance ....................................................................279 Figure 227. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Place on

Fishing Access Development and Maintenance by Federal Versus State Agency................280 Figure 228. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Should

Place on Fishing Access Development and Maintenance......................................................281 Figure 229. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Should

Place on Fishing Access Development and Maintenance by Federal Versus State Agency ..........................................................................................................................282

Figure 230. Level of Priority Given To Fishing Access When Professionals’ Agencies Develop Land Management Plans .........................................................................................283

Figure 231. Level of Priority Given To Fishing Access When Professionals’ Agencies Develop Land Management Plans by Federal Versus State Agency.....................................284

Figure 232. Number of Years Fished Among Anglers ...............................................................285 Figure 233. Number of Past 5 Years Anglers Had Freshwater Fished.......................................286 Figure 234. Number of Past 5 Years Anglers Had Saltwater Fished..........................................287 Figure 235. Typical Number of Days Anglers Fish Annually....................................................288 Figure 236. Typical Number of Days Anglers Fish Annually by Type of Freshwater

Body.......................................................................................................................................289 Figure 237. Typical Number of Days Anglers Fish Annually by Type of Saltwater

Body.......................................................................................................................................290 Figure 238. Anglers’ Self-Reported Trend in Fishing Participation Over Previous

5 Years ...................................................................................................................................291 Figure 239. Anglers’ Membership in Conservation and Sportsmen’s Organizations ................292 Figure 240. Organizations To Which Anglers Belonged or Donated.........................................293 Figure 241. Anglers’ Participation in Fishing Tournaments ......................................................294 Figure 242. Freshwater Tournaments in Which Anglers Participated........................................295 Figure 243. Saltwater Tournaments in Which Anglers Participated ..........................................296 Figure 244. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Gender.....................................................................297 Figure 245. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Age ..........................................................................298 Figure 246. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Years of Residency in State ....................................299 Figure 247. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Type of Residential Area ........................................300 Figure 248. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Education Level ......................................................301 Figure 249. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Household Income ..................................................302 Figure 250. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Residency on Waterfront or Shoreline

Property..................................................................................................................................303 Figure 251. Types of Water on, Adjacent To, or Running Through Landowners’

Properties ...............................................................................................................................307 Figure 252. Types of Freshwater Accessible From Properties ...................................................308 Figure 253. Types of Saltwater Accessible From Properties......................................................309 Figure 254. Boat Access on Landowners’ Properties.................................................................310 Figure 255. Landowners’ Years of Residency on Properties Referred To in Survey.................311

Fishing Access in the United States 1

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to better understand issues related to fishing access. The

management and conservation of fishery resources in the United States depend on financial

support from the sales of fishing licenses as well as from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish

Restoration Program. A loss of anglers means substantially less revenue for state fish and

wildlife agencies, namely through funds generated by the sale of licenses and the taxes generated

by the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Further, the absence of every single angler represents the

loss of an important constituent and advocate for fisheries management.

Research has shown that the dissatisfactions anglers name as having strongly influenced their

decisions not to fish or to fish less often are generally not resource-based, but social issues. For

example, anglers commonly cite lack of time and work and family obligations as factors

negatively affecting their fishing participation. However, upon separating social factors from

resource-based factors (the latter being factors on which fish and wildlife agencies can

effectively exert some influence), access emerges as a consistently identified resource-based

issue of concern among anglers.

Specifically, this study was a joint effort of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and

Responsive Management produced under a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) administered by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to assess issues

pertaining to fishing access in the United States. The study’s goal is to help develop strategies to

improve fishing access in the United States. The study entailed focus groups of those whose

work pertains wholly or in part to fishing access, such as state and federal agency employees

(hereinafter referred to as “professionals”); focus groups with landowners whose land has water

access; focus groups of anglers; a multi-modal survey of professionals; a telephone survey of

landowners (with water access) nationwide; and a telephone survey of anglers nationwide. Note

that hereinafter, references to landowners in this study specifically refer to landowners who have

water access on, adjacent to, or running through their property. Specific aspects of the research

methodology are discussed below.

2 Responsive Management

FOCUS GROUPS Focus groups entail an in-depth, structured discussion with a small group of participants (10

to 12) about select subjects. The use of focus groups is an accepted research technique for

qualitative explorations of attitudes, opinions, perceptions, motivations, constraints,

participation, and behaviors. Focus groups provide researchers with insights, new hypotheses,

and understanding through the process of interaction. The purpose of these focus groups was

twofold: (1) to provide qualitative research on the opinions on and attitudes toward fishing

access among professionals, landowners, and anglers through the process of interaction and

(2) to inform the design and development of the subsequent survey questionnaires.

Focus groups were an important way to begin this study because they allowed for extensive

open-ended responses to questions; probing, follow-up questions; group discussions; and

observation of emotional response to fishing access issues—one aspect that cannot be measured

in a traditional quantitative survey. Qualitative research sacrifices reliability for increased

validity. This means that, although the focus group findings cannot be replicated statistically as

a survey can be (high reliability), they provide researchers with a more valid understanding of

the topics or issues of concern in the study (high validity). For this project, Responsive

Management conducted nine focus groups.

The focus groups were conducted using a discussion guide designed to encourage participants to

provide their opinions on and attitudes toward fishing access issues. Each focus group was

moderated by one of the following professional moderators: Mark Damian Duda, Executive

Director of Responsive Management; Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate for Responsive

Management; or Tom Beppler, Research Associate for Responsive Management. The

moderator, through use of the discussion guide, kept the discussion within design parameters

without exerting a strong influence on the discussion content. In this sense, the focus groups

were non-directive group discussions that exposed the spontaneous attitudes, insights, and

perceptions of professionals, landowners, and anglers regarding fishing access issues. All focus

group discussions were recorded for further analysis. At the end of each focus group, any

questions were answered that participants had regarding the study.

Fishing Access in the United States 3

Focus Group Locations and Facilities The focus groups with anglers were conducted in Michigan, Texas, and Washington State; the

focus groups with landowners were conducted in Montana, Washington State, and Virginia; and

the focus groups with professionals were conducted in Montana and Oregon, as well as by

conference call. The focus groups locations and facilities are shown in Table 1 below. All

facility reservations were confirmed by written agreements. Responsive Management ensured

that the focus group room was set up appropriately, including furniture, recording equipment,

and food arrangements. Refreshments were provided for focus group participants.

Table 1. Locations, Dates, and Types of Focus Groups Location Date Type of Group Type of Focus Group Houston, TX June 26, 2008 Anglers In person Seattle, WA June 30, 2008 Anglers In person Seattle, WA June 30, 2008 Landowners In person Portland, OR July 1, 2008 Professionals In person Detroit, MI July 14, 2008 Anglers In person Representatives from AZ, ID, MT, NV, and OR July 15, 2008 Professionals Telephone conferencing

Missoula, MT July 16, 2008 Professionals In person Missoula, MT July 16, 2008 Landowners In person Harrisonburg, VA October 9, 2008 Landowners In person

Focus Group Recruiting For the focus groups of professionals, Responsive Management identified and contacted

professionals from among the Bureau of Land Management; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

the Oregon Department of Fish and Game; and the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department.

Participants for the professional groups were initially contacted based on their job titles, as well

as their professional familiarity with and proximity to access issues in their jobs (assessed in

follow-up questioning at the time of recruiting). The recruiting manager also solicited

recommendations from agency employees regarding individuals particularly knowledgeable or

familiar with fishing access issues who would be able to attend the focus groups. The

professional focus groups included outdoor recreation planners, recreation specialists, field

managers, law enforcement personnel, fisheries program personnel, biologists, and special use

coordinators.

4 Responsive Management

For the focus groups of landowners, Responsive Management identified and contacted

landowners using records of waterfront property ownership. For the focus groups of anglers,

Responsive Management identified and contacted anglers using fishing license records.

For the recruiting, Responsive Management contacted potential respondents by telephone.

Participants interested in attending the focus groups were given a brief summary concerning the

focus group subject matter, were screened using a screener questionnaire, and, if qualified, were

asked to participate and confirmed for attendance. A brief pre-screening questionnaire was used

to ensure the diversity of participant selection and to minimize any bias in selection design. The

screener determined whether potential focus group participants met the established guidelines set

for the group.

After determining that the respondent was eligible to participate, he/she was informed of the

focus group date, time, and location and mailed or e-mailed, by personal preference, a

confirmation letter. Each participant was asked if he/she wanted to receive a reminder call the

day before the focus group to ensure that he/she would have everything necessary to attend the

discussion, such as directions and time. To encourage participation, a monetary incentive was

given to recreational anglers and landowners; professionals were offered reimbursement for

mileage to the focus group location.

During the recruiting process, the focus group recruiting manager maintained a progress table for

each focus group to track the progress of the number of participants recruited and to log

participant names, contact information, and essential participant characteristics. For each focus

group, 12 to 14 individuals were recruited to account for the likelihood that some would not

attend, thereby ensuring that 10 to 12 would attend. The recruiting manager ensured that all

confirmation letters were sent promptly to participants and that reminder telephone calls were

made, as necessary, the day before any scheduled group. Reminder calls and interaction with

respondents helped ensure participant attendance, resulting in quality focus group participation.

Fishing Access in the United States 5

Focus Group Discussion Guides The focus groups were conducted using discussion guides that allowed for consistency in data

collection. Responsive Management’s researchers, in collaboration with the ASA, developed the

discussion guides based on their knowledge of fishing access issues. The discussion guides

included questions regarding top-of-mind issues related to access, knowledge and awareness of

fishing waters, and constraints and barriers to access, to name just a few of the topics covered.

While the discussion guides provided a general framework for directing the content of the focus

groups, question order and phrasing were adjusted according to the dynamics of the group

discussions.

Focus Group Report Responsive Management conducted qualitative analyses of the focus groups through observation

of the focus group discussions and review of the recordings. Thus, the analyses were performed

in three iterations: 1) the actual focus group observation, 2) review of recordings, and 3) the

development of findings. While findings from the focus groups are included in this final report,

a separate focus group report was produced and should be consulted for additional information.

MULTI-MODAL SURVEY OF PROFESSIONALS For the survey of professionals, a multi-modal survey approach was used, as such an approach

allows each respondent to take the survey at the most convenient time and in the format with

which he/she is most comfortable. All professionals in the sample were sent an email alerting

them of the upcoming survey. The actual survey was attached as a PDF file to a subsequent

email. Professionals could then complete the survey at their convenience. The completed PDF

forms were then emailed, transmitted by facsimile, or mailed to Responsive Management.

Professionals were also given the option to call Responsive Management to complete the survey

over the telephone.

The completed PDF forms were then entered into Responsive Management’s database by data

entry/interviewer personnel. Responses to those surveys that were conducted by telephone were

entered into a computer using Questionnaire Programming Language (QPL), which is software

designed for telephone surveying and data collection. The QPL data were then entered into the

6 Responsive Management

database using interfacing software. The survey of professionals was conducted from February

to October 2009. Responsive Management obtained 400 completed questionnaires from

professionals.

TELEPHONE SURVEY OF LANDOWNERS AND ANGLERS For the surveys of landowners and anglers, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling

medium because of the almost universal ownership of telephones among these groups.

Additionally, telephone surveys, relative to mail or Internet surveys, allow for more scientific

sampling and data collection for large heterogeneous groups and are more timely and more

cost-effective. Telephone surveys also have fewer negative effects on the environment than do

mail surveys because of reduced use of paper and reduced energy consumption for delivering

and returning the questionnaires.

The landowner sample was obtained from a sample provider that used real estate records of

landowners likely to have water on or by their property. From this sample, screener questions in

the survey allowed interviewers to identify landowners with fishing access for the survey. The

sample of anglers was obtained from fishing license records. All identifying information in the

data sets were removed upon completion of the study to ensure anonymity of survey participants.

Telephone Interviewing Facilities A central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control

over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house

telephone interviewing facilities. These facilities are staffed by interviewers with experience

conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews on the subjects of natural resources and

outdoor recreation. The telephone survey questionnaires were developed cooperatively by

Responsive Management and the ASA, with input from various other professionals. Responsive

Management conducted pre-tests of the questionnaires to ensure proper wording, flow, and logic.

To ensure the integrity of the telephone survey data, Responsive Management has interviewers

who have been trained according to the standards established by the Council of American Survey

Research Organizations. Methods of instruction included lecture and role-playing. The Survey

Fishing Access in the United States 7

Center Managers and other professional staff conducted project briefings with the interviewers

prior to the administration of these surveys. Interviewers were instructed on type of study, study

goals and objectives, handling of survey questions, interview length, termination points and

qualifiers for participation, interviewer instructions within the survey instruments, reading of the

survey instruments, skip patterns, and probing and clarifying techniques necessary for specific

questions on the survey instruments. The Survey Center Managers and statisticians monitored

the data collection, including monitoring of the actual telephone interviews without the

interviewers’ knowledge, to evaluate the performance of each interviewer and ensure the

integrity of the data. After the surveys were obtained by the interviewers, the Survey Center

Managers and/or statisticians checked each completed survey to ensure clarity and completeness.

Questionnaire Design The angler and landowner surveys were conducted by the interviewers using Questionnaire

Programming Language (QPL). The software automatically skips the interview to the

appropriate places, based on responses to questions given by the respondent. QPL also

automatically inserts proper wording based on previous answers; for instance, a Great Lakes

angler would have “the Great Lakes” inserted into the questions asking about various aspects of

a respondent’s fishing experiences. The graphs indicate this by parentheses. For example, one

question on the survey is shown as follows:

About how many days do you usually go (freshwater/saltwater) fishing (in/from) (body of water) each year?

QPL automatically used the angler’s primary body of water (previously named by the

respondent) into the question. For an angler who primarily fished in the Great Lakes, the

question would have been worded as follows:

About how many days do you usually go freshwater fishing in the Great Lakes each year?

The graphs show such wording substitutions in parentheses. When interpreting the graphs, it is

important to know that the actual interview used the wording appropriate to each respondent.

Also note that many questions in each interview pertained to each angler’s primary water body

8 Responsive Management

used for fishing, which allowed for useful crosstabulations. Opinions and experiences could be

tied in the data to specific types of water.

Interviewing Dates and Times Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday from noon to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., local time. A five-callback design was used to maintain the representativeness of the sample, to avoid bias toward people easy to reach by telephone, and to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate. When a respondent could not be reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of the week and at different times of the day. The survey of landowners was conducted from September 2009 to February 2010. Responsive Management obtained a total of 4,017 completed interviews with landowners. The survey of anglers was conducted from March to December 2009. Responsive Management obtained a total of 4,131 completed interviews with anglers. Note that the total sample (n-value) on any given question may not be the total number in the survey because the survey skipped some respondents from some questions. This was done when the follow-up question did not apply to a particular respondent (e.g., a question asking why a respondent gave a fair or poor rating, which was asked only of those who gave a fair or poor rating on the lead-in question) or when some questions were randomly skipped to shorten the survey for any single respondent. Telephone Survey Data Collection The software used for data collection was QPL. The survey data were entered into the computer as each interview was being conducted. As discussed, the survey instrument was programmed so that QPL branched, coded, and substituted phrases in the survey based on previous responses to ensure the integrity and consistency of the data collection. DATA ANALYSIS The analysis of data for this study was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management. The data analysis included many crosstabulations of data, including a look at responses to the professionals survey among state agency personnel versus federal agency personnel, as well as a look at various questions crosstabulated by the type of water body in which the respondent most often fishes.

Fishing Access in the United States 9

Nonparametric Analysis For this report, a nonparametric analysis of the angler survey data examined how the various responses related to behavioral, participatory, and demographic characteristics. Responses for selected questions in the survey of anglers were tested by means of z-scores for relationships to behavioral, participatory, and demographic characteristics. A positive z-score means that the response and characteristic are positively related; a negative z-score means that the response and characteristic are negatively related. The z-score shows the strength of the relationship between the characteristic and the response to the question. Those z-scores that have an absolute value of 3.30 or greater indicate a relationship that is so strong that it would happen by chance only 1 out of 1,000 times (p < 0.001). Those z-scores that have an absolute value of 2.58 to 3.29 indicate a relationship that is so strong that it would happen by chance only 1 out of 100 times (p < 0.01). Finally, those z-scores that have an absolute value of 1.96 to 2.57 indicate a relationship that is so strong that it would happen by chance only 5 out of 100 times (p < 0.05). The z-scores were calculated as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Z-Score Equation

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+−

−=

21

21

11)1(

)(

nnpp

ppz

where: n1 represents the number of observations in Group 1.

n2 represents the number of observations in Group 2. p1 = a/(a + b) = a/n1 and represents the proportion of observations in Group 1 that falls in Cell a.

It is employed to estimate the population proportion Π1 (% of Group 1 who had specific characteristic).

p2 = c/(c + d) = c/n2 and represents the proportion of observations in Group 2 that falls in Cell c. It is employed to estimate the population proportion Π2 (% of Group 2 who had specific characteristic).

p = (a + c)/(n1 + n2) = (a + c)/n and is a pooled estimate of the proportion of respondents who had specific characteristic in the underlying population.

(Equation from Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 2nd Edition by David J. Sheskin. © 2000, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.)

10 Responsive Management

How To Read the Nonparametric Analysis Results The nonparametric analysis examines how different groups differ in their responses to other

questions on the survey. For instance, the nonparametric analysis looked at how males’ and

females’ answers differed on the angler survey. The entire nonparametric analysis on gender is

included in the body of this report; the following includes just a few of the results for use as an

example. The nonparametric analysis found that males are correlated with having fished for

more than the median number of years, with participating in freshwater fishing tournaments, and

with saltwater fishing (among other things). This simply means that males are more likely than

are females to have those characteristics/behaviors. This does not mean that all males have

fished for more than the median number of years (as some have not) or that all females have

fished for less than the median number of years (as some, again, have not).

Likewise, the findings do not mean that all males participated in freshwater fishing tournaments

or participated in saltwater fishing and that no females did so. Males just participate in these

fishing activities at a greater rate than do females, and the nonparametric analysis found that

these differences are statistically significant. Specifically, 14% of males participated in a

freshwater fishing tournament in the past 5 years, compared to 5% of females. The

nonparametric analysis found that this difference is statistically significant. Therefore, males are

correlated to this response. Note, however, that a majority of males do not participate in

freshwater fishing tournaments; a positive correlation in the nonparametric analysis must be

taken in context of the overall findings. It would be acceptable, based on the nonparametric

analysis, to say that males are more likely than are females to participate in freshwater fishing

tournaments. However, it would be incorrect to say that males are likely to participate in a

freshwater fishing tournament, because they are not (only 14% of males did so).

Each characteristic, opinion, or behavior used in the nonparametric analysis is identified at the

start of the discussion. In each instance, the analysis looks at the people with that characteristic,

opinion, or behavior versus those who are not in that group. For instance, the first set of

nonparametric analysis results in the report consists of the correlations to saying that having the

fishing access area be on public land is very important to the respondent (versus those who did

not say this). Therefore, it compares those who said “very important” against those who said

Fishing Access in the United States 11

“unimportant,” gave a neutral answer, or said “somewhat important” in their responses to other

questions on the survey.

Sampling Error Throughout this report, findings of the telephone survey of anglers are reported at a 95%

confidence interval (or higher). For the entire sample of anglers, the sampling error is at most

plus or minus 1.52 percentage points. This means that if the angler survey were conducted 100

times on different angler samples that were selected in the same way, the findings of 95 out of

the 100 surveys would fall within plus or minus 1.52 percentage points of each other. Sampling

error was calculated using the formula described in Figure 2, with a sample size of 4,131 anglers

and a population size of 29,957,000 anglers nationwide (the total population of anglers as

reported in the National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation).

Figure 2. Sampling Error Equation

( )( )96.1

1

25.25.

⎟⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

−

−=

p

s

p

NN

N

B

Derived from formula: p. 206 in Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, NY.

Note: This is a simplified version of the formula that calculates the maximum sampling error using a 50:50 split (the most conservative calculation because a 50:50 split would give maximum variation).

No sampling error was determined for the survey of professionals because there is no feasible

way to determine the total population of professionals in the United States who could have been

interviewed. Likewise, no sampling error was determined for the sample of landowners, again

because the total population of landowners with water access in the United States who could

have been interviewed is not exactly known.

Where: B = maximum sampling error (as decimal) NP = population size (i.e., total number who could be surveyed) NS = sample size (i.e., total number of respondents surveyed)

12 Responsive Management

NOTES ON READING THE TEXT In examining the results, it is important to be aware that the questionnaires included several types

of questions:

• Open-ended questions are those in which no answer set is read to the respondents; rather,

they can respond with anything that comes to mind from the question.

• Closed-ended questions have an answer set from which to choose.

• Some questions allow only a single response, while other questions allow respondents to

give more than one response or choose all that apply. Those that allow more than a

single response are indicated on the graphs with the label, “Multiple Responses

Allowed.”

• Many closed-ended questions (but not all) are in a scale, such as excellent-good-fair-

poor.

• Many questions are part of a series, and the results are primarily intended to be examined

relative to the other questions in that series (although results of the questions individually

can also be valuable). Typically, results of questions in a series are shown on a single

graph. The order of the questions in a series is typically randomized for each respondent,

thereby eliminating “order bias,” which refers to the effect that a question may have on a

subsequent question.

On some questions that ask respondents to give a number (e.g., age, years of participation), the

graph shows ranges (for example, 1-10 years, 11-20 years, 21-30 years, etc.). Nonetheless, in the

survey the respondent provided a precise number, and the dataset includes this precise number,

even if the graph shows only the range. The graphs for these questions also may include an

average, either the mean or the median (or both). The mean is simply the sum of all numbers

divided by the number of respondents. Because outliers (i.e., extremely high or low numbers

relative to the rest of the numbers) may skew the mean, the median is sometimes shown. The

median is the value at which half the sample is above and the other half is below.

As discussed previously, each interview was conducted using wording specific to that

respondent, based on his/her previous responses to questions. For instance, the respondent’s

specific primary type of water used for fishing was used in the interview. These places where

Fishing Access in the United States 13

specific wording was used are indicated by parentheses in the graphs; for example, the question

about use of public land or private land for access is shown as follows:

When fishing (in/from) (body of water), would you say you mostly access the water from public land, mostly access the water from private land, or both about equally?

Each respondent was asked about his/her specific state on this question. For a Great Lakes

angler, the question would have been as follows:

When fishing in the Great Lakes, would you say you mostly access the water from public land, mostly access the water from private land, or both about equally?

Note that some results may not sum to exactly 100% because of rounding on the graphs for

presentation. Additionally, rounding on the graphs may cause apparent discrepancies of 1

percentage point between the graphs and the reported results of combined responses (e.g., when

“strongly support” and “moderately support” are summed to determine the total percentage in

support). This happens because the percentages on the graphs are rounded to the nearest integer,

while any calculations use the actual number out several decimal places.

The report is divided into sections thematically, with results of all three surveys included in each

section, where pertinent. Each graph is clearly identified as “Professionals,” “Landowners,” or

“Anglers” to identify from which survey the data were derived. Note that all references to

“landowners” in the survey does not refer to landowners in general, but instead refers to

landowners with water access.

14 Responsive Management

RESULTS OF SURVEYS LOCATIONS OF ANGLERS’ FISHING ACTIVITIES

The angler survey asked about the types of freshwater and saltwater bodies in which anglers

primarily fished.

• Among freshwater anglers, reservoirs and/or lakes (other than the Great Lakes) are the

most popular types of freshwater fishing locations—nearly half (47%) of freshwater

anglers primarily fished there, followed in popularity by rivers/streams (35%), and

distantly followed by ponds/other freshwater bodies (11%) and the Great Lakes (5%)

(Figure 3). (In total, 52% primarily fish in a reservoir or lake including the Great Lakes.)

• Among saltwater anglers, the ocean (46%) is the most popular primary saltwater location,

followed by tidal bays/sounds (27%) and from the beach, shore, or surf of a saltwater

body (19%) (Figure 4).

• Anglers who freshwater fished were asked additional information about freshwater

fishing locations/methods—whether they fish from a boat, from the shore, or from a

dock. More than half of those who primarily freshwater fished (54%) use a boat (52%

say private boat, while 2% say chartered boat) (Figure 5). More than a third primarily

fish from the bank or shore (38%), and a bridge, dock, or pier accounts for 4%.

o Note that this question is crosstabulated by the specific freshwater bodies—Great

Lakes, other reservoirs and lakes, rivers/streams, and ponds/other water bodies. Not

surprisingly, boats predominate in the Great Lakes and on other reservoirs/lakes; the

bank/shore predominates in rivers/streams and ponds/other water bodies (p < 0.001)

(Figure 6).

• Anglers who saltwater fished were asked additional information about saltwater fishing

locations/methods: 50% use a private boat, 22% use a chartered boat (for 72% in total

using a boat), 19% fish from the beach or shore of a saltwater body, 5% fish from a

bridge, dock, or pier, and 4% fish from the bank or shore of a tidal water body (Figure 7).

o This question, too, is crosstabulated by the specific types of saltwater bodies—ocean,

tidal bays and sounds, and tidal portions of rivers (Figure 8). The ocean is correlated

with use of boats, particularly charter boats (p < 0.001).

Fishing Access in the United States 15

Figure 3. Types of Freshwater Bodies Fished by Anglers

Q17. When freshwater fishing, in what type of water body do you primarily fish? (Asked of those who have been freshwater fishing in the past 5 years.)

(Anglers)

47

35

11

5

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reservoirs and/orlakes other thanthe Great Lakes

Rivers and/orstreams

Ponds and/orother freshwater

bodies

The Great Lakes

Other

Percent (n=3828)

Sum of reservoirs and lakes, including the Great Lakes: 52%

16 Responsive Management

Figure 4. Types of Saltwater Bodies Fished by Anglers

Q23. When saltwater fishing, in what type of water body do you primarily fish? (Asked of those who have been saltwater fishing in the past 5 years.)

(Anglers)

46

27

19

6

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

In the ocean

In tidal bays and sounds

From the beach, shore, or surf of a coastalarea

In tidal portions of rivers and streams

Everglades / marshes

Do not primarily use only one body ofsaltwater (e.g., any body of saltwater

available, bay and ocean, anywhere froma boat, from the shore and in sounds)

Percent (n=2041)

Fishing Access in the United States 17

Figure 5. Methods of Freshwater Fishing by Anglers

Q33. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), what do you typically fish from?

(Those who were asked about their freshwater fishing only.)

(Anglers)

52

38

4

3

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Private boat

Bank or shore

Bridge, dock, or pier

Shallow body of water (e.g., the flats,wading, fly fishing)

Chartered boat

Do not typically fish from one place(e.g., anywhere, bank and boat,

wading and canoe)

Percent (n=2784)

18 Responsive Management

Figure 6. Methods of Freshwater Fishing by Anglers by Type of Freshwater Body

Q33. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), what do you typically fish from?

(Those who were asked about their freshwater fishing only.)

(Anglers)

66

27

4

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

1

77

10

4

1

8

1

2

50

37

8

4

63

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Private boat

Bank or shore

Bridge, dock, or pier

Shallow body of water (e.g., theflats, wading, fly fishing)

Chartered boat

Do not typically fish from oneplace (e.g., anywhere, bank and

boat, wading and canoe)

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=2782)

The Great Lakes

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great LakesRivers and/or streams

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies

Type of water primarily fish from

Fishing Access in the United States 19

Figure 7. Methods of Saltwater Fishing by Anglers

Q33. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), what do you typically fish from? (Asked of saltwater

anglers.)(Anglers)

50

22

19

5

4

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Private boat

Chartered boat

Beach, shore, orsurf of a coastal

area

Bridge, dock, orpier

Bank or shore

Do not typicallyfish from one place

(e.g., anywhere,bank and boat,

wading and canoe)

Percent (n=1158)

20 Responsive Management

Figure 8. Methods of Saltwater Fishing by Anglers by Type of Saltwater Body

Q33. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), what do you typically fish from? (Asked of those who fish in/from any body of water except from the

beach, shore, or surf of a coastal area.)(Anglers)

56

37

6

0

9

70

15

4

6

7

71

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Private boat

Chartered boat

Bridge, dock, orpier

Bank or shore

Percent

Ocean (n=554)

Tidal bays and sounds (n=281)

Tidal portions of rivers (n=68)

Graph does not show those who said they fish at the "beach, shore, or surf" because the location indicates the method (i.e., from bank or shore).

Two questions in the angler survey explored whether anglers generally fish in the same

location each year or different locations and whether they access their fishing location from

public land or from private land each year.

• Anglers more often say that they fish in the same location each year (44%) than say that

they fish in various locations each year (27%); meanwhile, 29% answer that they fish in

both about equally (Figure 9). Note that the question was specific to the anglers’ primary

water body used for fishing.

o It is interesting to compare this with hunters, who were asked the same question about

their hunting location in a survey conducted in 2009: 66% hunt the same location

each year, and only 9% hunt different locations each year.*

* Source: Issues Related To Hunting Access in the United States: National Report, Responsive Management, 2009.

A PDF copy is available at the following web address: www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/Hunting_Access_National_Report.pdf.

Fishing Access in the United States 21

o In a crosstabulation by the freshwater body in which the angler primarily fished, those who fish in the Great Lakes and those who fish in ponds/other water bodies are the most likely to fish in the same location from year to year (p < 0.001) (Figure 10). However, Great Lakes anglers are also the most likely to say that they fish in various locations (p < 0.001); this occurs because they are the least likely to give the “both” answer. Those who primarily fish in ponds are the least likely to say that they fish in various locations (p < 0.001).

o In a crosstabulation by the saltwater body in which the angler primarily fished, those who fish at the beach/surf and those who fish in the ocean are the most likely to fish in various locations from year to year (p < 0.05) (Figure 11).

• The majority of anglers access their primary fishing location mostly from public land (64%), while 16% access it mostly from private land; meanwhile, 19% answer both about equally (Figure 12). o This question, too, was crosstabulated by the freshwater and saltwater bodies in

which the angler primarily fished. Regarding freshwater, only those who fished in ponds primarily were large users of private land access (p < 0.001) (Figure 13). For the Great Lakes, other reservoirs/lakes, and rivers/streams, public land predominates for access (p < 0.001).

o Regarding saltwater fishing, public lands predominate as access points for all types of saltwater bodies—the beach/surf, the ocean, tidal bays/sounds, and tidal portions of rivers, but particularly for the beach/surf (p < 0.05) (Figure 14).

• A matrix was created from the above two questions about same/various locations and public/private lands, which is shown below (Table 2). Taken together, the most popular locations/access points (in bold) are same locations/public land (27%), both same and various locations/public land (19%), and various locations/public land (18%).

Table 2. Locations of Fishing Access FISHES MOSTLY FROM / IN:

Accesses mostly from public land

(64.5%)

Accesses both from public and private land about equally (19.3%)

Accesses mostly from private land (16.3%)

Mostly in same location (43.7%) 27.2% 6.4% 10.1%

Both in the same and various locations about equally (29.6%) 19.3% 7.3% 3.1%

Mostly in various locations (26.7%) 18.0% 5.5% 3.1%

22 Responsive Management

Figure 9. Fishing in Same Versus Various Locations Each Year Among Anglers

Q56. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), do you mostly fish in the same locations each year, mostly fish in various locations each year, or both about

equally?(Anglers)

44

29

27

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mostly samelocations

Both aboutequally

Mostly variouslocations

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

Fishing Access in the United States 23

Figure 10. Fishing in Same Versus Various Locations by Type of Freshwater Body

Q56. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), do you mostly fish in the same locations each year, mostly fish in various locations each year, or both about

equally?(Anglers)

52

20

28

42

31

27

25

33

42

16

32

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mostly samelocations

Both aboutequally

Mostly variouslocations

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

24 Responsive Management

Figure 11. Fishing in Same Versus Various Locations by Type of Saltwater Body

Q56. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), do you mostly fish in the same locations each year, mostly fish in various locations each year, or both about

equally?(Anglers)

48

18

33

12

40

24

3426

30

43

01

19

26

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mostly samelocations

Both aboutequally

Mostly variouslocations

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

Fishing Access in the United States 25

Figure 12. Accessing Fishing Locations From Public Versus Private Land

Q57. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), would you say you mostly access the water from public

land, mostly access the water from private land, or both about equally?

(Anglers)

64

19

16

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mostly from publicland

Both aboutequally

Mostly fromprivate land

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

26 Responsive Management

Figure 13. Fishing From Public Versus Private Land by Type of Freshwater Body

Q57. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), would you say you mostly access the water from public

land, mostly access the water from private land, or both about equally?

(Anglers)

67

10

23

71

18

11

9

21

70

45

28

27

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mostly frompublic land

Both aboutequally

Mostly fromprivate land

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

Fishing Access in the United States 27

Figure 14. Fishing From Public Versus Private Land by Type of Saltwater Body

Q57. When fishing (in/from) (body of water), would you say you mostly access the water from public

land, mostly access the water from private land, or both about equally?

(Anglers)

70

18

12

12

58

18

2220

17

62

11

21

16

62

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mostly frompublic land

Both aboutequally

Mostly fromprivate land

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)

Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)

Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

Those anglers who access their primary body of water from private land at least half the time

were asked about the ownership of that land: 19% of these respondents say that they mostly

access their fishing location from their own land, while 65% of them say that they mostly

28 Responsive Management

access their fishing location from land owned by someone else (15% say both about equally)

(Figure 15).

• A follow-up question in the angler survey asked those who access their primary fishing

location from land owned by someone else to indicate the ownership of that land: 43% of

this group use land owned by a friend or family member, 19% use land owned by an

acquaintance, and 27% of them use land owned by someone whom they did not know

prior to using their property (Figure 16). In looking at the percentage of all private land

anglers, 22% of them are fishing on private lands of people whom they do not know

outside of accessing their land.

Figure 15. Types of Private Land Used for Access

19

15

65

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Owned by you

Both aboutequally

Owned bysomeone else

Don't know

Percent (n=1058)

Q78. When you access (body of water) from private land to go fishing, do you mostly access the water from private

owned by you, mostly from private land owned by someone else, or both about equally? (Asked of those who access

water from private land.)(Anglers)

Fishing Access in the United States 29

Figure 16. Ownership of Land Among Anglers Using Another Person’s Land

5

43

19

27

2

1

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mostly owned by a friend or familymember

Mostly owned by an acquaintance

Mostly owned by someone not knownprior to access the water

All three about equally

Friend / family and acquaintance aboutequally

Acquaintance and unknown about equally

Don't know

Percent (n=837)

Q79. Of the private land from which you access (body of water) that is owned by someone else, do you mostly access

the water from land owned by a friend or family member, mostly from land owned by an acquaintance, or mostly from

land owned by someone you did not know prior to accessing the land? (Asked of those who access water from

private land owned by someone else.)(Anglers)

30 Responsive Management

Among anglers who typically use a private boat to fish, nearly three-quarters use a public boat ramp (73%) (Figure 17). Use of this is distantly followed by use of private boat ramps (17%), private docks (12%), and marinas (12%). • This question from the angler survey was crosstabulated by the body of water considering

freshwater and saltwater bodies separately. o Regarding freshwater, public boat ramps predominate, particularly among anglers

who primarily fish in reservoirs and lakes other than the Great Lakes and among anglers who fish in rivers and streams (p < 0.001) (Figure 18). Of the four types of freshwater in the crosstabulation, the Great Lakes have the highest percentage of anglers using a marina for their boat (p < 0.001).

o Regarding saltwater, public boat ramps again predominate, particularly among those anglers fishing from a boat in tidal bays/sounds or in tidal portions of rivers (p < 0.01) (Figure 19). On the other hand, marinas are notably used more among those anglers fishing in the ocean by boat, compared to those fishing from a boat in tidal bays/sounds or in tidal portions of rivers (p < 0.001).

Figure 17. Private Boat Access for Fishing Among Anglers

Q37. How do you typically access (body of water) for fishing from the private boat? (Asked of those who typically fish from a private boat when fishing

in/from (body of water).)(Anglers)

73

17

12

12

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Public boatramps

Private boatramps

Private docks

Marinas

From the shore /bank

Other

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=2011)

Fishing Access in the United States 31

Figure 18. Private Boat Access for Fishing Among Anglers by Type of Freshwater Body

Q37. How do you typically access (body of water) for fishing from the private boat? (Asked of those

who typically fish from a private boat when fishing in/from (body of water).)

(Anglers)

58

14

16

25

1

21

1

6

83

15

8

1

1

12

22

79

7

1

8

4

12

28

56

0 20 40 60 80 100

Public boatramps

Private boatramps

Private docks

Marinas

From the shore /bank

Other

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent

Great Lakes (n=101)

Reservoirs and/or lakes otherthan the Great Lakes (n=884)

Rivers and/or streams (n=343)

Ponds and/or other freshwaterbodies (n=93)

32 Responsive Management

Figure 19. Private Boat Access for Fishing Among Anglers by Type of Saltwater Body

Q37. How do you typically access (body of water) for fishing from the private boat? (Asked of those

who typically fish from a private boat when fishing in/from (body of water).)

(Anglers)

54

29

19

14

11

14

66

13

13

2

15

13

69

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Public boatramps

Marinas

Private docks

Private boatramps

From the shore/ bank

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent

Ocean (n=292)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=195)

Tidal portions of rivers(n=48)

Fishing Access in the United States 33

The median distance that anglers travel to fish their primary body of water is 35 miles

(Figure 20). Otherwise, they are widely distributed in the distance they travel, with a quarter

(25%) traveling no more than 10 miles, but nearly the same amount (23%) traveling more

than 100 miles.

Figure 20. Anglers’ Typical Travel Distance

Q85. How far do you usually travel from home, one-way, in miles, to fish (in/from) (body of water)?

(Anglers)

3

7

7

9

9

4

10

15

7

5

9

5

1

2

2

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 300 miles

201 - 300 miles

101 - 200 miles

51 - 100 miles

41 - 50 miles

31 - 40 miles

21 - 30 miles

16 - 20 miles

11 - 15 miles

6 - 10 miles

5 miles

4 miles

3 miles

2 miles

1 mile

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

Median = 35

16%

34 Responsive Management

RATINGS OF ACCESS FOR FISHING Ratings of access for fishing overall are mostly positive among anglers: 79% of anglers give

a rating of excellent or good (Figure 21). On the other hand, 20% give a rating of fair or

poor.

• In a crosstabulation by the body of water (among freshwater anglers), Great Lakes

anglers are more likely than freshwater anglers primarily fishing in other locations to give

an excellent rating of access (46% do so), particularly compared to anglers whose

primary location is rivers and streams (only 24% give an excellent rating to access)

(p < 0.001) (Figure 22). There are no statistically significant differences in the saltwater

crosstabulation of this question (Figure 23).

• Those anglers who access their primary fishing location via public land give mostly

positive ratings of access from public land: 79% give a rating of excellent or good

(Figure 24).

o This question, too, was crosstabulated by the bodies of water in which anglers

primarily fished. Again, Great Lakes anglers are more likely than the anglers fishing

in other freshwater bodies to give an excellent rating of access (p < 0.01) (Figure 25).

o The saltwater crosstabulation did not find any statistically significant differences

(Figure 26).

• Those anglers who access their primary fishing location via private land give mostly

positive ratings of access from private land: 70% give a rating of excellent or good

(Figure 27).

o As was done above, this question was crosstabulated by the freshwater and saltwater

bodies in which anglers primarily fished. Great Lakes anglers are more likely to give

an excellent rating to access from private land, compared to anglers primarily fishing

the other types of freshwater bodies (p < 0.05) (Figure 28). On the other hand, the

worst ratings of private land access among freshwater anglers are among those who

primarily fish in rivers/streams (p < 0.05).

o The saltwater crosstabulation did not find any statistically significant differences

(Figure 29).

Fishing Access in the United States 35

Figure 21. Anglers’ Overall Ratings of Fishing Access

Q55. Overall, how would you rate access to (body of water) for fishing?

(Anglers)

30

49

15

5

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

36 Responsive Management

Figure 22. Anglers’ Overall Ratings of Fishing Access by Type of Freshwater Body

Q55. Overall, how would you rate access to (body of water) for fishing?

(Anglers)

46

39

10

4

3

31

52

14

18

51

24

6

8

18

45

28

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

Fishing Access in the United States 37

Figure 23. Anglers’ Overall Ratings of Fishing Access by Type of Saltwater Body

Q55. Overall, how would you rate access to (body of water) for fishing?

(Anglers)

32

44

18

4

21

5

35

45

14

1

14

49

32

4

3

10

13

46

28

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

38 Responsive Management

Figure 24. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Public Land

Q60. How would you rate access from public land to (body of water) for fishing? (Asked of those who

access the water from public land when fishing (in/from) (body of water).)

(Anglers)

26

53

16

4

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent (n=3040)

Fishing Access in the United States 39

Figure 25. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Public Land by Type of Freshwater Body

Q60. How would you rate access from public land to (body of water) for fishing? (Asked of those who

access the water from public land when fishing (in/from) (body of water).)

(Anglers)

42

45

10

2

11

4

27

54

14

1

20

52

24

3

0

4

14

60

23

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=106)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1133)Rivers and/or streams(n=818)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=141)

40 Responsive Management

Figure 26. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Public Land by Type of Saltwater Body

Q60. How would you rate access from public land to (body of water) for fishing? (Asked of those who

access the water from public land when fishing (in/from) (body of water).)

(Anglers)

24

51

17

6

12

3

25

53

17

2

13

57

25

3

0

6

19

47

28

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=146)Ocean (n=373)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=193)Tidal portions of rivers(n=47)

Fishing Access in the United States 41

Figure 27. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Private Land

Q67. How would you rate access from private land to (body of water) for fishing? (Asked of those who

access the water from private land when fishing in/from (body of water).)

(Anglers)

31

39

17

11

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent (n=1058)

42 Responsive Management

Figure 28. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Private Land by Type of Freshwater Body

Q67. How would you rate access from private land to (body of water) for fishing? (Asked of those who

access the water from private land when fishing in/from (body of water).)

(Anglers)

39

26

16

13

53

9

31

40

17

1

20

40

24

16

2

11

15

41

32

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=38)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=298)Rivers and/or streams(n=186)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=190)

Fishing Access in the United States 43

Figure 29. Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Access From Private Land by Type of Saltwater Body

Q67. How would you rate access from private land to (body of water) for fishing? (Asked of those who

access the water from private land when fishing in/from (body of water).)

(Anglers)

33

35

20

10

38

8

31

39

15

5

14

33

37

11

0

10

15

50

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=40)Ocean (n=168)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=84)Tidal portions of rivers(n=20)

44 Responsive Management

Professionals also were asked to rate freshwater fishing access from public lands in their

state in general, and then they were asked to rate freshwater fishing access from public lands

that their agency manages, freshwater fishing access from public lands that their agency does

not manage, and freshwater fishing access from private lands in their state.

• Responses are mostly positive regarding freshwater fishing access from public lands in

their state in general: 72% of professionals give a rating of excellent or good (Figure 30).

Meanwhile, 24% give a rating of fair or poor (but only 2% give the lowest rating of

poor).

• Regarding freshwater fishing on lands that their agency manages: 79% of professionals

give a rating of excellent or good, while 14% give a rating of fair or poor (Figure 31).

• Regarding access for freshwater fishing on lands that their agency does not manage,

results are less favorable compared to the above question: 51% of professionals give a

rating of excellent or good, while 39% give a rating of fair or poor (Figure 32).

• Finally, regarding access for freshwater fishing from private lands in their state: only

12% of professionals give a rating of excellent or good, while 74% give a rating of fair or

poor (Figure 33).

• A final graph shows all of these results together for ease of comparison (Figure 34).

Fishing Access in the United States 45

Figure 30. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Public Lands

Q6a. How would you rate access for freshwater fishing from public lands in your state (or the nation) in general (including public lands your

agency does and does not manage)?(Professionals)

15

57

22

2

1

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=399)

46 Responsive Management

Figure 31. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Public Lands Agency Manages

Q6b. How would you rate access for freshwater fishing from public lands your agency manages?

(Professionals)

26

53

12

2

1

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=397)

Fishing Access in the United States 47

Figure 32. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Public Lands Agency Does Not Manage

Q6c. How would you rate access for freshwater fishing from public lands your agency does not

manage?(Professionals)

8

43

35

4

6

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=395)

48 Responsive Management

Figure 33. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access From Private Lands

Q6d. How would you rate access for freshwater fishing from private lands in your state (or the

nation)?(Professionals)

1

11

34

40

12

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=396)

Fishing Access in the United States 49

Figure 34. Professionals’ Ratings of Freshwater Fishing Access: All Types of Lands

Q6a/b/c/d. How would you rate access for freshwater fishing from (public lands in general / public lands your agency manages / public lands your agency does not manage / private lands)?

(Professionals)

15

57

22

2

1

36

1

2

26

53

12

5

6

35

43

8

4

3

12

40

34

11

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable / donot manage for

freshwater fishing

Percent (n=395)

Public lands in your state in general

Public lands your agency manages

Public lands your agency does not manage

Private lands in your state

Professionals then were asked to rate saltwater fishing access in their state in general, from public lands that their agency manages, from public lands that their agency does not manage, and from private lands in their state. • Regarding access for saltwater fishing in general, responses are more positive than

negative (although the top answer is that the question does not apply because the agency/organization does not manage saltwater): 21% of professionals give a rating of

50 Responsive Management

excellent or good, while 14% give a rating of fair or poor (Figure 35). The rest (65%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply.

• Regarding access for saltwater fishing on lands that their agency manages: 19% give a rating of excellent or good, while 9% give a rating of fair or poor (Figure 36). The rest (72%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply.

• Regarding access for saltwater fishing from lands in their state that their agency does not manage, 15% give a rating of excellent or good, while 16% give a rating of fair or poor (Figure 37). The rest (69%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply. (Note that rounding on the values shown on the graphs causes an apparent 1 percentage point discrepancy in the sum of “don’t know” and “does not apply.”)

• Finally in this line of questioning, professionals were asked to rate access for saltwater fishing from private lands in their state: only 5% give a rating of excellent or good, while 23% give a rating of fair or poor (Figure 38). The rest (72%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply.

• A final graph shows all of these results together for ease of comparison (Figure 39). Figure 35. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Public Lands

Q8a. How would you rate access for saltwater fishing from public lands in your state (or the nation) in general (including public lands your

agency does and does not manage)?(Professionals)

6

15

10

4

4

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=381)

Fishing Access in the United States 51

Figure 36. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Public Lands Agency Manages

Q8b. How would you rate access for saltwater fishing from public lands your agency manages?

(Professionals)

7

12

8

1

5

67

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=378)

52 Responsive Management

Figure 37. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Public Lands Agency Does Not Manage

Q8c. How would you rate access for saltwater fishing from public lands your agency does not

manage?(Professionals)

3

12

10

6

8

62

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=378)

Fishing Access in the United States 53

Figure 38. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access From Private Lands

Q8d. How would you rate access for saltwater fishing from private lands in your state (or the

nation)?(Professionals)

1

4

8

15

11

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=379)

54 Responsive Management

Figure 39. Professionals’ Ratings of Saltwater Fishing Access: All Types of Lands

Q8a/b/c/d. How would you rate access for saltwater fishing from (public lands in general / public lands your agency manages / public lands your agency

does not manage / private lands)?(Professionals)

6

15

10

4

4

6167

5

1

7

12

8

62

8

10

12

3

6

61

11

15

8

4

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Not applicable / donot manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=378)

Public lands in your state in general

Public lands your agency manages

Public lands your agency does not manage

Private lands in your state

Fishing Access in the United States 55

Anglers were asked about whether fishing access has gotten better or worse in the past 5 years

from both public and private land.

• Regarding accessing fishing locations from public land, the majority of those who use

public land say access has stayed about the same (64%); otherwise, 18% say public land

access has gotten better, and 14% say it has gotten worse (Figure 40).

• Regarding accessing fishing locations from private land, the majority of those who use

private land say access has stayed about the same (65%); otherwise, 8% say it has gotten

better, and 21% say it has gotten worse (Figure 41).

Figure 40. Anglers’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Access From Public Land Over the Past 5 Years

Q61. In the past 5 years, has access from public land to (body of water) for fishing gotten better,

stayed the same, or gotten worse? (Asked of those who access the water from public land when

fishing (in/from) (body of water).)(Anglers)

18

64

14

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Gotten better

Stayed the same

Gotten worse

Don't know

Percent (n=3040)

56 Responsive Management

Figure 41. Anglers’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Access From Private Land Over the Past 5 Years

Q68. In the past 5 years, has access from private land to (body of water) for fishing gotten better,

stayed the same, or gotten worse? (Asked of those who access the water from private land when

fishing in/from (body of water).)(Anglers)

8

65

21

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Gotten better

Stayed the same

Gotten worse

Don't know

Percent (n=1058)

Professionals were asked if freshwater fishing access in general in their state has gotten better

or worse in the past 5 years, and then they were asked the same question about freshwater

fishing access to public lands that their agency manages, to public lands that their agency

does not manage, and to private lands in their state.

• Regarding access for freshwater fishing from public lands in general, professionals most

commonly say it has stayed the same in the past 5 years (44%), but this is close to the

percentage who say it has gotten better (40%), far exceeding the percentage who say it

has gotten worse (11%) (Figure 42).

Fishing Access in the United States 57

• Professionals are the most positive about public land that their agency manages: the most

common answer is that access for freshwater fishing has gotten better (48%), far

exceeding the percentage saying it has gotten worse (4%); meanwhile, 41% say it has

stayed the same (Figure 43).

• Regarding public land that their agency does not manage, professionals most commonly

think that access in the past 5 years has stayed the same (53%); otherwise, the percentage

saying it has gotten better (22%) is double the percentage saying it has gotten worse

(11%) (Figure 44).

• Finally, professionals are the most pessimistic about private land: the most common

answer is that access in the past 5 years has gotten worse (40%), far exceeding the

percentage who say it has gotten better (6%), and even exceeding the percentage who say

it has stayed the same (35%) (Figure 45).

• A final graph shows all of these results together for ease of comparison (Figure 46).

• A crosstabulation shows that state agency personnel are more likely, compared to federal

agency personnel, to say that freshwater fishing access in their state in general has gotten

better (p < 0.001) (Figure 47). This also applies to their views on freshwater fishing

access from public lands their agencies manage (p < 0.001) (Figure 48) and from public

lands their agencies do not manage (p < 0.01) (Figure 49). Regarding private lands, the

percentages of the two groups (state or federal personnel) giving the “better” response is

about the same, but federal agency personnel are more likely to give a “worse” rating

compared to state agency personnel (p < 0.05) (Figure 50).

58 Responsive Management

Figure 42. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Public Lands Over the Past 5 Years

40

44

11

3

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=397)

Q7a. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from public lands in your state (or the nation) in general (including public

lands your agency does and does not manage) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?

(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 59

Figure 43. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years

Q7b. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from public lands your agency manages has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past

5 years?(Professionals)

48

41

4

2

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=393)

60 Responsive Management

Figure 44. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years

Q7c. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from public lands your agency does not manage

has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?

(Professionals)

22

53

11

11

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=394)

Fishing Access in the United States 61

Figure 45. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Private Lands Over the Past 5 Years

Q7d. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from private lands in your state (or the nation) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in

the past 5 years?(Professionals)

6

35

40

16

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=396)

62 Responsive Management

Figure 46. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access: All Lands

40

44

11

3

35

2

48

41

4

4

11

53

22

11

3

16

40

35

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forfreshwater fishing

Percent (n=393)

Public lands in your state in general

Public lands your agency manages

Public lands your agency does not manage

Private lands in your state

Q7a/b/c/d. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from (public lands in general / public lands your agency manages / public lands your agency does not manage / private lands) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the

past 5 years?(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 63

Figure 47. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Public Lands Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency

25

55

13

5

2

3

2

49

38

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not managefor freshwater

fishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=132)State agency personnel(n=237)

Q7a. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from public lands in your state (or the nation) in general (including public

lands your agency does and does not manage) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?

(Professionals)

64 Responsive Management

Figure 48. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency

Q7b. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from public lands your agency manages has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past

5 years?(Professionals)

29

59

8

2

2

5

2

58

34

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not managefor freshwater

fishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=131)State agency personnel(n=238)

Fishing Access in the United States 65

Figure 49. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency

Q7c. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from public lands your agency does not manage

has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?

(Professionals)

18

56

7

18

2

3

7

26

53

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not managefor freshwater

fishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=131)State agency personnel(n=237)

66 Responsive Management

Figure 50. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Freshwater Access From Private Lands by Federal Versus State Agency

Q7d. Do you think access for freshwater fishing from private lands in your state (or the nation) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in

the past 5 years?(Professionals)

6

24

47

21

2

3

14

5

41

36

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not managefor freshwater

fishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=131)State agency personnel(n=237)

Fishing Access in the United States 67

Analogous to the above, professionals were asked if saltwater fishing access in general in their state has gotten better or worse in the past 5 years, and then they were asked the same question about saltwater fishing access to public lands that their agency manages, to public lands that their agency does not manage, and to private lands in their state. • Regarding access for saltwater fishing from public lands in general, professionals most

commonly say it has stayed the same in the past 5 years (16%); otherwise, they are about evenly split, with 8% saying it has gotten better and 9% saying it has gotten worse (Figure 51). The rest (67%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply.

• Again, professionals are the most positive about public land that their agency manages: although the most common answer is that access for saltwater fishing has stayed the same (17%), the percentage who say it has gotten better (11%) far exceeds the percentage saying it has gotten worse (2%) (Figure 52). The rest (70%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply.

• Regarding public land that their agency does not manage, professionals most commonly think that access for saltwater fishing in the past 5 years has stayed the same (14%); otherwise, they are about evenly split between saying it has gotten better (7%) or it has gotten worse (8%) (Figure 53). The rest (71%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply.

• Finally, professionals have the worst ratings for access to private land for saltwater fishing: the most common answer is that access for saltwater fishing in the past 5 years has gotten worse (15%), far exceeding the percentage who say it has gotten better (2%), and even exceeding the percentage who say it has stayed the same (11%) (Figure 54). The rest (73%) say “don’t know” or say that the question does not apply. (Note that rounding on the values shown on the graphs causes an apparent 1 percentage point discrepancy in the sum of “don’t know” and “does not apply.”)

• A final graph shows all of these results together for ease of comparison (Figure 55). • A crosstabulation shows that state agency personnel are more likely, compared to federal

agency personnel, to say that saltwater fishing access in their state in general has gotten better (p < 0.001) (Figure 56), that saltwater fishing access from public lands their agencies manage has gotten better (p < 0.01) (Figure 57), and that saltwater fishing access from public lands their agencies do not manage has gotten better (p < 0.01) (Figure 58). Regarding private lands, the differences were not particularly meaningful, occurring in the “stayed the same” and “don’t know” responses (p < 0.01) (Figure 59).

68 Responsive Management

Figure 51. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Over the Past 5 Years

8

16

9

7

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=377)

Q9a. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from public lands in your state (or the nation) in general (including

public lands your agency does and does not manage) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past

5 years?(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 69

Figure 52. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years

Q9b. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from public lands your agency manages has gotten

better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?

(Professionals)

11

17

2

5

65

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=375)

70 Responsive Management

Figure 53. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years

Q9c. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from public lands you agency does not manage has

gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?(Professionals)

7

14

8

10

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=375)

Fishing Access in the United States 71

Figure 54. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Private Land Over the Past 5 Years

Q9d. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from private lands in your state (or the nation) has

gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?(Professionals)

2

11

15

14

59

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=376)

72 Responsive Management

Figure 55. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access: All Lands

60

7

9

16

8

65

5

2

17

11

61

10

7

14

8

59

14

2

11

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable / donot manage forsaltwater fishing

Percent (n=375)

Public lands in your state in general

Public lands your agency manages

Public lands your agency does not manage

Private lands in your state

Q9a/b/c/d. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from (public lands in general / public lands your agency manages / public lands your agency does not manage / private lands) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the

past 5 years?(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 73

Figure 56. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Land Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency

2

15

7

15

61

60

4

11

16

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage

for saltwaterfishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=128)State agency personnel(n=225)

Q9a. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from public lands in your state (or the nation) in general (including

public lands your agency does and does not manage) has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past

5 years?(Professionals)

74 Responsive Management

Figure 57. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Manages Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency

Q9b. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from public lands your agency manages has gotten

better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?

(Professionals)

5

15

2

10

69

63

3

16

17

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage

for saltwaterfishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=127)State agency personnel(n=224)

Fishing Access in the United States 75

Figure 58. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Public Lands Their Agency Does Not Manage Over the Past 5 Years by Federal Versus State Agency

Q9c. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from public lands you agency does not manage has

gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?(Professionals)

2

13

7

17

60

61

7

9

15

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage

for saltwaterfishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=126)State agency personnel(n=225)

76 Responsive Management

Figure 59. Professionals’ Perceptions of Trend in Difficulty/Ease of Saltwater Access From Private Lands by Federal Versus State Agency

Q9d. Do you think access for saltwater fishing from private lands in your state (or the nation) has

gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 5 years?(Professionals)

0

4

14

22

60

61

10

2

13

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Better

Stayed the same

Worse

Don't know

Not applicable /do not manage

for saltwaterfishing

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=126)State agency personnel(n=226)

Fishing Access in the United States 77

FACTORS IN ANGLERS’ DECISIONS REGARDING WHERE TO FISH The survey asked 14 questions about the importance of various factors in deciding where to

fish (Table 3). In the results overall, the top two factors relate to boats: that the access area

has boat access (54% say this is very important) and that the access area has well-maintained

boat ramps (also 54%). Of the 14 factors, 7 additional factors are all nearly the same in

importance, with from 47% to 50% of anglers saying the factors are very important, and the

factors pertain to the areas not being crowded with other anglers and recreationists, the areas

being well-maintained, the areas being public, and the areas being familiar (Figure 60). Note

that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent.

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say either very or somewhat

important and the percentages who say not at all important, are shown in Figures 60

through 62.

Table 3. Factors in Anglers’ Decisions Regarding Where To Access Their Primary Body of Water That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey

Factor (ranked by the percentage saying factor is very important)

Percent Who Said the Factor Is Very

Important Q95. That the access area has boat access 54 Q101. That the access area has well-maintained boat ramps 54 Q97. That the access area is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers 50 Q103. That the access area has well-maintained parking area 50 Q90. That the access area is located on public land 49 Q100. That the access area has well-maintained roads 49 Q96. That the access area is not crowded with other anglers 48 Q93. That the access area is one you are familiar with 47 Q102. That the access area has well-maintained docks or piers 47 Q94. That the access area is close to your home 38 Q98. That the access area is not on or near private land where you may have an encounter

with a landowner while accessing the water 27

Q99. That the access area is not on or near private land where you may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water 26

Q92. That the access area is owned by someone you know personally 19 Q91. That the access area is located on private land 15

78 Responsive Management

Figure 60. Very Important Factors Among Anglers in Deciding Where To Access the Water Body

Percent who indicated that the following factors are very important to them when deciding where to

access (body of water) to fish.(Anglers)

47

47

48

54

54

50

50

49

49

38

27

26

19

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q95. The access area has boat access

Q101. The access area has well-maintained boat ramps

Q97. The access area is not crowded with recreationistsother than anglers

Q103. The access area has well-maintained parkingarea

Q90. The access area is located on public land

Q100. The access area has well-maintained roads

Q96. The access area is not crowded with other anglers

Q93. The access area is one you are familiar with

Q102. The access area has well-maintained docks orpiers

Q94. The access area is close to your home

Q98. The access area is not on or near private landwhere you may have an encounter with a landowner

while accessing the waterQ99. The access area is not on or near private landwhere you may have an encounter with a landowner

while in the water or leaving the water

Q92. The access area is owned by someone you knowpersonally

Q91. The access area is located on private land

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 79

Figure 61. Very or Somewhat Important Factors Among Anglers in Deciding Where To Access the Water Body

Percent who indicated that the following factors are very or somewhat important to them when deciding

where to access (body of water) to fish.(Anglers)

36

37

43

45

69

75

77

79

79

81

83

74

73

72

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q103. The access area has well-maintained parkingarea

Q100. The access area has well-maintained roads

Q93. The access area is one you are familiar with

Q96. The access area is not crowded with other anglers

Q97. The access area is not crowded with recreationistsother than anglers

Q101. The access area has well-maintained boat ramps

Q90. The access area is located on public land

Q102. The access area has well-maintained docks orpiers

Q95. The access area has boat access

Q94. The access area is close to your home

Q98. The access area is not on or near private landwhere you may have an encounter with a landowner

while accessing the waterQ99. The access area is not on or near private landwhere you may have an encounter with a landowner

while in the water or leaving the water

Q92. The access area is owned by someone you knowpersonally

Q91. The access area is located on private land

Percent

80 Responsive Management

Figure 62. Factors That Are Not Important at All Among Anglers in Deciding Where To Access the Water Body

Percent who indicated that the following factors are not important at all to them when deciding where to

access (body of water) to fish.(Anglers)

17

19

20

20

22

27

31

52

53

60

61

26

25

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q91. The access area is located on private land

Q92. The access area is owned by someone you knowpersonally

Q99. The access area is not on or near private landwhere you may have an encounter with a landowner

while in the water or leaving the waterQ98. The access area is not on or near private landwhere you may have an encounter with a landowner

while accessing the water

Q94. The access area is close to your home

Q95. The access area has boat access

Q102. The access area has well-maintained docks orpiers

Q90. The access area is located on public land

Q101. The access area has well-maintained boatramps

Q97. The access area is not crowded withrecreationists other than anglers

Q93. The access area is one you are familiar with

Q96. The access area is not crowded with other anglers

Q100. The access area has well-maintained roads

Q103. The access area has well-maintained parkingarea

Percent

The above series (shown in Table 3) was crosstabulated by freshwater and saltwater bodies

of water.

• When crosstabulated by freshwater bodies, the following questions had marked

differences among the four groups defined by the body in which they primarily fish. The

Fishing Access in the United States 81

four types of freshwater bodies crosstabulated are the Great Lakes, reservoirs/lakes other

than the Great Lakes, rivers/streams, and ponds/other water bodies. (Note that only

questions on which meaningful and statistically significant differences are found are

shown.)

o Of the four groups, those who fish in ponds/other bodies are the least concerned that

the access area is located on public land (p < 0.001) (Figure 63).

o Conversely, of the four groups, those who fish in ponds/other bodies are the most

concerned that the access area is located on private land (p < 0.001) (Figure 64).

o Of the four groups, those who fish in ponds/other bodies are the most concerned that

the access area is owned by someone they know personally (p < 0.001) (Figure 65).

o Of the four groups, those who fish in ponds/other bodies are the most concerned that

the access area is close to their home (p < 0.001) (Figure 66).

o The question regarding boat access shows that anglers fishing in the Great Lakes and

in reservoirs/lakes other than the Great Lakes are the most concerned that the access

area has boat access, relative to the other two groups (p < 0.001) (Figure 67).

o Crowding from other anglers is of the least concern among anglers in the Great

Lakes; it is of most concern among anglers who fish in ponds/other water bodies

(p < 0.001) (Figure 68).

o Having well-maintained roads at and leading to the access area is of most importance

to anglers fishing in the Great Lakes and in reservoirs/lakes other than the Great

Lakes; it is of the least importance to anglers fishing in ponds/other water bodies

(p < 0.001) (Figure 69).

o Anglers fishing in the Great Lakes and in reservoirs/lakes other than the Great Lakes

are the most concerned that the access area has well-maintained boat ramps

(p < 0.001) (Figure 70).

o Having well-maintained docks and piers is also of most concern to anglers fishing in

the Great Lakes and in reservoirs/lakes other than the Great Lakes (p < 0.001)

(Figure 71).

o Finally, having a well-maintained parking area was of most importance to anglers

fishing in the Great Lakes and in reservoirs/lakes other than the Great Lakes

(p < 0.001) (Figure 72).

82 Responsive Management

• When crosstabulated by saltwater bodies, the following questions had marked differences

among the four groups defined by the body in which they primarily fish. The types of

saltwater bodies are the beach/surf; the ocean; tidal bays and sounds; and tidal portions of

rivers. (Note that only questions on which meaningful differences were tested for

statistical significance are discussed and shown; some questions on which there appeared

to be some meaningful differences were tested for statistical significance but were found

not to be statistically significant.)

o Being familiar with the access area is of most importance to those fishing in tidal

portions of rivers; it is of the least importance to those who fish in the ocean

(p < 0.05) (Figure 73).

o That the area is close to home is most important to those who fish in tidal bays and

sounds and those who fish in tidal portions of rivers (p < 0.01) (Figure 74).

o Having boat access is of the least importance to those who primarily fish at the

beach/in the surf (p < 0.001) (Figure 75).

o That the area is not crowded with other recreationists was tested for statistical

significance (it appeared to be most important to those who fish in tidal portions of

rivers), but the differences are not statistically significant (Figure 76).

o The question regarding the access area being not on private land or near private land

to minimize the possibility of an encounter with a landowner while accessing the

water was tested for statistical significance, but it was not statistically significant

(Figure 77).

o The question regarding the access area being not on private land or near private land

to minimize the possibility of an encounter with a landowner while on the water or

while leaving the water was tested for statistical significance, but it was not

statistically significant (Figure 78).

o Having well-maintained boat ramps is of least importance to those who fish at the

beach/in the surf, relative to the other groups (p < 0.001) (Figure 79).

o Likewise, having well-maintained docks and piers is of least importance to those who

fish at the beach/in the surf (p < 0.001) (Figure 80).

Fishing Access in the United States 83

Figure 63. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is on Public Land by Type of Freshwater Body

Q90. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area is located on public land?(Anglers)

48

26

25

21

51

26

2221

27

51

1

1

37

27

36

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakes otherthan the Great Lakes (n=1438)

Rivers and/or streams (n=1008)

Ponds and/or other freshwaterbodies (n=332)

84 Responsive Management

Figure 64. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is on Private Land by Type of Freshwater Body

Q91. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area is located on private land?(Anglers)

21

16

59

54

13

19

6461

22

14

32

45

27

27

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

Fishing Access in the United States 85

Figure 65. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Owned by Someone Angler Knows by Type of Freshwater Body

Q92. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area is owned by someone you know personally?

(Anglers)

21

17

57

43

16

19

6259

18

21

21

37

24

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

86 Responsive Management

Figure 66. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Close To Home by Type of Freshwater Body

Q94. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area is close to your home?(Anglers)

43

26

30

11

40

33

2633

33

34

11

21

27

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

Fishing Access in the United States 87

Figure 67. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Boat Access by Type of Freshwater Body

Q95. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area has boat access?(Anglers)

70

13

14

30

62

17

2141

21

38

01

49

26

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

88 Responsive Management

Figure 68. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Not Crowded With Other Anglers by Type of Freshwater Body

Q96. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area is not crowded with other anglers?

(Anglers)

37

35

28

10

47

33

2018

30

52

11

21

23

55

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

Fishing Access in the United States 89

Figure 69. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Roads by Type of Freshwater Body

Q100. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area has well-maintained roads?(Anglers)

55

31

13

11

53

34

1325

36

38

10

31

30

39

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

90 Responsive Management

Figure 70. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Boat Ramps by Type of Freshwater Body

Q101. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area has well-maintained boat ramps?

(Anglers)

69

21

10

10

61

22

1737

23

39

11

46

23

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

Fishing Access in the United States 91

Figure 71. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Docks or Piers by Type of Freshwater Body

Q102. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area has well-maintained docks or piers?

(Anglers)

63

29

8

10

51

28

2142

26

31

01

43

27

29

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

92 Responsive Management

Figure 72. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Parking Areas by Type of Freshwater Body

Q103. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area has well-maintained parking area?

(Anglers)

57

35

8

10

54

34

1125

36

39

00

35

30

36

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

Fishing Access in the United States 93

Figure 73. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Land With Which They Are Familiar by Type of Saltwater Body

Q93. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area is one you are familiar with?(Anglers)

51

27

22

01

45

28

2518

33

48

03

15

40

43

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

94 Responsive Management

Figure 74. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Close To Home by Type of Saltwater Body

Q94. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area is close to your home?(Anglers)

38

23

39

0

1

32

25

42

30

27

42

1

0

22

41

37

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

Fishing Access in the United States 95

Figure 75. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Boat Access by Type of Saltwater Body

Q95. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the

access area has boat access?(Anglers)

42

13

42

3

0

68

14

17

11

15

74

1

0

18

13

69

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

96 Responsive Management

Figure 76. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Is Not Crowded With Recreationists Other Than Anglers by Type of Saltwater Body

Q97. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area is not crowded with recreationists

other than anglers?(Anglers)

48

27

25

01

42

29

2823

27

48

13

16

31

50

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

Fishing Access in the United States 97

Figure 77. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Not On/Near Private Land Where There Is Possibility of Encounter While Accessing Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q98. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area is not on or near private land where

you may have an encounter with a landowner while accessing the water?

(Anglers)

25

19

53

44

23

16

5753

15

28

41

37

25

37

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

98 Responsive Management

Figure 78. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Is Not On/Near Private Land Where There Is Possibility of Encounter While In/Leaving the Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q99. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area is not on or near private land where

you may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water?

(Anglers)

23

19

53

45

22

15

5855

15

25

51

47

19

32

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

Fishing Access in the United States 99

Figure 79. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Boat Ramps by Type of Saltwater Body

Q101. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area has well-maintained boat ramps?

(Anglers)

45

16

38

1

1

66

17

17

12

16

71

1

0

21

19

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

100 Responsive Management

Figure 80. Anglers’ Rating of Importance That Access Area Has Well-Maintained Docks or Piers by Type of Saltwater Body

Q102. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how important is it to you that the access area has well-maintained docks or piers?

(Anglers)

52

21

27

0

1

64

22

13

15

24

60

0

0

16

31

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

As discussed in the Introduction and Methodology, a nonparametric analysis compared responses

on various questions to responses on other questions. The analysis finds responses that are more

commonly given in conjunction with other responses. Specifically, the analysis looks at two

groups and compares their responses to other questions. A basic analysis like this might look at

the differences in responses between men and women (which is included in the section of the

report titled, “Years Fished, Avidity, Organization Memberships, and Angler Demographic

Fishing Access in the United States 101

Data”) in their responses to certain questions. The first set of nonparametric analysis results

discussed below looked at the differences between 1) those who say that having their fishing

access area be on public land is very important and 2) those who do not say that this is very

important (i.e., they say it is unimportant, give a neutral answer, or say it is only somewhat

important).

In the first correlation discussed, the analysis found that saying that having the fishing access

area be on public land is very important is correlated with having fished all 5 of the past 5 years.

This means that those who say having the fishing access area be on public land is very important

are more likely to have fished all 5 of the past 5 years, compared to those who do not say that

having the fishing access area be on public land is very important. This does not mean that all of

the “very important” response group fished all 5 years of the past 5 (as some undoubtedly did

not), it only means that they are more likely to have fished all 5 years, compared to those not in

the “very important” response group. Likewise, those who say having the fishing access area be

on public land is very important are more likely than their counterparts (those who did not say

“very important”) to have fished for more than the median number of years. A full discussion of

how to read the nonparametric analysis results is included in the Introduction and Methodology.

At the beginning of each nonparametric analysis discussion, the groups being analyzed are

indicated. The nonparametric analysis below discusses the following:

• Those who say having the fishing access area be on public land is very important (versus

those who did not say this).

• Those who say that having boat access is very important (versus those who did not say

this).

• Those who say that having an access area that is not crowded with other anglers is very

important (versus those who did not say this).

• Those who say that having an access area that is not crowded with other recreationists is

very important (versus those who did not say this).

• Those who say that having an access area that has well-maintained boat ramps is very

important (versus those who did not say this).

102 Responsive Management

The aforementioned nonparametric analysis included some of the questions from the above

series.

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with

indicating that it is very important to him/her that the access area is located on public land

when deciding where to access his/her primary body of water∗ to fish:

o In the past 5 years, has been freshwater fishing in all 5 of the past 5 years (p < 0.05). o Has fished for more than the median of 40 years (p < 0.05). o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very

important to him/her that the access area is well-maintained (e.g., has well-maintained parking area, roads, boat ramps, and docks or piers) (all at p < 0.001 or greater significance).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not on or near private land where he/she may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.001) and while accessing the water (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is one he/she is familiar with (p < 0.001), has boat access (p < 0.001), is close to his/her home (p < 0.001), and is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001) or other anglers (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that he/she always or sometimes uses paper maps to find a place to access the water (p < 0.01).

o Not enough places to fish (p < 0.001), not enough places to access the water to fish (p < 0.01), not enough boat access areas (p < 0.05), and not enough parking at access areas or boat launches (p < 0.05) have all been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior of other anglers has been a problem for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general (p < 0.05).

o Thinks that having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (p < 0.001), having up-to-date information on a website showing public access areas and access from private lands open to the public (p < 0.001), and having up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that have been closed (p < 0.01) would all be very effective for making it easier for him/her to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Would support a general access fee of $20 or less in addition to his/her fishing license fee to support fishing access programs (p < 0.01).

o Household income is less than $80,000 (p < 0.001). o Does not indicate that he/she currently owns, leases, or lives on a waterfront or

shoreline property or property with a fishable body of water on, adjacent to, or running through it (p < 0.001).

∗ Angler’s primary type of water body was used in the survey interview; hereinafter, this is designated in parentheses in the question wording as follows: (body of water).

Fishing Access in the United States 103

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with

indicating that it is very important to him/her that the access area has boat access when

deciding where to access (body of water) to fish:

o Has participated in a freshwater fishing tournament in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and national tournaments (p < 0.001).

o In the past 5 years, has been saltwater fishing (p < 0.001). o Has fished for more than the median of 40 years (p < 0.001). o Usually goes freshwater/saltwater fishing in/from (body of water) each year the

median of 15 days or more (p < 0.001). o When fishing in/from (body of water), indicates that he/she mostly accesses the water

from public land (p < 0.01). o Rates access to (body of water) for fishing as excellent (p < 0.001). o Indicates that there is something that has taken away from his/her enjoyment of

fishing in/from (body of water), even if it didn’t prevent him/her from actually going (p < 0.01).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is well-maintained (e.g., has well-maintained boat ramps, docks or piers, parking area, and roads) (all at p < 0.001 or greater significance).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is one he/she is familiar with (p < 0.001), is close to his/her home (p < 0.001), is located on public land (p < 0.001), and is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not on or near private land where he/she may have an encounter with a landowner while accessing the water (p < 0.001) and while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that he/she always or sometimes uses a GPS to locate a place to access the water (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that he/she always or sometimes knocks on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land (p < 0.001), or asks a friend or family member where to access the water (p < 0.05).

o Not enough boat access areas (p < 0.001), not enough parking at access areas or boat launches (p < 0.001), and not enough places to fish (p < 0.001) have all been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers has been a problem for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general (p < 0.05).

o Has been a member of or donated to a conservation or sportsmen’s organization in the past 2 years (p < 0.001).

o Currently owns, leases, or lives on a waterfront or shoreline property or property with a fishable body of water on, adjacent to, or running through it (p < 0.001).

o Has lived in his/her state for more than the mean of 42 years (p < 0.001).

104 Responsive Management

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with

indicating that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not crowded with

other anglers when deciding where to access (body of water) to fish:

o Does not indicate that he/she has participated in a freshwater fishing tournament in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and national tournaments (p < 0.001).

o When fishing in/from (body of water), does not indicate that he/she mostly accesses the water from public land (p < 0.05).

o Indicates that his/her fishing participation in/from (body of water) has decreased over the past 5 years (p < 0.05).

o Indicates that there is something that has taken away from his/her enjoyment of fishing in/from (body of water), even if it didn’t prevent him/her from actually going (p < 0.01).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001), is one he/she is familiar with (p < 0.001), is close to his/her home (p < 0.001), is owned by someone he/she knows personally (p < 0.001), and is located on private land (p < 0.001) or public land (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not on or near private land where he/she may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.001) and while accessing the water (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is well-maintained (e.g., has well-maintained roads, parking area, and docks or piers) (all at p < 0.05 or greater significance).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that he/she always or sometimes scouts or physically looks for places to access the water for fishing (p < 0.05).

o Leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers (p < 0.001), the irresponsible behavior of other anglers (p < 0.001), crowding from recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001), and the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05) have all been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Not enough places to fish has been a problem for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general (p < 0.05).

o Thinks that having up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that have been closed (p < 0.05), having up-to-date information on a website showing public access areas and access from private lands open to the public (p < 0.05), and having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (p < 0.05) would all be very effective for making it easier for him/her to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Education level is associate’s, trade school, or higher degree (p < 0.001). o Household income is $80,000 or more (p < 0.05).

Fishing Access in the United States 105

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with

indicating that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not crowded with

recreationists other than anglers when deciding where to access (body of water) to fish:

o Does not indicate that he/she has participated in a freshwater fishing tournament in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and national tournaments (p < 0.05).

o In the past 5 years, has been freshwater fishing in all 5 of the past 5 years (p < 0.05). o Indicates that there is something that has taken away from his/her enjoyment of

fishing in/from (body of water), even if it didn’t prevent him/her from actually going (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not crowded with other anglers (p < 0.001), is one he/she is familiar with (p < 0.001), is owned by someone he/she knows personally (p < 0.001), is close to his/her home (p < 0.001), is located on public land (p < 0.001) or private land (p < 0.001), and has boat access (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not on or near private land where he/she may have an encounter with a landowner while accessing the water (p < 0.001) and while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is well-maintained (e.g., roads, docks or piers, parking area, and boat ramps) (all at p < 0.001 or greater significance).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that he/she always or sometimes scouts or physically looks for places to access the water for fishing (p < 0.05), uses paper maps to find a place to access the water (p < 0.05), and asks a friend or family member where to access the water (p < 0.05).

o Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001), crowding from other anglers (p < 0.001), the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001), and the irresponsible behavior of other anglers (p < 0.01) have all been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Not enough places to access the water to fish (p < 0.01) and less fishing access or boat access areas due to development (p < 0.05) have been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Thinks that having up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that have been closed would be very effective for making it easier for him/her to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general (p < 0.001).

o Is female (p < 0.05). o Education level is associate’s, trade school, or higher degree (p < 0.05).

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with

indicating that it is very important to him/her that the access area has well-maintained

boat ramps when deciding where to access (body of water) to fish:

o Has participated in a freshwater fishing tournament in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and national tournaments (p < 0.001).

106 Responsive Management

o In the past 5 years, has been saltwater fishing (p < 0.001). o Usually goes freshwater/saltwater fishing in/from (body of water) each year the

median of 15 days or more (p < 0.001). o Has fished for more than the median of 40 years (p < 0.001). o When fishing in/from (body of water), does not indicate mostly fishing in the same

locations each year (p < 0.05). o In the past 5 years, has been freshwater fishing in all 5 of the past 5 years (p < 0.05). o Rates access to (body of water) for fishing as excellent (p < 0.05). o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very

important to him/her that the access area is well-maintained (e.g., docks or piers, roads, and parking area) (all at p < 0.001 or greater significance).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area has boat access (p < 0.001), is one he/she is familiar with (p < 0.001), is located on public land (p < 0.001), is close to his/her home (p < 0.001), and is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not on or near private land where he/she may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.001) and while accessing the water (p < 0.001).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that he/she always or sometimes knocks on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land (p < 0.01) or asks a friend or family member where to access the water (p < 0.05), but indicates that he/she always or sometimes uses a GPS to locate a place to access the water (p < 0.01).

o Not enough boat access areas (p < 0.001) and not enough parking at access areas or boat launches (p < 0.001) have been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Thinks that having up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that have been closed (p < 0.001), having up-to-date information on a website showing public access areas and access from private lands open to the public (p < 0.01), and having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (p < 0.01) would be very effective for making it easier for him/her to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Has been a member of or donated to a conservation or sportsmen’s organization in the past 2 years (p < 0.01).

o Education level is no higher than some college or trade school with no degree (p < 0.001).

o Has lived in his/her state for more than the mean of 42 years (p < 0.001). o Currently owns, leases, or lives on a waterfront or shoreline property or property with

a fishable body of water on, adjacent to, or running through it (p < 0.01). o Is between ages 35-64 (p < 0.05).

Fishing Access in the United States 107

The survey asked six questions about things that anglers do when deciding where to access

their primary body of water, shown in Table 4. The majority of anglers always or sometimes

ask a friend or family member where to access the water (56%) (Figure 82). Three other

items form a middle tier: using paper maps to find an access place (45%), researching

available access places on the Internet (43%), and scouting or physically looking for a place

(also 43%). Relatively low percentages use GPS (26%) or knock on a landowner’s door

(15%). Note that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent.

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say always, the percentages

who say always, sometimes, or rarely, and the percentages who say never, are shown in

Figures 81 through 84.

• A follow-up question within the above series asked those who scout for access locations

to indicate how many days each year they typically scout for locations for accessing their

primary body of water: the median is 3 days (Figure 85).

Table 4. Things That Anglers Do When Deciding Where To Access Their Primary Body of Water That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey

Thing Done in Deciding Where To Fish (ranked by the percentage saying they always or sometimes do it)

Percent Who Always or

Sometimes Do This

Q108. Asking a friend or family member where to access the water 56 Q110. Using paper maps to find a place to access the water 45 Q112. Researching available places to access the water on the Internet 43 Q113. Scouting or physically looking for places to access the water for fishing 43 Q111. Using a GPS to locate a place to access the water 26 Q109. Knocking on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water from their

land 15

108 Responsive Management

Figure 81. Anglers’ Actions Always Done When Deciding Where To Access Water

Percent who always do the following when deciding where to access (body of water) to fish.

(Anglers)

7

9

11

12

13

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q108. Ask a friend or family memberwhere to access the water

Q112. Research available places toaccess the water on the Internet

Q113. Scout or physically look forplaces to access the water for fishing

Q110. Use paper maps to find a placeto access the water

Q111. Use a GPS to locate a place toaccess the water

Q109. Knock on a landowner's door toask permission to access the water

from their land

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 109

Figure 82. Anglers’ Actions Always or Sometimes Done When Deciding Where To Access Water

Percent who always or sometimes do the following when deciding where to access (body of water) to

fish.(Anglers)

15

26

43

43

45

56

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q108. Ask a friend or family memberwhere to access the water

Q110. Use paper maps to find a placeto access the water

Q112. Research available places toaccess the water on the Internet

Q113. Scout or physically look forplaces to access the water for fishing

Q111. Use a GPS to locate a place toaccess the water

Q109. Knock on a landowner's door toask permission to access the water

from their land

Percent

110 Responsive Management

Figure 83. Anglers’ Actions Always, Sometimes, or Rarely Done When Deciding Where To Access Water

Percent who always, sometimes, or rarely do the following when deciding where to access (body of

water) to fish.(Anglers)

26

34

53

57

59

70

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q108. Ask a friend or family memberwhere to access the water

Q110. Use paper maps to find a placeto access the water

Q113. Scout or physically look forplaces to access the water for fishing

Q112. Research available places toaccess the water on the Internet

Q111. Use a GPS to locate a place toaccess the water

Q109. Knock on a landowner's door toask permission to access the water

from their land

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 111

Figure 84. Anglers’ Actions Never Done When Deciding Where To Access Water

Percent who never do the following when deciding where to access (body of water) to fish.

(Anglers)

30

41

43

46

65

74

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q109. Knock on a landowner's door toask permission to access the water

from their land

Q111. Use a GPS to locate a place toaccess the water

Q112. Research available places toaccess the water on the Internet

Q113. Scout or physically look forplaces to access the water for fishing

Q110. Use paper maps to find a placeto access the water

Q108. Ask a friend or family memberwhere to access the water

Percent

112 Responsive Management

Figure 85. Typical Days Anglers Annually Spend Scouting for Places To Access the Water

10

22

11

11

5

3

3

6

4

9

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 30days

21 - 30 days

16 - 20 days

11 - 15 days

6 - 10 days

5 days

4 days

3 days

2 days

1 day

Don't know

Percent (n=1998)

Q114. About how many days each year do you usually scout for places to access (body of water) for fishing? (Asked of

those who always, sometimes, or rarely scout or physically look for places to access the water for fishing.)

(Anglers)

Median = 3

61%

The above series (shown in Table 4) was also crosstabulated by freshwater and saltwater

bodies of water.

• When crosstabulated by freshwater bodies, the following questions had marked

differences among the four groups defined by the body in which they primarily fish. The

Fishing Access in the United States 113

bodies are the Great Lakes, reservoirs/lakes other than the Great Lakes, rivers/streams,

and ponds/other water bodies.

o The nonparametric analysis examined if asking a friend or family member where to

access the water is correlated with type of freshwater water body, but no statistically

significant differences were found (Figure 86).

o Of the four groups, those who fish in the Great Lakes least often knock on a

landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water (p < 0.001) (Figure 87).

o The nonparametric analysis examined using paper maps to find a place to access the

water, but no statistically significant differences were found (Figure 88).

o Great Lakes anglers are the most likely to always use GPS to locate a place to access

the water (p < 0.01) (Figure 89).

o On the other hand, Great Lakes anglers are the least likely to research available

places to access the water on the Internet (p < 0.001) (Figure 90).

o Great Lakes anglers are the least likely to scout or physically look for places to access

the water for fishing; those who fish in rivers and streams are the most likely

(p < 0.001) (Figure 91).

• When crosstabulated by saltwater bodies, the following questions had marked differences

among the four groups defined by the body in which they primarily fish: the beach/surf;

the ocean; tidal bays and sounds; and tidal portions of rivers.

o The nonparametric analysis examined asking a friend or family member where to

access the water, but no statistically significant differences were found in the

crosstabulation by saltwater body (Figure 92).

o Of the four groups, those who fish in tidal portions of rivers have the highest

percentage who always knock on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the

water (p < 0.01) (Figure 93). Additionally, those who fish at the beach/in the surf

have the highest percentage who knock on a landowner’s door to ask permission to

access the water always, sometimes, or rarely (p < 0.01).

o The nonparametric analysis examined using paper maps to find a place to access the

water, but no statistically significant differences were found (Figure 94).

o The nonparametric analysis examined using GPS to locate a place to access the water,

but no statistically significant differences were found (Figure 95).

114 Responsive Management

o The nonparametric analysis examined researching available places to access the water

on the Internet, but no statistically significant differences were found (Figure 96).

o The nonparametric analysis examined scouting or physically looking for places to

access the water for fishing, but no statistically significant differences were found

(Figure 97).

Figure 86. Frequency of Asking a Friend/Family Member When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body

Q108. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you ask a friend or

family member where to access the water?(Anglers)

13

33

15

3831

14

41

1413

44

16

2726

16

39

19

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Percent

Great Lakes (n=39)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=539)Rivers and/or streams(n=446)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=120)

Fishing Access in the United States 115

Figure 87. Frequency of Knocking on Landowner’s Door When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body

Q109. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you knock on a

landowner's door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land?

(Anglers)

3

3

8

8778

4

6

1215

11

8

6660

11

13

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Percent

Great Lakes (n=39)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=539)Rivers and/or streams(n=446)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=120)

116 Responsive Management

Figure 88. Frequency of Using Paper Maps When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body

Q110. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you use paper maps to

find a place to access the water?(Anglers)

3

38

15

4440

12

35

1313

39

11

3751

14

32

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Percent

Great Lakes (n=39)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=539)Rivers and/or streams(n=446)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=120)

Fishing Access in the United States 117

Figure 89. Frequency of Using GPS When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body

Q111. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you use GPS to locate

a place to access the water?(Anglers)

23

23

10

44

01

68

6

17

9

0

9

16

6

69

0

74

4

16

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=39)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=539)Rivers and/or streams(n=446)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=120)

118 Responsive Management

Figure 90. Frequency of Researching Access on the Internet When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body

Q112. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you research available

places to access the water on the Internet?(Anglers)

10

23

0

64

30

46

10

32

12

0

9

28

13

50

0

57

13

23

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=39)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=539)Rivers and/or streams(n=446)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=120)

Fishing Access in the United States 119

Figure 91. Frequency of Scouting for Places To Access Water When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Freshwater Body

Q113. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you scout or physically

look for places to access the water for fishing?(Anglers)

10

18

15

56

00

47

9

29

14

1

11

37

18

34

0

45

21

28

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=39)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=539)Rivers and/or streams(n=446)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=120)

120 Responsive Management

Figure 92. Frequency of Asking a Friend/Family Member When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q108. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you ask a friend or

family member where to access the water?(Anglers)

19

33

18

29

10

30

21

36

13

0

11

34

25

30

0

45

5

30

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=85)Ocean (n=216)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=106)Tidal portions of rivers(n=20)

Fishing Access in the United States 121

Figure 93. Frequency of Knocking on Landowner’s Door When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q109. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you knock on a

landowner's door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land?

(Anglers)

12

8

15

62

20

81

6

6

7

0

6

6

6

83

0

75

5

0

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=85)Ocean (n=216)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=106)Tidal portions of rivers(n=20)

122 Responsive Management

Figure 94. Frequency of Using Paper Maps When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q110. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you use paper maps to

find a place to access the water?(Anglers)

15

29

20

33

20

45

10

32

12

0

14

32

13

41

0

55

5

20

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=85)Ocean (n=216)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=106)Tidal portions of rivers(n=20)

Fishing Access in the United States 123

Figure 95. Frequency of Using GPS When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q111. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you use GPS to locate

a place to access the water?(Anglers)

12

16

9

62

00

57

15

20

7

1

10

25

17

47

0

75

5

15

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=85)Ocean (n=216)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=106)Tidal portions of rivers(n=20)

124 Responsive Management

Figure 96. Frequency of Researching Access on the Internet When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q112. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you research available

places to access the water on the Internet?(Anglers)

15

27

13

44

10

34

23

31

12

0

11

32

13

43

0

45

10

25

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=85)Ocean (n=216)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=106)Tidal portions of rivers(n=20)

Fishing Access in the United States 125

Figure 97. Frequency of Scouting for Places To Access Water When Anglers Decide Where To Access Water by Type of Saltwater Body

Q113. When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, how often do you scout or physically

look for places to access the water for fishing?(Anglers)

15

28

11

46

00

48

8

30

14

1

18

31

13

37

0

50

5

30

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=85)Ocean (n=216)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=106)Tidal portions of rivers(n=20)

The nonparametric analysis that was conducted on the responses in the angler survey

included two of the questions from the above series. (A full discussion of how to read the

nonparametric analysis results is included in the Introduction and Methodology.)

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with

indicating that he/she always or sometimes asks a friend or family member where to

access the water when deciding where to access (body of water) to fish:

o Has fished for the median of 40 years or less (p < 0.001). o Usually goes freshwater/saltwater fishing in/from (body of water) each year less than

the median of 15 days (p < 0.05).

126 Responsive Management

o Indicates that nothing has taken away from his/her enjoyment of fishing in/from (body of water) (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not on or near private land where he/she may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.001) and while accessing the water (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that it is very important to him/her that the access area has well-maintained boat ramps (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that it is very important to him/her that the access area has boat access (p < 0.05), but indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that he/she always or sometimes scouts or physically looks for places to access the water for fishing (p < 0.001), uses paper maps to find a place to access the water (p < 0.001), researches available places to access the water on the Internet (p < 0.001), knocks on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land (p < 0.001), and uses a GPS to locate a place to access the water (p < 0.001).

o Fewer areas to fish due to development (p < 0.001), not enough places to access the water to fish (p < 0.001), not enough places to fish (p < 0.01), not enough parking at access areas or boat launches (p < 0.05), not enough boat access areas (p < 0.05), and less fishing access or boat access areas due to development (p < 0.05) have all been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.01) and the irresponsible behavior of other anglers (p < 0.01) have been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Thinks that having up-to-date information on a website showing public access areas and access from private lands open to the public (p < 0.001) and having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (p < 0.01) would be very effective for making it easier for him/her to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Would support a general access fee of $20 or less in addition to his/her fishing license fee to support fishing access programs (p < 0.001).

o Is between ages 18-34 (p < 0.001). o Has lived in his/her state for the mean of 42 years or less (p < 0.001). o Household income is $80,000 or more (p < 0.05). o Education level is associate’s, trade school, or higher degree (p < 0.05).

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with

indicating that he/she always or sometimes uses paper maps to find a place to access the

water when deciding where to access (body of water) to fish:

o When fishing in/from (body of water), does not indicate mostly fishing in the same locations each year (p < 0.001).

o When fishing in/from (body of water), indicates that he/she mostly accesses the water from public land (p < 0.001).

Fishing Access in the United States 127

o Usually travels from home, one-way, to fish in/from (body of water) more than the median of 35 miles (p < 0.001).

o Has participated in a freshwater fishing tournament in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and national tournaments (p < 0.001).

o In the past 5 years, has been freshwater fishing in all 5 of the past 5 years (p < 0.001). o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that it is

very important to him/her that the access area is located on private land (p < 0.01) or is close to his/her home. (p < 0.05), but indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is located on public land (p < 0.01) and is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to him/her that the access area is not on or near private land where he/she may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.01) and while accessing the water (p < 0.01).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that he/she always or sometimes researches available places to access the water on the Internet (p < 0.001), scouts or physically looks for places to access the water for fishing (p < 0.001), uses a GPS to locate a place to access the water (p < 0.001), asks a friend or family member where to access the water (p < 0.001), and knocks on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land (p < 0.001).

o Not enough places to access the water to fish (p < 0.001), not enough places to fish (p < 0.001), not enough parking at access areas or boat launches (p < 0.001), not enough boat access areas (p < 0.001), fewer areas to fish due to development (p < 0.01), and less fishing access or boat access areas due to development (p < 0.01) have all been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers (p < 0.001), the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001), the irresponsible behavior of other anglers (p < 0.001), and crowding from recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05) have all been problems for him/her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Thinks that having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (p < 0.001), having up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that have been closed (p < 0.05), and having up-to-date information on a website showing public access areas and access from private lands open to the public (p < 0.05) would be very effective for making it easier for him/her to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Would support a general access fee of $20 or less in addition to his/her fishing license fee to support fishing access programs (p < 0.001).

o Has been a member of or donated to a conservation or sportsmen’s organization in the past 2 years (p < 0.001).

o Education level is associate’s, trade school, or higher degree (p < 0.001). o Has lived in his/her state for the mean of 42 years or less (p < 0.001). o Is between ages 35-64 (p < 0.01). o Household income is $80,000 or more (p < 0.01). o Is male (p < 0.01).

128 Responsive Management

Respondents were asked in an open-ended question where they get information on places to fish and on fishing access in their state. They most commonly get information from friends/family/word of mouth—by far the top source (Figure 98). Otherwise, 26% get information from the Internet, 8% from a state agency, and 5% apiece from magazines and newspapers. • Just less than two-thirds of anglers (63%) indicate that the information that they get on

places to fish and on fishing access is very accurate (Figure 99). Although most of the rest answer somewhat accurate (30%), and only 1% answer not accurate, this means that 31% have found enough inaccuracies in the information that they have obtained to not rate the information very accurate.

• A direct question asked anglers if they had visited any state or federal agency websites for information on places to fish and on fishing access: 29% had done so (Figure 100). o The websites most commonly named are the state natural resources, fish and wildlife,

and/or parks agencies’ websites (Figure 101). Other websites named include those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, local governments, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (including the National Weather Service), the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.

o Ratings of the types of websites are shown in Figure 102. For each, no less than 50% rate the utility of the information on places to fish and on access as excellent or good.

• Another question regarding communication asked respondents (open-ended) to indicate the best way to provide them with information. The Internet is the most popular way (43%), distantly followed by direct mail (15%), friends/family/word of mouth (14%), newspapers (7%), and pamphlets/brochures (6%)—all at more than 5% (Figure 103).

• Figures 104 through 107 show the results of questions asking professionals to indicate if their agency uses various ways to provide anglers with information about fishing opportunities and fishing access (in the first question) and to provide landowners with information about fishing access (in the second question). Posters in private areas, billboards, the library, websites, direct mail, and newsletters top the list for communicating to anglers. Regarding communicating to landowners, the top ways are posters in private areas, the library, billboards, websites, and federal agencies. The results are also shown together for the reader’s convenience (Figures 108 and 109).

Fishing Access in the United States 129

Figure 98. Anglers’ Information Sources on Places To Fish and Access the Water

Q256/Q259. Where do you get information on places to fish and fishing access in your state?

(Anglers)

1

2

14

1

4

4

4

50

26

8

5

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Friends / family / word-of-mouth

Internet in general / search engine

State agency

Magazines

Newspaper

Maps

Pamphlets / brochures

Bait shop

License agent / sporting goods store

Local festival / event

T.V.

Direct mail

Federal agency

Sportsmen's club or organization

Newsletter

Public schoolsI don't get any information from an outside

source / I just know where to fishOther

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=2115)

130 Responsive Management

Figure 99. Accuracy of Information That Anglers Receive

Q261. In general, how accurate is the information you typically receive?

(Anglers)

5

1

30

63

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very accurate

Somewhataccurate

Not at all accurate

Don't know

Percent (n=2115)

Fishing Access in the United States 131

Figure 100. Use of State and Federal Agency Websites in General Among Anglers

Q262. Have you visited any state or federal agency websites to look for information on places to fish

and on access to the water for fishing?(Anglers)

29

70

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=2016)

132 Responsive Management

Figure 101. Use of Specific State and Federal Agency Websites Among Anglers

1

1

1

82

2

2

2

1

1

3

7

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

State natural resources / fish andwildlife / park agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Local government site (e.g., municipalgovt.)

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (including National

Weather Service)

National Park Service

Bureau of Land Management

Other Federal agency

Named individual state or local parkwebsite

Named a not-for-profit or other non-governmental agency

Don't know / can't remember thewebsite name

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=570)

Q265, Q267, Q269, Q271, Q273. Percent who used the following state and/or federal agency websites to find

information on places to fish and places to access the water for fishing. (Asked of those who indicated visiting a state or federal agency website to look for information on places to

fish and access to the water for fishing.)(Anglers)

Fishing Access in the United States 133

Figure 102. Anglers’ Ratings of Utility of Agency Websites That They Visited

56

25

56

40

50

0

11

20

50

11

13

0

0

0

0

40

27

27

45

11

63

22

50

55

2727

18

17

22

0

0

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

State natural resources / fish and wildlife /park agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Local government site (e.g., municipal govt.)

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (including National Weather

Service)

National Park Service

Bureau of Land Management

Percent

ExcellentGoodFairPoor

Q274-Q278. How would you rate the usefulness of the information on places to fish and on places to access the water for fishing on the state or federal agency website to you personally in planning your fishing trips? (Asked of those who indicated visiting a state or federal agency

website to look for information on places to fish and places to access the water for fishing.)

(Anglers)

134 Responsive Management

Figure 103. Anglers’ Preferred Ways To Be Provided With Information About Places To Fish and Fishing Access

Q281/Q284. What is the best way to provide you with information about places to fish and fishing

access?(Anglers)

4

2

5

1

1

1

3

3

5

43

15

14

7

6

5

3

2

2

2

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Internet in general / search engine

Direct mail

Friends / family / word-of-mouth

Newspaper

Pamphlets / brochures

State agency

License agent / sporting goods store

Magazines

Email

Bait shop

Maps

T.V.

Local festival / event

Newsletter

Federal agency

Regulations handbook

Sportsmen's club or organization

Fishing guide / report / bookI don't get any information from an

outside source / I just know where toOther

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=2016)

Fishing Access in the United States 135

Figure 104. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To Communicate To Anglers, Part 1

Q19a. Which of the following sources does your agency use to provide anglers information about

fishing opportunities and fishing access?(Part 1)

(Professionals)

66

67

69

91

87

87

84

79

75

65

64

63

62

62

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Posters in private areas

Billboards

Library

Other websites

Direct mail

Newsletters

Magazines

Federal agencies

Other fishing or sportsmen's websites

Posters in public areas

Other agency websites

TV (segments, programs, ads /commercials, etc.)

Public schools

Radio

Bait shops

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=400)

136 Responsive Management

Figure 105. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To Communicate To Anglers, Part 2

Q19a. Which of the following sources does your agency use to provide anglers information about

fishing opportunities and fishing access?(Part 2)

(Professionals)

12

21

30

51

50

50

46

45

41

5

5

4

3

3

2

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

State agencies

License agency or vendors / sportinggoods stores

Sportsmen's clubs or organizations

Local festivals / events

Newspapers

Friends / family / word of mouth

Maps

Pamphlets / brochures

Agency websites

Agency programs, seminars, and/orworkshops / education centersEmail (e.g., newsletters, bulletins,

listservs, direct contacts)

Annual fishing digest guide

Social networking sites (e.g.,Facebook, blogs, YouTube)

Information available on-site (e.g.,kiosks, signs, camp hosts)

Outdoor shows / events (e.g., boatingshow, fishing show, tournaments)

News releases

Road and highway signs

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=400)

Fishing Access in the United States 137

Figure 106. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To Communicate To Landowners, Part 1

Q20a. Which of the following sources does your agency use to provide private landowners

information about fishing access? (Asked of those who are state fish and wildlife or natural resource

agency employees.)(Part 1)

(Professionals)

89

89

90

96

96

95

93

90

90

89

88

87

86

86

85

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Posters in private areas

Library

Billboards

Other websites

Federal agencies

Other agency websites

Public schools

TV (segments, programs, or ads /commercials, etc.)

Other fishing or sportsmen's websites

Posters in public areas

Bait shops

Radio

Magazines

License agency or vendors / sportinggoods stores

Sportsmen's clubs or organizations

Local festivals / events

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=238)

138 Responsive Management

Figure 107. Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To Communicate To Landowners, Part 2

Q20a. Which of the following sources does your agency use to provide private landowners

information about fishing access? (Asked of those who are state fish and wildlife or natural resource

agency employees.)(Part 2)

(Professionals)

7

70

75

84

84

83

82

80

75

3

3

2

3

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Newsletters

Direct mail

Maps

Newspapers

State agencies

Friends / family / word of mouth

Pamphlets / brochures

Agency websites

Direct contact with field staff / biologists

Agency programs / seminars

Meetings

Annual fishing digest guide

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=238)

Fishing Access in the United States 139

Figure 108. Comparison of Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To Communicate To Anglers and To Landowners, Part 1

96

96

95

93

84

84

86

90

89

89

90

89

90

87

66

67

69

91

87

87

84

79

75

65

64

63

62

62

0 20 40 60 80 100

Posters in private areas

Library

Billboards

Other websites

Direct mail

Newsletters

Magazines

Federal agencies

Other fishing or sportsmen'swebsites

Posters in public areas

Other agency websites

TV (segments, programs, or ads /commercials, etc.)

Public schools

Radio

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent

To provide infoto anglers(n=400)

To provide infoto landowners(n=238)

Which of the following sources does your agency useto provide (Q19) anglers information about fishing

opportunities and fishing access? (Q20) private landowners information about fishing access? (The latter asked of those

who are state fish and wildlife or natural resource agency employees.)

(Part 1)(Professionals)

140 Responsive Management

Figure 109. Comparison of Modes of Communication That Professionals’ Agencies Use To Communicate To Anglers and To Landowners, Part 2

88

80

86

85

85

82

75

83

75

70

3

2

3

21

30

41

58

51

50

50

46

45

12

5

4

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Bait shops

State agencies

License agency or vendors / sportinggoods stores

Sportsmen's clubs or organizations

Local festivals / events

Newspapers

Friends / family / word of mouth

Maps

Pamphlets / brochures

Agency websites

Agency programs / seminars

Annual fishing digest guide

Other

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent

To provide info toanglers (n=400)

To provide info tolandowners(n=238)

Which of the following sources does your agency useto provide (Q19) anglers information about fishing

opportunities and fishing access? (Q20) private landowners information about fishing access? (The latter asked of those

who are state fish and wildlife or natural resource agency employees.)

(Part 2)(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 141

CONSTRAINTS TO FISHING PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING ACCESS PROBLEMS In an open-ended question, anglers were asked if anything had taken away from their

enjoyment of fishing, even if it had not prevented them from going fishing. The majority of anglers (62%) indicated that nothing had taken away from their enjoyment (Figure 110). Otherwise, the most common things that took away from enjoyment were access-related problems (5%), not enough time (5%), not enough fish (4%), and cost (4%). (Note that access-related and cost-related problems were further broken down in the survey; these answers are included on this graph as subsets of access-related problems overall and cost-related problems overall.)

Figure 110. Things That Have Taken Away From Anglers’ Enjoyment of Fishing

Q42/Q45. Are there any things that have taken away from your enjoyment of fishing (in/from) (body of

water), even if they didn't prevent you from actually going?

(Anglers)

2

3

3

3

62

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

No; nothing takes away

Difficulty with access to water / any accessproblem

Not enough time

Not enough fish

Cost

Age / health

Regulation-related answer

Crowding from other anglers

Crowding from other recreationists

Pollution / litter / bad water quality

Weather

Cost of licenses (subset of cost-related problem)

Not enough places / waters to fish in (subset ofaccess-related problem)

Cost of access (subset of access-related and cost-related problem)

Cost of boat fuel (subset of cost-related problem)

Not enough access to water (subset of access-related problem)

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=4131)

142 Responsive Management

Those anglers who had said that access to water has gotten worse in the past 5 years were

asked to name in a follow-up question the specific reasons it had gotten worse.

• Regarding access from public land, a simple lack of access was the top response (25%)

among those who previously answered “worse,” closely followed by private land

blocking public access to the water (22%) (Figure 111). Other common answers include

that the boat access is in disrepair/needs maintenance (15%), crowding from other anglers

(11%), that the waters have been closed to fishing for various reasons (9%), a habitat-

related issue (7%), and not enough boat access (6%).

o This question was crosstabulated by body of water (separated by freshwater and

saltwater), as shown in Figures 112 through 114; however, most of the differences

found in these graphs are not statistically significant. The exceptions are the

differences in percentages of freshwater body groups who gave as a reason, “private

land blocking public land” (p < 0.05) and “not enough boat access” (p < 0.05) and the

differences in percentages of saltwater body groups who gave as a reason, “boat

access areas closed” (p < 0.001).

• Regarding access from private land, the top reason for worse access is that landowners

close their lands (46%) (Figure 115). This is distantly followed by that ownership

changes have resulted in access being closed (14%), that development has closed the

lands (11%), the cost of access (10%), habitat/waterway problems (9%), and crowding

(6%).

o The landowner survey had a question that sheds light on the above results. Most

landowners did not indicate that they allow people whom they do not know to access

the fishing areas on or adjacent to their property. While 76% said that they allow

family/relatives and 72% said that they allow friends (they can give multiple

responses), only 20% indicated allowing “others by permission” and 10% indicated

allowing anyone (Figure 116). This does not necessarily mean that they would

prevent anglers from accessing the water, as they might not have been asked—the

question asked them to name the people they typically allow.

Fishing Access in the United States 143

Figure 111. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse Over the Previous 5 Years

4

5

6

25

22

15

11

9

7

3

3

3

1

4

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not enough access to public waters / noaccess

Private land blocks public access /waters

Boat access in disrepair / not maintained

Crowding from other anglers

Waters have been closed to fishing

Habitat-related issues

Not enough boat access

Crowding / interference from otherrecreationists

Boat access too crowded

Boat access areas closed

Cost of access

Regulation-related issues

Can't find information about access /waters

Other

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=432)

Q64. What are the specific reasons access from public land to (body of water) for fishing has gotten worse? (Asked of those who access the (body of water) from public land and who said that access has gotten worse in the past 5 years.)

(Anglers)

144 Responsive Management

Figure 112. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse Over the Previous 5 Years by Type of Freshwater Body, Part 1

Q64. What are the specific reasons access from public land to (body of water) for fishing has gotten

worse? (Asked of those who access the (body of water) from public land and who said that access

has gotten worse in the past 5 years.)(Part 1)

(Anglers)

11

0

22

11

33

0

22

11

0

5

6

5

9

12

11

22

16

17

3

2

3

5

9

18

27

25

10

0

5

0

9

14

9

14

9

41

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not enough access to public waters /no access

Private land blocks public access /waters

Boat access in disrepair / notmaintained

Waters have been closed to fishing

Crowding from other anglers

Habitat-related issues

Not enough boat access

Crowding / interference from otherrecreationists

Cost of access

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent

Great Lakes (n=9)

Reservoirs and/or lakes otherthan the Great Lakes (n=148)

Rivers and/or streams (n=146)

Ponds and/or other freshwaterbodies (n=22)

Fishing Access in the United States 145

Figure 113. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse Over the Previous 5 Years by Type of Freshwater Body, Part 2

Q64. What are the specific reasons access from public land to (body of water) for fishing has gotten

worse? (Asked of those who access the (body of water) from public land and who said that access

has gotten worse in the past 5 years.)(Part 2)

(Anglers)

0

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

2

1

0

1

4

5

4

3

5

0

0

2

1

3

1

5

9

0

5

0

0

0

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Boat access too crowded

Boat access areas closed

Regulations-related issues

Can't find information about access /waters

Don't want to fish waters because offish kills / advisories

Don't feel safe

Other

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent

Great Lakes (n=9)

Reservoirs and/or lakes other thanthe Great Lakes (n=148)

Rivers and/or streams (n=146)

Ponds and/or other freshwaterbodies (n=22)

146 Responsive Management

Figure 114. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Public Land Access Has Gotten Worse Over the Previous 5 Years by Type of Saltwater Body

Q64. What are the specific reasons access from public land to (body of water) for fishing has gotten

worse? (Asked of those who access the (body of water) from public land and who said that access

has gotten worse in the past 5 years.)(Anglers)

24

14

10

29

14

5

14

5

14

5

0

02

2

2

0

4

6

8

14

10

28

30

18

6

6

11

0

0

11

6

11

11

22

28

6

0

20

0

0

0

40

0

0

20

0

20

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not enough access to public waters /no access

Private land blocks public access /waters

Boat access in disrepair / notmaintained

Crowding from other anglers

Not enough boat access

Crowding / interference from otherrecreationists

Boat access too crowded

Habitat-related issues

Boat access areas closed

Waters have been closed to fishing

Regulations-related issues

Cost of access

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=21)

Ocean (n=50)

Tidal bays and sounds (n=18)

Tidal portions of rivers (n=5)

Fishing Access in the United States 147

Figure 115. Anglers’ Reasons for Saying That Private Land Access Has Gotten Worse Over the Previous 5 Years

1

1

5

46

14

11

10

9

6

1

1

5

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Landowners don't allow fishing on land /close lands

Ownership changes, new owners don'tallow fishing access

Development has closed lands and/oraccess

Cost of access

Habitat / waterway problems

Too crowded

Poor behavior of anglers

Liability issues

Don't know whom to ask for permission

No longer have access through family orfriends

Can't find information about private landsaccess

Other

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=218)

Q71. What are the specific reasons access from private land to (body of water) for fishing has gotten worse? (Asked of

those who access the (body of water) from private land and who said that access has gotten worse in the past 5 years.)

(Anglers)

148 Responsive Management

Figure 116. People To Whom Landowners Typically Allow Access for Fishing

Q30. Whom do you typically allow to access the water from your property for fishing? (Asked of

those who allow others not living in their household to access the water from their property

for fishing.)(Landowners)

10

20

20

72

76

0 20 40 60 80 100

Family / relatives

Friends

Acquaintances

Others bypermission

Anyone

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=1658)

The angler survey asked a series of questions about 41 possible problems that anglers may

have experienced in the past 5 years, shown in Table 5. For each one, the survey asked if it had been a major problem, a moderate problem, a minor problem, or not a problem at all. Note that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent. • In looking at the ranking by the percentage saying the given problem was major or

moderate (Figures 120 through 122), four problems are in a top tier: the cost of gas (52% said this was a major or moderate problem in the past 5 years while fishing), crowding on the water (31%), crowding at fishing access areas (31%), and crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites (30%).

• A second tier—all at more than 20% (but well less than 30%)—includes not enough places to access the water to fish (26%), fewer areas to fish due to development (23%), not enough places to fish in general (22%), not enough parking at access areas (22%), access or user fees being expensive (22%), poorly marked boundaries of public/private land in fishing areas (22%), less fishing or boat access due to development (21%), and poorly marked public access areas (21%).

Fishing Access in the United States 149

• All other items make up the lowest tier, ranging from 19% down to 9%. • The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say major problem, the

percentages who say major, moderate, or minor problem, and the percentages who say not a problem, are shown in Figures 117 through 128.

Table 5. Potential Problems That May or May Not Have Been Problematic for Anglers While Fishing in the Past 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey

Potential Problem (ranked by the percentage saying major or moderate problem)

Percent Who Said the Problem Was

Major or Moderate

Q151. The cost of gas 52 Q137. Crowding on the water 31 Q138. Crowding at fishing access areas 31 Q139. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 30 Q122. Not enough places to access the water to fish 26 Q133. Fewer areas to fish due to development 23 Q121. Not enough places to fish 22 Q124. Not enough parking at access areas or boat launches 22 Q150. Access or user fees being expensive 22 Q163. Poorly marked boundaries of public and private land in fishing areas 22 Q134. Less fishing access or boat access areas due to development 21 Q162. Poorly marked public access areas 21 Q143. Not having enough information about where to access the water to fish 19 Q123. Not enough boat access areas 18 Q141. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 18 Q160. Not knowing if the land or shore where you want to get out of the water is public

or private land 18

Q126. Not having access to docks or piers from which to fish 17 Q140. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishing access or boat access areas 17 Q144. Not having accurate information about where to access the water to fish 17 Q159. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing in public waters that run through

private land, such as high water marks or how far you are permitted to step on shore 17

Q125. Not being able to find a place to launch a boat 16 Q142. Poor maintenance of docks or piers 16 Q148. Having to travel far to access the water to fish 16 Q152. Private landowners closing or denying permission to use access to the water from

their land 16

Q161. Not knowing if the access area you want to use is on public or private land 16 Q164. New restrictions on fishing equipment, such as a ban on lead sinkers 16 Q120. Not knowing where to access the water to fish 15 Q127. Closed fishing access or boat access areas 15 Q135. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed for pollution or litter 14 Q154. Finding previously open private fishing access and boat access areas posted or

closed by the same landowner 14

Q156. Private land blocking a public fishing access or boat access area 14 Q119. Not knowing where to go to fish 13 Q136. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed for protection or conservation 13 Q145. Having out-of-date state agency information about fishing access or boat access 13 Q153. Not being able to contact the landowner to ask permission to access the water from

their land 13

150 Responsive Management

Potential Problem (ranked by the percentage saying major or moderate problem)

Percent Who Said the Problem Was

Major or Moderate

Q155. Finding previously open private fishing access and boat access areas posted or closed by a new landowner 13

Q147. Having maps that show fishing access and boat access areas but being unable to physically locate them 12

Q132. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access or boat access areas 11 Q146. Having out-of-date federal agency information about fishing access or boat access 11 Q149. Having to plan where to access the water for fishing 10 Q158. Private landowners not allowing you out of the water or off of your boat onto

surrounding property 9

Figure 117. Major Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1

Percent who indicated that the following have been major problems for them in the past 5 years while

freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Part 1)

(Anglers)

9

9

10

28

12

11

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q151. The cost of gas

Q122. Not enough places to access the water to fish

Q121. Not enough places to fish

Q139. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q133. Less areas to fish due to development

Q137. Crowding on the water

Q138. Crowding at fishing access areas

Q124. Not enough parking at access areas or boat launches

Q134. Less fishing access or boat access areas due todevelopment

Q160. Not knowing if the land or shore where you want to get outof the water is public or private land

Q163. Poorly marked boundaries of public and private land infishing areas

Q126. Not having access to docks or piers from which to fish

Q144. Not having accurate information about where to accessthe water to fish

Q150. Access or user fees being expensive

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 151

Figure 118. Major Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2

Percent who indicated that the following have been major problems for them in the past 5 years while

freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Part 2)

(Anglers)

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q152. Private landowners closing or denying permission to useaccess to the water from their land

Q159. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing in publicwaters that run through private land, such as high water marks or

how far you are permitted to step on shore

Q161. Not knowing if the access area you want to use is on public orprivate land

Q162. Poorly marked public access areas

Q164. New restrictions on fising equipment, such as a ban on leadsinkers

Q123. Not enough boat access areas

Q125. Not being able to find a place to launch a boat

Q127. Closed fishing access or boat access areas

Q135. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forpollution or litter

Q143. Not having enough information about where to access thewater to fish

Q153. Not being able to contact the landowner to ask permission toaccess the water from their land

Q154. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by the same landowner

Q156. Private land blocking a public fishing access or boat accessarea

Q120. Not knowing where to access the water to fish

Percent

152 Responsive Management

Figure 119. Major Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3

Percent who indicated that the following have been major problems for them in the past 5 years while

freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Part 3)

(Anglers)

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

5

4

4

4

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q132. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access or boataccess areas

Q141. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q145. Having out-of-date state agency information about fishingaccess or boat access

Q148. Having to travel far to access the water to fish

Q155. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by a new landowner

Q119. Not knowing where to go to fish

Q140. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishing access orboat access areas

Q142. Poor maintenance of docks or piers

Q146. Having out-of-date federal agency information aboutfishing access or boat access

Q136. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forprotection or conservation

Q147. Having maps that show fishing access and boat accessareas but being unable to physically locate them

Q158. Private landowners not allowing you out of the water or offof your boat onto surrounding property

Q149. Having to plan where to access the water for fishing

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 153

Figure 120. Major or Moderate Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1

Percent who indicated that the following have been major or moderate problems for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

(Part 1)(Anglers)

22

22

22

52

31

31

30

26

23

22

21

21

19

18

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q151. The cost of gas

Q137. Crowding on the water

Q138. Crowding at fishing access areas

Q139. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q122. Not enough places to access the water to fish

Q133. Less areas to fish due to development

Q121. Not enough places to fish

Q124. Not enough parking at access areas or boat launches

Q150. Access or user fees being expensive

Q163. Poorly marked boundaries of public and private land infishing areas

Q134. Less fishing access or boat access areas due todevelopment

Q162. Poorly marked public access areas

Q143. Not having enough information about where to access thewater to fish

Q123. Not enough boat access areas

Percent

154 Responsive Management

Figure 121. Major or Moderate Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2

Percent who indicated that the following have been major or moderate problems for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

(Part 2)(Anglers)

15

15

16

16

16

17

17

17

17

18

18

16

16

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q141. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q160. Not knowing if the land or shore where you want to get outof the water is public or private land

Q126. Not having access to docks or piers from which to fish

Q140. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishing access orboat access areas

Q144. Not having accurate information about where to access thewater to fish

Q159. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing in publicwaters that run through private land, such as high water marks or

how far you are permitted to step on shore

Q125. Not being able to find a place to launch a boat

Q142. Poor maintenance of docks or piers

Q148. Having to travel far to access the water to fish

Q152. Private landowners closing or denying permission to useaccess to the water from their land

Q161. Not knowing if the access area you want to use is on publicor private land

Q164. New restrictions on fising equipment, such as a ban onlead sinkers

Q120. Not knowing where to access the water to fish

Q127. Closed fishing access or boat access areas

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 155

Figure 122. Major or Moderate Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3

Percent who indicated that the following have been major or moderate problems for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

(Part 3)(Anglers)

9

10

11

11

13

13

13

14

14

14

13

13

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q135. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forpollution or litter

Q154. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by the same landowner

Q156. Private land blocking a public fishing access or boataccess area

Q119. Not knowing where to go to fish

Q136. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forprotection or conservation

Q145. Having out-of-date state agency information about fishingaccess or boat access

Q153. Not being able to contact the landowner to ask permissionto access the water from their land

Q155. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by a new landowner

Q147. Having maps that show fishing access and boat accessareas but being unable to physically locate them

Q132. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access or boataccess areas

Q146. Having out-of-date federal agency information about fishingaccess or boat access

Q149. Having to plan where to access the water for fishing

Q158. Private landowners not allowing you out of the water or offof your boat onto surrounding property

Percent

156 Responsive Management

Figure 123. Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1

Percent who indicated that the following have been major, moderate, or minor problems for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in

general.(Part 1)

(Anglers)

31

31

32

32

32

36

37

45

46

49

67

33

33

33

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q151. The cost of gas

Q138. Crowding at fishing access areas

Q137. Crowding on the water

Q139. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q124. Not enough parking at access areas or boat launches

Q122. Not enough places to access the water to fish

Q133. Less areas to fish due to development

Q150. Access or user fees being expensive

Q163. Poorly marked boundaries of public and private land infishing areas

Q140. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishing access orboat access areas

Q141. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q162. Poorly marked public access areas

Q123. Not enough boat access areas

Q134. Less fishing access or boat access areas due todevelopment

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 157

Figure 124. Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2

Percent who indicated that the following have been major, moderate, or minor problems for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in

general.(Part 2)

(Anglers)

25

25

25

25

25

27

28

29

29

29

30

26

26

26

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q121. Not enough places to fish

Q142. Poor maintenance of docks or piers

Q143. Not having enough information about where to access thewater to fish

Q144. Not having accurate information about where to access thewater to fish

Q126. Not having access to docks or piers from which to fish

Q120. Not knowing where to access the water to fish

Q125. Not being able to find a place to launch a boat

Q148. Having to travel far to access the water to fish

Q160. Not knowing if the land or shore where you want to get outof the water is public or private land

Q127. Closed fishing access or boat access areas

Q135. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forpollution or litter

Q136. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forprotection or conservation

Q159. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing in publicwaters that run through private land, such as high water marks or

how far you are permitted to step on shore

Q164. New restrictions on fising equipment, such as a ban onlead sinkers

Percent

158 Responsive Management

Figure 125. Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3

Percent who indicated that the following have been major, moderate, or minor problems for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in

general.(Part 3)

(Anglers)

14

19

20

20

21

22

23

24

24

24

20

20

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q145. Having out-of-date state agency information about fishingaccess or boat access

Q152. Private landowners closing or denying permission to useaccess to the water from their land

Q161. Not knowing if the access area you want to use is on publicor private land

Q119. Not knowing where to go to fish

Q156. Private land blocking a public fishing access or boataccess area

Q146. Having out-of-date federal agency information about fishingaccess or boat access

Q132. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access or boataccess areas

Q147. Having maps that show fishing access and boat accessareas but being unable to physically locate them

Q149. Having to plan where to access the water for fishing

Q153. Not being able to contact the landowner to ask permissionto access the water from their land

Q154. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by the same landowner

Q155. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by a new landowner

Q158. Private landowners not allowing you out of the water or offof your boat onto surrounding property

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 159

Figure 126. Things That Have Not Been Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 1

Percent who indicated that the following have not been a problem at all for them in the past 5 years

while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Part 1)

(Anglers)

74

75

75

75

76

78

79

79

79

80

85

78

77

77

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q158. Private landowners not allowing you out of the water or offof your boat onto surrounding property

Q149. Having to plan where to access the water for fishing

Q132. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access or boataccess areas

Q147. Having maps that show fishing access and boat accessareas but being unable to physically locate them

Q155. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by a new landowner

Q153. Not being able to contact the landowner to ask permissionto access the water from their land

Q154. Finding previously open private fishing access and boataccess areas posted or closed by the same landowner

Q146. Having out-of-date federal agency information about fishingaccess or boat access

Q156. Private land blocking a public fishing access or boat accessarea

Q119. Not knowing where to go to fish

Q127. Closed fishing access or boat access areas

Q135. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forpollution or litter

Q161. Not knowing if the access area you want to use is on publicor private land

Q136. Less areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed forprotection or conservation

Percent

160 Responsive Management

Figure 127. Things That Have Not Been Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 2

Percent who indicated that the following have not been a problem at all for them in the past 5 years

while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Part 2)

(Anglers)

68

69

70

70

70

73

73

74

74

74

74

73

73

71

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q145. Having out-of-date state agency information about fishingaccess or boat access

Q148. Having to travel far to access the water to fish

Q152. Private landowners closing or denying permission to useaccess to the water from their land

Q159. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing in publicwaters that run through private land, such as high water marks or

how far you are permitted to step on shore

Q120. Not knowing where to access the water to fish

Q125. Not being able to find a place to launch a boat

Q160. Not knowing if the land or shore where you want to get outof the water is public or private land

Q164. New restrictions on fising equipment, such as a ban on leadsinkers

Q126. Not having access to docks or piers from which to fish

Q142. Poor maintenance of docks or piers

Q143. Not having enough information about where to access thewater to fish

Q144. Not having accurate information about where to access thewater to fish

Q121. Not enough places to fish

Q123. Not enough boat access areas

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 161

Figure 128. Things That Have Not Been Problems for Anglers While Fishing, Part 3

Percent who indicated that the following have not been a problem at all for them in the past 5 years

while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Part 3)

(Anglers)

32

51

53

54

67

67

67

68

68

68

66

64

63

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q134. Less fishing access orboat access areas due to

development

Q140. Poor maintenance ofroads or trails to fishing access

or boat access areas

Q162. Poorly marked publicaccess areas

Q141. Poor maintenance of boatramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q150. Access or user fees beingexpensive

Q163. Poorly marked boundariesof public and private land in

fishing areas

Q133. Less areas to fish due todevelopment

Q122. Not enough places toaccess the water to fish

Q124. Not enough parking ataccess areas or boat launches

Q139. Crowding at boat ramps,launches, or put-in sites

Q137. Crowding on the water

Q138. Crowding at fishingaccess areas

Q151. The cost of gas

Percent

162 Responsive Management

The professional survey had a list of 36 possible access issues, shown in Table 6. For each one, the survey asked professionals to rate whether the item is a major problem, a moderate problem, a minor problem, or not a problem for anglers on the public lands that the respondent’s agency manages. • In the top tier, when ranked by the percentage saying the item is a major or moderate

problem, are 4 of the 36 potential problems, each with a majority saying it is a major or moderate problem (Figures 131 and 132): o Anglers not having access to docks or piers from which to fish (65%). o The cost of gas (62%). o Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites (55%). o Not enough places to access the water to fish (54%).

• A large second tier includes 13 items, each with at least a third of professionals saying it is a major or moderate problem. These problems relate to crowding, particularly at boat access areas; a lack of boating access; to lacking information; and to issues relating to boundaries between public and private land. o Not enough boat access areas (47%). o Crowding at fishing access areas (46%). o Anglers not knowing if the land or shore where they want to get out of the water is on

public or private land (46%). o Anglers not knowing where to access the water to fish (44%). o Not enough parking at access areas or boat launches (44%). o Crowding on the water (42%). o Anglers not knowing where to fish (41%). o Not enough places to fish (40%). o Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing in public waters that run through

private land (39%). o Anglers not being able to find a place to launch a boat (37%). o Poorly marked boundaries on public and private land in fishing areas (35%). o Fewer areas to fish due to development (34%). o Anglers not having enough information about where to access the water to fish

(34%). • The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say major problem and the

percentages who say not a problem, are shown in Figures 129 through 134.

Fishing Access in the United States 163

Table 6. Potential Access Problems That Anglers May Have While Fishing on Lands That the Respondent’s Agency Manages That Were Asked About in the Professionals Survey

Potential Problem (ranked by the percentage saying major or moderate problem)

Percent Who Said the Problem Is

Major or Moderate

Q10h. Anglers not having access to docks or piers from which to fish 65 Q10ad. The cost of gas 62 Q10s. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 55 Q10d. Not enough places to access the water to fish 54 Q10e. Not enough boat access areas 47 Q10r. Crowding at fishing access areas 46 Q10ag. Anglers not knowing if the land or shore where they want to get out of the water

is on public or private land 46 Q10b. Angler not knowing where to access the water to fish 44 Q10f. Not enough parking at access areas or boat launches 44 Q10q. Crowding on the water 42 Q10a. Anglers not knowing where to fish 41 Q10c. Not enough places to fish 40 Q10af. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing in public waters that run through

private land 39 Q10g. Anglers not being able to find a place to launch a boat 37 Q10aj. Poorly marked boundaries on public and private land in fishing areas 35 Q10m. Fewer areas to fish due to development 34 Q10w. Anglers not having enough information about where to access the water to fish 34 Q10n. Fewer fishing access or boat access areas due to development 31 Q10aa. Anglers having to travel far to access the water to fish 31 Q10u. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 30 Q10ae. Private land blocking a public fishing access or boat access area 30 Q10ah. Anglers not knowing if the access area they want to use is on public or private

land 30 Q10ai. Poorly marked boundaries on public access areas 30 Q10t. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishing access or boat access areas 29 Q10v. Poor maintenance of docks or piers 26 Q10x. Anglers not having accurate information about where to access the water to fish 21 Q10ab. Anglers having to plan where to access the water for fishing 20 Q10y. Anglers having out-of-date information from your agency about fishing access or

boat access 19 Q10k. Fishing access or boat access areas not accessible due to lack of maintenance, such

as damaged pier 16 Q10p. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing areas being closed for species or area

preservation 14 Q10z. Anglers having maps that show fishing access and boat access areas but being

unable to physically locate them 14 Q10l. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access or boat access areas 12 Q10ac. Access or user fees being expensive 12 Q10o. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing access being closed for pollution or litter 11 Q10j. Fishing access or boat access areas closed for natural reasons, such as downed trees 7 Q10i. Closed fishing access or boat access areas purposely closed by your agency 6

164 Responsive Management

Figure 129. Professionals’ Opinions on Major Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 1

7

7

7

7

7

10

12

12

21

17

14

13

13

13

9

9

9

8

8

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q10h. Anglers not having access to docks or piers fromwhich to fish

Q10ad. The cost of gas

Q10d. Not enough places to access the water to fish

Q10f. Not enough parking at access areas or boatlaunches

Q10m. Fewer areas to fish due to development

Q10s. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q10n. Fewer fishing access or boat access areas due todevelopment

Q10ag. Anglers not knowing if shore where they want toget out of water is on public or private land

Q10aj. Poorly marked boundaries on public and privateland in fishing areas

Q10c. Not enough places to fish

Q10e. Not enough boat access areas

Q10af. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishing inpublic waters that run through private land

Q10b. Angler not knowing where to access the water to fish

Q10q. Crowding on the water

Q10ai. Poorly marked boundaries on public access areas

Q10g. Anglers not being able to find a place to launch aboat

Q10r. Crowding at fishing access areas

Q10aa. Anglers having to travel far to access the water tofish

Q10ae. Private land blocking a public fishing access orboat access area

Q10ah. Anglers not knowing if the access area they want touse is on public or private land

Percent

Percent who think the following possible fishing access issues are a major problem for anglers on the public lands

their agency manages.(Part 1)

(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 165

Figure 130. Professionals’ Opinions on Major Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 2

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

3

3

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q10a. Anglers not knowing where to fish

Q10v. Poor maintenance of docks or piers

Q10w. Anglers not having enough information aboutwhere to access the water to fish

Q10t. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishingaccess or boat access areas

Q10u. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, orput-in sites

Q10o. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing access beingclosed for pollution or litter

Q10x. Anglers not having accurate information aboutwhere to access the water to fish

Q10y. Anglers having out-of-date information from youragency about fishing access or boat access

Q10ab. Anglers having to plan where to access thewater for fishing

Q10ac. Access or user fees being expensive

Q10i. Closed fishing access or boat access areaspurposely closed by your agency

Q10k. Fishing / boat access areas not accessible due tolack of maintenance, such as damaged pier

Q10l. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing accessor boat access areas

Q10p. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing areas beingclosed for species or area preservation

Q10z. Anglers having maps that show fishing / boataccess areas but being unable to physically locate them

Q10j. Fishing access or boat access areas closed fornatural reasons, such as downed trees

Percent

Percent who think the following possible fishing access issues are a major problem for anglers on the public lands

their agency manages.(Part 2)

(Professionals)

166 Responsive Management

Figure 131. Professionals’ Opinions on Major or Moderate Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 1

34

34

35

37

39

40

41

42

46

47

54

55

62

65

46

44

44

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q10h. Anglers not having access to docks or piers fromwhich to fish

Q10ad. The cost of gas

Q10s. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q10d. Not enough places to access the water to fish

Q10e. Not enough boat access areas

Q10r. Crowding at fishing access areas

Q10ag. Anglers not knowing if shore where they want toget out of water is on public or private land

Q10b. Angler not knowing where to access the water tofish

Q10f. Not enough parking at access areas or boatlaunches

Q10q. Crowding on the water

Q10a. Anglers not knowing where to fish

Q10c. Not enough places to fish

Q10af. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishingin public waters that run through private land

Q10g. Anglers not being able to find a place to launch aboat

Q10aj. Poorly marked boundaries on public and privateland in fishing areas

Q10m. Fewer areas to fish due to development

Q10w. Anglers not having enough information aboutwhere to access the water to fish

Percent

Percent who think the following possible fishing access issues are a major or moderate problem for anglers on the

public lands their agency or organization manages.(Part 1)

(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 167

Figure 132. Professionals’ Opinions on Major or Moderate Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 2

12

11

7

6

21

26

29

31

31

30

30

30

30

20

19

16

14

14

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q10n. Fewer fishing access or boat access areas due todevelopment

Q10aa. Anglers having to travel far to access the water tofish

Q10u. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q10ae. Private land blocking a public fishing access orboat access area

Q10ah. Anglers not knowing if the access area they wantto use is on public or private land

Q10ai. Poorly marked boundaries on public access areas

Q10t. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishing accessor boat access areas

Q10v. Poor maintenance of docks or piers

Q10x. Anglers not having accurate information aboutwhere to access the water to fish

Q10ab. Anglers having to plan where to access the waterfor fishing

Q10y. Anglers having out-of-date information from youragency about fishing access or boat access

Q10k. Fishing / boat access areas not accessible due tolack of maintenance, such as damaged pier

Q10p. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing areas beingclosed for species or area preservation

Q10z. Anglers having maps that show fishing / boat accessareas but being unable to physically locate them

Q10l. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access orboat access areas

Q10ac. Access or user fees being expensive

Q10o. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing access beingclosed for pollution or litter

Q10j. Fishing access or boat access areas closed fornatural reasons, such as downed trees

Q10i. Closed fishing access or boat access areaspurposely closed by your agency

Percent

Percent who think the following possible fishing access issues are a major or moderate problem for anglers on the

public lands their agency or organization manages.(Part 2)

(Professionals)

168 Responsive Management

Figure 133. Professionals’ Opinions on Things That Are Not Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 1

24

24

23

22

21

20

25

27

27

28

29

31

41

41

48

48

52

64

34

33

32

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q10i. Closed fishing access or boat access areaspurposely closed by your agency

Q10o. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing access beingclosed for pollution or litter

Q10j. Fishing access or boat access areas closed fornatural reasons, such as downed trees

Q10p. Fewer areas to fish due to fishing areas beingclosed for species or area preservation

Q10l. Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access orboat access areas

Q10ac. Access or user fees being expensive

Q10n. Fewer fishing access or boat access areas due todevelopment

Q10m. Fewer areas to fish due to development

Q10y. Anglers having out-of-date information from youragency about fishing access or boat access

Q10k. Fishing / boat access areas not accessible due tolack of maintenance, such as damaged pier

Q10z. Anglers having maps that show fishing / boataccess areas but being unable to physically locate them

Q10x. Anglers not having accurate information aboutwhere to access the water to fish

Q10aa. Anglers having to travel far to access the waterto fish

Q10ab. Anglers having to plan where to access the waterfor fishing

Q10ae. Private land blocking a public fishing access orboat access area

Q10c. Not enough places to fish

Q10ai. Poorly marked boundaries on public access areas

Q10v. Poor maintenance of docks or piers

Q10ah. Anglers not knowing if the access area they wantto use is on public or private land

Q10w. Anglers not having enough information aboutwhere to access the water to fish

Q10u. Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, orput-in sites

Percent

Percent who think the following possible fishing access issues are not a problem at all for anglers on the public lands

their agency or organization manages.(Part 1)

(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 169

Figure 134. Professionals’ Opinions on Things That Are Not Fishing Access Problems on Public Lands Their Agencies Manage, Part 2

6

7

9

10

13

13

15

15

16

16

17

17

15

14

13

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q10g. Anglers not being able to find a place to launch aboat

Q10t. Poor maintenance of roads or trails to fishingaccess or boat access areas

Q10q. Crowding on the water

Q10aj. Poorly marked boundaries on public and privateland in fishing areas

Q10a. Anglers not knowing where to fish

Q10e. Not enough boat access areas

Q10af. Unclear or complicated regulations about fishingin public waters that run through private land

Q10b. Angler not knowing where to access the water tofish

Q10d. Not enough places to access the water to fish

Q10f. Not enough parking at access areas or boatlaunches

Q10r. Crowding at fishing access areas

Q10ag. Anglers not knowing if shore where they want toget out of water is on public or private land

Q10s. Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q10h. Anglers not having access to docks or piers fromwhich to fish

Q10ad. The cost of gas

Percent

Percent who think the following possible fishing access issues are not a problem at all for anglers on the public lands

their agency or organization manages.(Part 2)

(Professionals)

The results of the above series of questions were crosstabulated by federal vs. state

personnel. Table 7 shows the differences in the percentages of federal and state personnel

who say that the given problem is major or moderate on land the agency manages, as well as

170 Responsive Management

the differences in the percentages saying the given problem is actually not a problem. The

table is ranked by the difference in the major and moderate ratings between the two groups;

in other words, the top of the table shows those items about which state agency employees

are more concerned. Shading indicates where differences in major/moderate ratings between

the two groups is at least 5 percentage points.

• In general, state agency personnel think that the following are more problematic than do

federal agency personnel: lack of facilities such as docks, piers, and boat ramps; a simple

lack of places to fish/to access fishing areas; crowding; development negatively affecting

access; and the cost of gas/travel distance.

• In general, federal agency personnel think the following are more problematic: poor

maintenance of facilities, including roads, trails, and ramps; poorly marked boundaries;

and private land blocking public land.

Table 7. Differences Between Federal Agency Personnel and State Agency Personnel Regarding Ratings of Severity of Problems

Percent saying it is a major or

moderate problem

Percent saying it is not a problem

Potential Problem

Fede

ral

agen

cy

pers

onne

l

Stat

e ag

ency

pe

rson

nel

Diff

eren

ce

Fede

ral

agen

cy

pers

onne

l

Stat

e ag

ency

pe

rson

nel

Diff

eren

ce

Stat

istic

al si

gnifi

canc

e

of d

iffer

ence

s

Anglers not having access to docks/piers from which to fish 50 72 -22 12 4 8 p < 0.001Not enough places to access the water to fish 39 60 -21 22 9 13 p < 0.001The cost of gas for anglers 48 69 -21 11 4 7 p < 0.001Not enough boat access areas 36 50 -14 16 15 1 p > 0.05 Not enough places to fish 31 44 -13 35 20 15 p < 0.001Fewer areas to fish due to development 26 37 -11 45 29 16 p < 0.01 Crowding at boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 47 58 -11 14 7 7 p < 0.05 Fewer fishing access or boat access areas due to development 24 33 -9 46 30 16 p < 0.01

Not enough parking at access areas or boat launches 38 46 -8 14 12 2 p > 0.05 Crowding on the water 36 44 -8 25 13 12 p < 0.01 Anglers not having enough info. re: where to access water to fish 28 34 -6 25 19 6 p > 0.05

Anglers not knowing where to fish 37 42 -5 19 13 6 p > 0.05 Angler not knowing where to access the water to fish 40 45 -5 16 12 4 p > 0.05 Anglers not being able to find a place to launch a boat 31 36 -5 16 19 -3 p > 0.05 Anglers having to travel far to access the water to fish 28 33 -5 30 26 4 p > 0.05

Fishing Access in the United States 171

Percent saying it is a major or

moderate problem

Percent saying it is not a problem

Potential Problem

Fede

ral

agen

cy

pers

onne

l

Stat

e ag

ency

pe

rson

nel

Diff

eren

ce

Fede

ral

agen

cy

pers

onne

l

Stat

e ag

ency

pe

rson

nel

Diff

eren

ce

Stat

istic

al si

gnifi

canc

e

of d

iffer

ence

s

Crowding at fishing access areas 42 46 -4 18 11 7 p > 0.05 Anglers having to plan where to access the water for fishing 16 20 -4 30 27 3 p > 0.05 Fewer areas to fish due to fish. access being closed for pollution/litter 8 11 -3 59 51 8 p > 0.05

Closed fishing or boat access areas purposely closed by your agency 6 5 1 65 66 -1 p > 0.05

Fishing or boat access areas not accessible due to lack of maintenance, such as damaged pier 16 14 2 31 32 -1 p > 0.05

Access or user fees being expensive for anglers 14 10 4 46 41 5 p > 0.05 Fishing/boat access closed for natural reasons, such as downed trees 10 5 5 48 50 -2 p > 0.05

Closed or posted roads leading to fishing access or boat access areas 15 10 5 45 40 5 p > 0.05

Anglers having maps that show fishing access and boat access areas but being unable to physically locate them 17 12 5 27 32 -5 p > 0.05

Unclear/complicated regulations re: fishing public waters running thru private land (e.g., high-water marks, how far permitted to step on shore)

42 37 5 15 13 2 p > 0.05

Anglers not knowing if the land or shore where they want to get out of the water is on public or private land 49 44 5 9 10 -1 p > 0.05

Anglers not having accurate info. re: where to access water to fish 24 18 6 27 31 -4 p > 0.05

Anglers having out-of-date info. from agency re: fishing/boat access 22 16 6 28 36 -8 p > 0.05

Fewer areas to fish b/c areas closed for species/area preservation 18 11 7 43 52 -9 p < 0.05

Poor maintenance of docks or piers 30 23 7 23 25 -2 p > 0.05 Private land blocking a public fishing access or boat access area 33 26 7 21 28 -7 p > 0.05

Poorly marked boundaries on public and private land in fishing areas 39 32 7 14 16 -2 p > 0.05

Anglers not knowing if access area is on public/private land 35 26 9 17 25 -8 p < 0.05 Poor maintenance of boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 37 25 12 16 23 -7 p < 0.05 Poorly marked boundaries on public access areas 37 25 12 23 26 -3 p > 0.05 Poor maintenance of roads/trails to fishing access or boat access areas 41 23 18 18 18 0 p > 0.05

The above series of questions included one that asked whether closed fishing access or boat

access areas had been a problem. If it had, a follow-up question asked how the closures were

effected: most commonly, anglers who got this question said the problematic closing was

172 Responsive Management

done by a gate (31%), by an area being posted by the landowner (26%), or an access area

being closed by a government agency (26%) (Figure 135).

Figure 135. Types of Access Area Closures That Anglers Have Experienced

8

31

26

26

15

11

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Access area closed by gate

Access area posted by landowner

Access area closed by state orfederal agency / law enforcement

officer

Access area not accessible fornatural reasons, such as downed

trees

Access area not accessible due tolack of maintenance, such as a

damaged pier

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=286)

Q130. What types of access area closures have you experienced in the past 5 years? (Asked of those who

indicated that the closing of fishing access or boat access areas has been a major, moderate, or minor problem for

them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.)(Anglers)

Another series of questions touching on access was asked of anglers. This set of questions

included 12 potential problems with associated consequences/actions (e.g., leaving an area

because of crowding from recreationists other than anglers—the problem being “crowding

from recreationists other than angler” and the associated consequence/action being “leaving

Fishing Access in the United States 173

an area”). These are shown in Table 8. Note that the order of the questions was randomized

for each respondent.

• Four items make up the top tier—markedly more of a problem compared to the other

problems listed: leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers (25% say this

has been a major or moderate problem in the past 5 years), leaving an area because of

crowding from recreationists other than anglers (23%), leaving an area because of the

irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers (23%), and leaving an area

because of the irresponsible behavior of other anglers (19%) (Figure 137). No other item

was said to be a major or moderate problem by more than 10%.

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say major problem, the

percentages who say major, moderate, or minor problem, and the percentages who say

not a problem, are shown in Figures 136 through 139.

Table 8. Potential Problems and Associated Consequences/Actions That Anglers May or May Not Have Experienced in the Past 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey

Potential Problem (ranked by the percentage saying major or moderate problem)

Percent Who Said the Problem Has Been Major or

Moderate Q173. Leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers 25 Q174. Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationists other than anglers 23 Q176. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than

anglers 23

Q175. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior of other anglers 19 Q169. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because you did not know if the

access area was public or private 9

Q167. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because you couldn’t find access from public land to the water once you were there 8

Q170. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because you did not know where you would find a public access area to get out of the water or off your boat 8

Q168. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because a private landowner would not allow you access to the water from his or her land 7

Q172. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because public access for those with disabilities was not available 7

Q177. Discontinuing a fishing club membership because you felt the fees were too expensive 7

Q171. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because map information was wrong 5

Q178. Trying to join a fishing club that was already full 2

174 Responsive Management

Figure 136. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Been Major Among Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who indicated that the following situations have been a major problem for them in the past 5

years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Anglers)

1

1

3

4

4

7

8

9

9

4

3

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q174. Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationistsother than anglers

Q176. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofrecreationists other than anglers

Q173. Leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers

Q175. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofother anglers

Q168. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because aprivate landowner would not allow you access to the water from his

or her land

Q169. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because youdid not know if the access area was public or private

Q170. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because youdid not know where you would find a public access area to get out

of the water or off your boat

Q167. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because youcouldn't find access from public land to the water once you were

there

Q172. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausepublic access for those with disabilities was not available

Q177. Discontinuing a fishing club membership because you feltthe fees were too expensive

Q171. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausemap information was wrong

Q178. Trying to join a fishing club that was already full

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 175

Figure 137. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Been Major or Moderate Among Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who indicated that the following situations have been a major or moderate problem for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing

in general.(Anglers)

2

5

7

8

9

19

23

23

25

8

7

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q173. Leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers

Q174. Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationistsother than anglers

Q176. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofrecreationists other than anglers

Q175. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofother anglers

Q169. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou did not know if the access area was public or private

Q167. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou couldn't find access from public land to the water once you

were there

Q170. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou did not know where you would find a public access area to get

out of the water or off your boat

Q168. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because aprivate landowner would not allow you access to the water from his

or her land

Q172. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausepublic access for those with disabilities was not available

Q177. Discontinuing a fishing club membership because you feltthe fees were too expensive

Q171. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausemap information was wrong

Q178. Trying to join a fishing club that was already full

Percent

176 Responsive Management

Figure 138. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Been Major, Moderate, or Minor Among Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who indicated that the following situations have been a major, moderate, or minor problem for them in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater

fishing in general.(Anglers)

5

11

12

15

16

34

38

40

41

15

13

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q173. Leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers

Q176. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofrecreationists other than anglers

Q174. Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationistsother than anglers

Q175. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofother anglers

Q169. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou did not know if the access area was public or private

Q167. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou couldn't find access from public land to the water once you

were there

Q170. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou did not know where you would find a public access area to get

out of the water or off your boat

Q172. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausepublic access for those with disabilities was not available

Q168. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because aprivate landowner would not allow you access to the water from his

or her land

Q171. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausemap information was wrong

Q177. Discontinuing a fishing club membership because you feltthe fees were too expensive

Q178. Trying to join a fishing club that was already full

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 177

Figure 139. Problems and Associated Consequences That Have Not Been Problematic Among Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who indicated that the following situations have not been a problem at all for them in the past

5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Anglers)

59

60

62

84

85

87

87

88

94

84

83

66

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q178. Trying to join a fishing club that was already full

Q171. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausemap information was wrong

Q168. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations because aprivate landowner would not allow you access to the water from his

or her land

Q177. Discontinuing a fishing club membership because you feltthe fees were too expensive

Q167. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou couldn't find access from public land to the water once you

were there

Q170. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou did not know where you would find a public access area to get

out of the water or off your boat

Q172. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becausepublic access for those with disabilities was not available

Q169. Not going on a fishing trip or changing locations becauseyou did not know if the access area was public or private

Q175. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofother anglers

Q174. Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationistsother than anglers

Q176. Leaving an area because of the irresponsible behavior ofrecreationists other than anglers

Q173. Leaving an area because of crowding from other anglers

Percent

178 Responsive Management

The survey asked a series of 10 questions about potential problems that may negatively

influence access in general, even if the respondent’s own access has not been affected by it,

shown in Table 9. For each potential problem, the survey asked respondents to indicate if it

is a major problem, a moderate problem, a minor problem, or not a problem at all in general.

Note that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent.

• One item is on top, with a markedly higher percentage saying it is a major or moderate

problem: housing and commercial development (27% say this is a major or moderate

problem influencing fishing access in general) (Figure 141). All other items except for

one have from 16% to 20% saying it is a major or moderate problem; the lone exception

is gas and oil extraction on public lands, which only 9% say is a major or moderate

problem.

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say major problem, the

percentages who say major, moderate, or minor problem, and the percentages who say

not a problem, are shown in Figures 140 through 143.

Table 9. Potential Problems That May or May Not Influence Access in General That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey

Potential Problem (ranked by the percentage saying major or moderate problem)

Percent Who Said the Problem Is

Major or Moderate

Q186. Housing and commercial development 27 Q181. Poor management of public fishing access and boat access areas 20 Q185. Not enough public fishing access and boat access areas for those with disabilities 19 Q182. Lack of or unclear signs marking public and private fishing access and boat access

areas 18

Q184. Unnecessary closures of recreational fishing areas by state or federal agencies or law enforcement officers 18

Q183. Unnecessary closures of public fishing access and boat access areas 17 Q188. Private fishing access or boat access areas posted or closed because landowner is

concerned about liability 17

Q189. Not enough information available on regulations for fishing in and accessing public waters that are adjacent to or run through private land 17

Q190. Landowners who do not know the regulations for fishing in and accessing public waters that are adjacent to or run through their land 16

Q187. Gas and oil extraction on public lands 9

Fishing Access in the United States 179

Figure 140. Anglers’ Perceptions of Major Problems Influencing Fishing Access in General

Percent who think that the following factors are a major problem in influencing access to freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

(Anglers)

7

7

7

13

11

8

7

7

7

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q186. Housing and commercial development

Q185. Not enough public fishing access and boat accessareas for those with disabilities

Q184. Unnecessary closures of recreational fishing areasby state or federal agencies or law enforcement officers

Q181. Poor management of public fishing access andboat access areas

Q182. Lack of or unclear signs marking public and privatefishing access and boat access areas

Q183. Unnecessary closures of public fishing access andboat access areas

Q188. Private fishing access or boat access areas postedor closed because landowner is concerned about liability

Q189. Not enough information available on regulationsfor fishing in and accessing public waters that are

adjacent to or run through private land

Q190. Landowners who do not know the regulations forfishing in and accessing public waters that are adjacent

to or run through their land

Q187. Gas and oil extraction on public lands

Percent

180 Responsive Management

Figure 141. Anglers’ Perceptions of Major or Moderate Problems Influencing Fishing Access in General

Percent who think that the following factors are a major or moderate problem in influencing access

to freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Anglers)

16

17

17

27

20

19

18

18

17

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q186. Housing and commercial development

Q181. Poor management of public fishing access andboat access areas

Q185. Not enough public fishing access and boat accessareas for those with disabilities

Q182. Lack of or unclear signs marking public andprivate fishing access and boat access areas

Q184. Unnecessary closures of recreational fishingareas by state or federal agencies or law enforcement

officers

Q183. Unnecessary closures of public fishing accessand boat access areas

Q188. Private fishing access or boat access areasposted or closed because landowner is concerned about

liability

Q189. Not enough information available on regulationsfor fishing in and accessing public waters that are

adjacent to or run through private land

Q190. Landowners who do not know the regulations forfishing in and accessing public waters that are adjacent

to or run through their land

Q187. Gas and oil extraction on public lands

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 181

Figure 142. Anglers’ Perceptions of Major, Moderate, or Minor Problems Influencing Fishing Access in General

Percent who think that the following factors are a major, moderate, or minor problem in influencing access to freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

(Anglers)

16

26

26

27

30

31

38

26

26

24

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q186. Housing and commercial development

Q181. Poor management of public fishing access andboat access areas

Q182. Lack of or unclear signs marking public andprivate fishing access and boat access areas

Q185. Not enough public fishing access and boataccess areas for those with disabilities

Q183. Unnecessary closures of public fishing accessand boat access areas

Q184. Unnecessary closures of recreational fishingareas by state or federal agencies or law enforcement

officers

Q188. Private fishing access or boat access areasposted or closed because landowner is concerned about

liability

Q189. Not enough information available on regulationsfor fishing in and accessing public waters that are

adjacent to or run through private land

Q190. Landowners who do not know the regulations forfishing in and accessing public waters that are adjacent

to or run through their land

Q187. Gas and oil extraction on public lands

Percent

182 Responsive Management

Figure 143. Anglers’ Perceptions of Things That Have Not Been Problems Influencing Fishing Access in General

Percent who think that the following factors are not a problem at all in influencing access to freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

(Anglers)

60

70

71

71

71

72

79

69

67

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q187. Gas and oil extraction on public lands

Q189. Not enough information available on regulationsfor fishing in and accessing public waters that are

adjacent to or run through private land

Q183. Unnecessary closures of public fishing accessand boat access areas

Q184. Unnecessary closures of recreational fishingareas by state or federal agencies or law enforcement

officers

Q188. Private fishing access or boat access areasposted or closed because landowner is concerned about

liability

Q190. Landowners who do not know the regulations forfishing in and accessing public waters that are adjacent

to or run through their land

Q182. Lack of or unclear signs marking public andprivate fishing access and boat access areas

Q181. Poor management of public fishing access andboat access areas

Q185. Not enough public fishing access and boat accessareas for those with disabilities

Q186. Housing and commercial development

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 183

LANDOWNERS’ PERMISSION TO ACCESS LAND FOR FISHING Landowners’ Attitudes Toward Fishing

The overwhelming majority of landowners (92%) approve of legal, recreational fishing; only

2% disapprove (Figure 144). Similarly, an overwhelming majority (88%) think that it is

important to know that people have the opportunity to fish; only 9% think it is not at all

important (Figure 145).

Figure 144. Landowners’ Approval or Disapproval of Legal, Recreational Fishing

Q22. In general, do you approve or disapprove of legal, recreational fishing?

(Landowners)

2

1

1

4

24

68

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly approve

Moderatelyapprove

Neither approvenor disapprove

Moderatelydisapprove

Stronglydisapprove

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

184 Responsive Management

Figure 145. Landowners’ Perceptions of the Importance That People Have the Opportunity To Fish

Q23. How important is it to you to know that people have the opportunity to fish?

(Landowners)

3

9

30

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at allimportant

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

Fishing Access in the United States 185

Landowners’ Attitudes Toward Anglers and Other Outdoor Recreationists Just under half of landowners (47%) go fishing in the waters that are accessible from their

property (Figure 146). Also, 61% allow others not living in their household to go fishing on

their property (Figure 147). When results are combined (not simply a sum because some

answered “yes” to both questions), 79% of properties discussed in the survey have fishing

taking place on them—by the landowner personally and/or by other people.

Figure 146. Fishing by Landowners on Their Properties

Q25. Do you personally fish in the [freshwater / saltwater / freshwater or saltwater] that is on or

accessible from your property?(Landowners)

53

47

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Percent (n=2424)

186 Responsive Management

Figure 147. Landowners’ Permission for Others To Fish on Their Properties

Q26. Do you allow others not living in your household to access the water from your property for fishing? This includes anyone not living in your household, such as friends, family, acquaintances,

or the general public.(Landowners)

1

38

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=4017)

As just discussed, 61% of landowners allow people not living in their household to access the

land for fishing. In follow-up, those landowners who allow access to others were asked if

that access is generally open to all angles or to whom they personally give permission. Most

of these landowners (82%) say that access is limited to those to whom they give permission;

nonetheless, 17% say that the access is generally open to all anglers (Figure 148).

• As previously discussed, the large majority of landowners who allow others not living in

their household to access the water on their property say that they allow family/relatives

(76%) to access the water, followed closely by friends (72%) (see Figure 116 in the

section of this report titled, “Constraints To Fishing Participation, Including Access

Fishing Access in the United States 187

Problems”). Meanwhile, 20% allow acquaintances, 20% allow “others by permission,”

and 10% allow “anyone.”

• Regarding allowing access, the majority of landowners are not more or less likely to

allow anglers than they are to allow other recreationists to access the water on their

property: 59% say they are neither more nor less likely (Figure 149). However, they

otherwise favor anglers: 24% are more likely to allow anglers, compared to 11% who are

less likely to allow anglers than to allow other recreationists.

• A similar question in the landowner survey was asked about anglers with boats versus

anglers without boats. Again, most commonly, landowners are neither more nor less

likely to allow one group over the other (55% gave the neutral answer) (Figure 150).

Otherwise, 31% are less likely to allow anglers with boats, compared to only 8% who are

more likely to allow anglers with boats.

Figure 148. People To Whom Landowners Allow Access for Fishing

1

82

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Open to all publicuse for fishing

Limited to whom Ipersonally give

permission

Don't know

Percent (n=1658)

Q27. Is the access to the water on your property generally open to all public use for fishing or limited to whom you personally give permission? (Asked of those who allow others not living in their household to access the water

from their property for fishing.)(Landowners)

188 Responsive Management

Figure 149. Allowing Anglers Versus Other Recreationists on Landowners’ Properties

Q55. Are you more or less likely to allow fishermen than to allow other recreationists, such canoeists

or those who want to go tubing, to access the water from your property?

(Landowners)

6

7

4

59

10

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Much more likely

Somewhat morelikely

Neither more norless likely

Somewhat lesslikely

Much less likely

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

Fishing Access in the United States 189

Figure 150. Allowing Anglers With Boats Versus Anglers Without Boats on Landowners’ Properties

6

25

6

55

5

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Much more likely

Somewhat morelikely

Neither more norless likely

Somewhat lesslikely

Much less likely

Don't know

Percent (n=857)

Q99. Are you more or less likely to allow fishermen with boats than you are to allow fishermen without boats to access the

water from your property? (Asked of those who have property where a boat can be launched or put into the water from the

access area.)(Landowners)

Of the landowners who indicated that they do not currently allow others from outside of their

household to access water from their property, 18% indicated that they allowed access in the

past (Figure 151).

About half of landowners (49%) allow others not living in their household to access the

water from their property for recreational activities other than fishing (Figure 152). This is

less than the percentage, as discussed previously, who allow access for fishing (61%) (see

Figure 147).

190 Responsive Management

Figure 151. Allowing Fishing Access in the Past Among Landowners Who Do Not Currently Allow Access

Q35. Did you ever allow others to access the water from your property for fishing? (Asked of those who said they do not currently allow others not

living in their household to access the water from their property for fishing.)

(Landowners)

1

81

18

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=739)

Fishing Access in the United States 191

Figure 152. Allowing Access on Properties for Recreational Activities Other Than Fishing

Q36. Do you allow others not living in your household to access the water from your property

for recreational activities other than fishing?(Landowners)

2

49

49

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

192 Responsive Management

Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access The landowner survey asked 14 questions about the importance of possible reasons for not

allowing recreationists to access water from their land, as shown in Table 10. For each reason, the survey asked landowners to rate its importance as a reason for not allowing others to access the property. Note that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent. • The top tier, when ranked by the percentage who say the reason is very important,

consists of six items that have a majority thinking they are very important (Figure 153): o Privacy or not wanting anyone on their land in general (64%). o Wanting to allow only personal or family use of access area (60%). o Pollution or litter (58%). o Liability concerns (55%). o Poor behavior of other recreationists (53%). o Poor behavior of fishermen, such as reckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter (51%). • A second tier consists of the following:

o Property damage caused by fishermen (46%). o That too many people want to use property for activities other than fishing or

recreation (43%). o Wanting to limit use of water to personal or family use (41%).

• No other reason has more than third saying it is very important. • The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say either very or somewhat

important and the percentages who say not at all important, are shown in Figures 153 through 155.

Table 10. The Importance of Potential Reasons Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey

Reason (ranked by the percentage saying very important)

Percent Who Said the Reason Is

Very Important Q47. Privacy or not wanting anyone on your land in general 64 Q48. Wanting to allow only personal or family use of access area 60 Q43. Pollution or litter 58 Q39. Liability concerns 55 Q42. Poor behavior of other recreationists 53 Q40. Poor behavior of fishermen, such as reckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter 51

Q41. Property damage caused by fishermen 46

Fishing Access in the United States 193

Reason (ranked by the percentage saying very important)

Percent Who Said the Reason Is

Very Important Q46. That too many people want to use property for activities other than fishing or

recreation (such as, drinking or partying) 43

Q50. Wanting to limit use of water to personal or family use 41 Q49. The cost of maintenance associated with public use of access area 32 Q44. The land being too crowded 30 Q45. Being too close to an urban area or having too many people wanting to use the

access area 30

Q52. That you do not receive enough compensation or incentives from state for opening access areas to the public 7

Q51. That you do not make enough money from fishermen 4

Figure 153. Very Important Reasons for Disallowing Access Among Landowners

Percent who indicated that each of the following was a very important reason for not allowing others

to access water from their property.(Landowners)

41

43

46

64

60

58

55

53

51

32

30

30

7

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q47. Privacy or not wanting anyone on your landin general

Q48. Wanting to allow only personal or family useof access area

Q43. Pollution or litter

Q39. Liability concerns

Q42. Poor behavior of other recreationists

Q40. Poor behavior of fishermen, such as recklessboating or drinking alcohol but not including

property damage or litter

Q41. Property damage caused by fishermen

Q46. That too many people want to use propertyfor activities other than fishing or recreation

Q50. Wanting to limit use of water to personal orfamily use

Q49. The cost of maintenance associated withpublic use of access area

Q44. Your land being too crowded

Q45. Being too close to an urban area or havingtoo many people wanting to use the access area

Q52. That you do not receive enoughcompensation or incentives from state for opening

access areas to the publicQ51. That you do not make enough money from

fishermen

Percent

194 Responsive Management

Figure 154. Very or Somewhat Important Reasons for Disallowing Access Among Landowners

Percent who indicated that each of the following was a very or somewhat important reason for not

allowing others to access water from their property.

(Landowners)

53

59

59

81

78

71

69

67

63

49

41

40

11

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q47. Privacy or not wanting anyone on your landin general

Q48. Wanting to allow only personal or family useof access area

Q43. Pollution or litter

Q39. Liability concerns

Q42. Poor behavior of other recreationists

Q40. Poor behavior of fishermen, such asreckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter

Q41. Property damage caused by fishermen

Q50. Wanting to limit use of water to personal orfamily use

Q46. That too many people want to use propertyfor activities other than fishing or recreation

Q49. The cost of maintenance associated withpublic use of access area

Q45. Being too close to an urban area or havingtoo many people wanting to use the access area

Q44. Your land being too crowded

Q52. That you do not receive enoughcompensation or incentives from state for

opening access areas to the publicQ51. That you do not make enough money from

fishermen

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 195

Figure 155. Not at All Important Reasons for Disallowing Access Among Landowners

Percent who indicated that each of the following was a not at all important reason for not allowing

others to access water from their property.(Landowners)

35

36

38

87

84

57

55

44

44

30

29

27

21

18

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q51. That you do not make enough money fromfishermen

Q52. That you do not receive enoughcompensation or incentives from state for

opening access areas to the public

Q44. Your land being too crowded

Q45. Being too close to an urban area or havingtoo many people wanting to use the access area

Q46. That too many people want to use propertyfor activities other than fishing or recreation

Q49. The cost of maintenance associated withpublic use of access area

Q41. Property damage caused by fishermen

Q50. Wanting to limit use of water to personal orfamily use

Q40. Poor behavior of fishermen, such asreckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter

Q42. Poor behavior of other recreationists

Q39. Liability concerns

Q43. Pollution or litter

Q48. Wanting to allow only personal or family useof access area

Q47. Privacy or not wanting anyone on your landin general

Percent

196 Responsive Management

The angler survey asked 12 questions about anglers’ perceptions of the reasons that

landowners close fishing access areas on their lands, as shown in Table 11. In each question,

the survey asked if the given reason is a very important reason, a somewhat important reason,

or not at all an important reason that landowners close access on their lands. Note that the

order of the questions was randomized for each respondent.

• In looking at the ranking by very important reason, four items top the list: pollution/litter

(80% say this is a very important reason that landowners close their land), property

damage caused by anglers (77%), poor behavior of recreationists other than anglers

(74%), and poor behavior of anglers (73%) (Figure 156).

• A second tier consists of privacy concerns/not wanting anyone on their land (64%),

liability concerns (59%), wanting to allow only personal or family use of the access area

(56%), the cost of maintenance associated with public use of access areas (50%), and that

the land is too crowded (49%).

• The remaining three items make up the lowest tier.

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say either very or somewhat

important and the percentages who say not at all important, are shown in Figures 156

through 158.

Table 11. Potential Reasons Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access That Were Asked About in the Angler Survey

Reason (ranked by the percentage saying very important)

Percent Who Said the Reason is

Very Important Q241. Pollution/litter 80 Q239. Property damage caused by anglers 77 Q240. Poor behavior of recreationists other than anglers 74 Q238. Poor behavior of anglers, such as reckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter 73

Q243. Privacy or not wanting anyone on their land 64 Q237. Liability concerns 59 Q244. Wanting to allow only personal or family use of access area 56 Q245. The cost of maintenance associated with public use of access area 50 Q242. Too crowded 49 Q246. Wanting to limit use of water to personal or family use 41 Q248. Not receiving enough compensation or incentives from state for opening access

areas to the public 28

Q247. Not making enough money from anglers 20

Fishing Access in the United States 197

Figure 156. Anglers’ Perceptions of Very Important Reasons That Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access

Percent who think the following are very important reasons landowners close access areas on their

lands to the public.(Anglers)

20

28

41

59

64

73

74

77

80

56

50

49

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q241. Pollution / litter

Q239. Property damage caused by anglers

Q240. Poor behavior of recreationists otherthan anglers

Q238. Poor behavior of anglers, such asreckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter

Q243. Privacy or not wanting anyone on theirland

Q237. Liability concerns

Q244. Wanting to allow only personal orfamily use of access area

Q245. Cost of maintenance associated withpublic use of access area

Q242. Too crowded

Q246. Wanting to limit use of water topersonal or family use

Q248. Not receiving enough compensation orincentives from state for opening access

areas to the public

Q247. Not making enough money fromanglers

Percent

198 Responsive Management

Figure 157. Anglers’ Perceptions of Very or Somewhat Important Reasons That Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access

Percent who think the following are very or somewhat important reasons landowners close

access areas on their lands to the public.(Anglers)

50

61

72

82

87

88

88

89

90

80

80

79

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q241. Pollution / litter

Q239. Property damage caused by anglers

Q238. Poor behavior of anglers, such asreckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter

Q240. Poor behavior of recreationists otherthan anglers

Q243. Privacy or not wanting anyone on theirland

Q244. Wanting to allow only personal orfamily use of access area

Q242. Too crowded

Q245. Cost of maintenance associated withpublic use of access area

Q237. Liability concerns

Q246. Wanting to limit use of water topersonal or family use

Q248. Not receiving enough compensation orincentives from state for opening access

areas to the public

Q247. Not making enough money fromanglers

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 199

Figure 158. Anglers’ Perceptions of Reasons That Are Not Important That Landowners Close Their Lands To Fishing Access

Percent who think the following are not at all important reasons landowners close access areas

on their lands to the public.(Anglers)

7

8

9

14

15

15

22

29

41

13

9

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q247. Not making enough money fromanglers

Q248. Not receiving enough compensation orincentives from state for opening access

areas to the public

Q246. Wanting to limit use of water topersonal or family use

Q237. Liability concerns

Q242. Too crowded

Q245. Cost of maintenance associated withpublic use of access area

Q244. Wanting to allow only personal or familyuse of access area

Q238. Poor behavior of anglers, such asreckless boating or drinking alcohol but not

including property damage or litter

Q240. Poor behavior of recreationists otherthan anglers

Q243. Privacy or not wanting anyone on theirland

Q239. Property damage caused by anglers

Q241. Pollution / litter

Percent

Those anglers who indicated that access to private lands has gotten worse in the past 5 years

because landowners no longer allow access were asked why they think landowners are no

longer allowing access. The top perceived reasons are the poor behavior of anglers, littering,

liability concerns, property damage caused by anglers, and privacy concerns (Figure 159).

200 Responsive Management

Figure 159. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Reasons Landowners Are No Longer Allowing Access To the Water From Their Properties

4

4

5

26

25

24

22

22

10

1

2

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Poor behavior of anglers

Littering

Liability concerns

Property damage caused by anglers

Privacy / don't want anyone on land

Allow only personal or family use of accessarea

Poor behavior of recreationists other thananglers

Property damage caused by otherrecreationists

Do not make enough money from anglers

Too crowded

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=91)

Q76. In your opinion, why are landowners no longer allowing public access to the water from their land? (Asked of those who access the (body of water) from private land and who

indicated that the access has gotten worse in the past 5 years because landowners no longer allow public use of access

areas on their land.)(Anglers)

A majority of landowners (61%) say that there are reasons or circumstances in which they do

not allow others to access the water from their property for fishing. The most commonly

named reasons/circumstances include if they do not know the angler (20%), the poor

behavior of anglers (15%), if they want privacy (9%), and liability concerns (7%)

(Figure 160).

Fishing Access in the United States 201

Figure 160. Landowners’ Reasons for Disallowing Access

Q33/Q34. Are there specific reasons or circumstances in which you do not allow others to access the water from your property for fishing? If

yes, what are the specific reasons or circumstances in which you do not allow access?

(Landowners)

4

1

2

20

15

9

7

4

3

37

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Don't know the individual

Poor behavior by anglers

Privacy

Liability concerns

Not enough space / too many anglers

Didn't ask permission

Neighborhood rules

Anglers too young

Other

Says there are no reasons / circumstancesin which they do not allow access

Says they don't know if there are specificreasons / circumstances

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=2452)

All three surveys had questions about the provision of incentives to landowners to encourage

them to open their lands to fishing access.

• The landowner survey asked landowners a series of questions about the effectiveness of

things that might get them to allow access for fishing, with one of the questions directly

pertaining to this topic. Landowners rated the effectiveness of being allowed to charge a

202 Responsive Management

fee for others to access their property in getting them to allow access for fishing.

However, only 5% of landowners said that this would be effective in getting them to

allow access (Figure 161). This finding suggests that monetary incentives would not be

particularly effective in encouraging landowners’ to allow access for fishing.

o Regarding providing landowners with compensation for access, note that currently

only 1% of landowners who allow access to others not from their household say that

they charge a fee for access to the water from their property (Figure 162).

• The landowner survey asked landowners in an open-ended question to name any types of

incentives or assistance from the state that would make them more likely to allow fishing

access. The overwhelming majority of landowners (86%) said that nothing would make

them more likely to allow fishing access (Figure 163). Otherwise, 4% gave an answer

relating to lower taxes or other financial incentives, 2% gave an answer relating to

assistance with land upkeep, and 1% gave an answer related to the assumption of

liability.

• Despite the above results, the majority of anglers (71%) think that a program providing

the landowner compensation or an incentive for opening access to the water on their land

would be very or somewhat effective at improving fishing access from private lands;

meanwhile, 21% of anglers think it would be not at all effective (Figure 164).

• Additionally, the professionals survey found that a majority of professionals (79%) think

a collaborative program in which their agency provides landowners with compensation

would be very or somewhat effective at increasing access to water from private lands;

only 9% think it would be not at all effective (Figure 165).

• A majority of professionals (59%) think a collaborative program in which their agency

provides landowners specifically with non-financial compensation would be very or

somewhat effective at increasing access to water from private lands; while 27% think it

would be not at all effective (Figure 166).

Fishing Access in the United States 203

Figure 161. Effectiveness of Being Able To Charge an Access Fee at Getting Landowners To Allow Public Access To the Water From Their Properties

Q111. How effective would this be at getting you to allow public access to the water from your

property: being able to charge a fee for others to access the water from your property?

(Landowners)

2

93

4

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very effective

Somewhateffective

Not at all effective

Don't know

Percent (n=596)

204 Responsive Management

Figure 162. Landowners Who Currently Charge an Access Fee

Q32. Do you typically charge a fee for access to the water from your property? (Asked of those who

allow others not living in their household to access the water from their property for fishing.)

(Landowners)

99

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Percent (n=1658)

Fishing Access in the United States 205

Figure 163. Landowners’ Opinions on Incentives or Assistance That Would Encourage Them To Allow Fishing Access

Q156. Specifically, what types of incentives or assistance from the state would make you more

likely to allow fishermen to access the water from your property or to access the water more often?

(Landowners)

2

Less than 1%

1

2

4

86

4

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nothing

Lower taxes /other financial

incentives

Assistance withland upkeep

Assume liability forother boaters

Enforcement help

Other

Don't know

Already givesaccess

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=1598)

206 Responsive Management

Figure 164. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of a Program Providing Landowners With Incentives for Allowing Public Access To the Water From Their Properties

Q250. In your opinion, how effective do you think this would be at improving fishing access from private lands: a program providing landowner

compensation or incentives for opening access to the water on their land to the public for fishing?

(Anglers)

35

36

21

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very effective

Somewhateffective

Not at all effective

Don't know

Percent (n=530)

Fishing Access in the United States 207

Figure 165. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of a Collaborative Program Providing Landowners With Incentives for Allowing Public Access To the Water From Their Properties

29

50

9

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very effective

Somewhateffective

Not at all effective

Don't know

Percent (n=316)

Q17. How effective do you think a collaborative program (or additional programs) between landowners and your

agency -- in which your agency would provide landowners with financial assistance or compensation for allowing

public access to the water from their property for fishing -- would be at increasing access to the water from private

lands?(Professionals)

208 Responsive Management

Figure 166. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of a Collaborative Program Providing Landowners With Non-Financial Incentives for Allowing Public Access To the Water From Their Properties

9

50

27

13

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very effective

Somewhateffective

Not at all effective

Don't know

Percent (n=313)

Q18. How effective do you think a collaborative program (or additional programs) between landowners and your

agency -- in which your agency would provide landowners with non-financial assistance for allowing public access to

the water from their property for fishing -- would be at increasing access to the water from private lands?

(Professionals)

Fishing Access in the United States 209

All three surveys had questions pertaining to legal liability.

• A slight majority of landowners (51%) said legal liability is a major concern when

considering other people’s requests to access the water from their property (Figure 167).

A sum of 73% (rounding causes the apparent 1 percentage point discrepancy in the sum)

say that legal liability is a concern in making access decisions on their land.

o It is interesting to note that only 1% of landowners indicated being aware of any state

legislation reducing landowner liability for private landowners who allow anglers to

access the water from their property (Figure 168).

• Despite concern expressed about liability, only a quarter of landowners (25%) say that

state legislation reducing landowner liability is or would be (the wording depended on

whether the respondent had indicated in a previous question of being aware of legislation

or not) very or somewhat effective at getting them to allow fishing access (Figure 169).

On the other hand, 70% say that state legislation reducing landowner liability would be

not at all effective.

• A majority of anglers (66%) think that legislation reducing landowner liability would be

very or somewhat effective at improving fishing access from private lands, while 23%

think it would be not at all effective (Figure 170).

• Along these lines, a majority of anglers (64%) agree that legislation reducing landowner

liability would significantly increase the number of landowners who would open their

land to access for fishing (Figure 171). Disagreement is at 25%.

• A majority of professionals (71%) think that legislation that reduces landowner liability

would be effective in getting private landowners to allow anglers to access the water from

their property; 14% think such legislation would not be at all effective (Figure 172).

• In the professionals survey, 41% of professionals think that legal liability is a major

concern of landowners, and in total 91% of professionals think that legal liability is a

major, moderate, or minor concern of landowners (Figure 173). Only 3% think it is not a

concern at all. (Note that rounding on the values shown on the graphs causes an apparent

1 percentage point discrepancy in the sum.)

210 Responsive Management

Figure 167. Landowners’ Concerns About Legal Liability When Considering Whether To Allow Access

Q158. Overall, how much of a concern is legal liability for you when considering other people's

requests to access the water from your property for fishing?

(Landowners)

3

24

8

13

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

A major concern

A moderateconcern

A minor concern

Not a concern atall

Don't know

Percent (n=1223)

73%

Fishing Access in the United States 211

Figure 168. Landowners’ Awareness of State Legislation Reducing Landowner Liability

Q159. Are you aware of any state legislation reducing landowner liability for private landowners who allow fishermen to access the water from their

property?(Landowners)

3

96

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=1223)

212 Responsive Management

Figure 169. Landowners’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing Landowner Liability at Encouraging Landowners To Allow Fishing Access

Q162. How effective (is / would) state legislation reducing landowner liability (be) at getting you to

allow fishermen to access the water from your property or to allow access to fishermen more

often?(Landowners)

6

70

17

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very effective

Somewhateffective

Not at all effective

Don't know

Percent (n=1223)

Fishing Access in the United States 213

Figure 170. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing Landowner Liability at Encouraging Landowners To Allow Fishing Access

Q251. In your opinion, how effective do you think this would be at improving fishing access from private lands: legislation reducing landowner

liability?(Anglers)

33

33

23

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very effective

Somewhateffective

Not at all effective

Don't know

Percent (n=521)

214 Responsive Management

Figure 171. Anglers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing Landowner Liability at Increasing the Private Lands Open To Public Fishing Access

Q252. Do you agree or disagree that legislation reducing landowner liability would significantly increase the number of landowners who open

access to the water from their land to the public for fishing?(Anglers)

39

25

4

11

14

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nordisagree

Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=551)

Fishing Access in the United States 215

Figure 172. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Legislation Reducing Landowner Liability at Encouraging Landowners To Allow Fishing Access

Q16. How effective do you think legislation that reduces landowner liability is at getting private

landowners to allow anglers to access the water from their property?

(Professionals)

15

56

14

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very effective

Somewhateffective

Not at all effective

Don't know

Percent (n=398)

216 Responsive Management

Figure 173. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Amount of Concern That Legal Liability Is for Landowners

7

3

18

32

41

0 20 40 60 80 100

A major concern

A moderateconcern

A minor concern

Not at all aconcern

Don't know

Percent (n=397)

Q15. Overall, how much of a concern do you think legal liability is for landowners when considering requests from anglers to access the water from their property for fishing?

(Professionals)

91%

Fishing Access in the United States 217

Just over a quarter of landowners (27%) have a “private” or “no trespassing” sign or a similar

sign posted at the water access area (Figure 174).

Figure 174. Posting of Landowners’ Properties

Q57. Regardless of whether you allow others to access the water from your property, do you have "private," "no trespassing," or other similar signs

posted at the water access area(s)?(Landowners)

1

72

27

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

218 Responsive Management

Landowners’ Interactions With Anglers and Other Outdoor Recreationists In the landowner survey, 11% of landowners indicated that they had experienced a problem

with anglers on their property or accessing water from their property within the past 5 years

(Figure 175). The landowner survey also asked about problems landowners may have had

with people other than anglers in the past 5 years: 15% indicated that they had experienced

a problem with non-anglers (Figure 176). In combining the results, 23% have had a problem

with anglers and/or non-anglers in the past 5 years (the total is not simply the sum of the two

“yes” percentages in the two questions because some answered “yes” to both).

Figure 175. Landowners Who Have Experienced Problems With Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Q58. Regardless of whether you allow others to access the water from your property, have you

experienced any problems with fishermen on your property or accessing the water from your property

in the past 5 years?(Landowners)

89

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Percent (n=2424)

Fishing Access in the United States 219

Figure 176. Landowners Who Have Experienced Problems With Non-Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Q77. Regardless of whether you allow others to access the water from your property, have you

experienced any problems with people other than fishermen on your property or accessing the water

from your property in the past 5 years?(Landowners)

1

84

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

Landowners from whose property a boat can be launched were asked if there have been any

problems or issues related specifically to boat access: 7% indicated that there have been

problems (Figure 177). The most common problems are shallow water/low tides making it

difficult for people to put-in the water, rude and irresponsible behavior of boaters, and

trespassing (Figure 178). Note that two of the top three here involve negative interactions

with angler, and 38% of those who got the follow-up question gave one or both of these two

responses (rude/irresponsible behavior and/or trespassing).

220 Responsive Management

Figure 177. Landowners Who Have Experienced Problems With Boat Access in the Previous 5 Years

Less than 1%

92

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=857)

Q97. Are there any problems or issues related specifically to boat access that you have experienced in the past 5 years

on your property? (Asked of those who have property where a boat can be launched or put into the water from the

access area.)(Landowners)

Fishing Access in the United States 221

Figure 178. Types of Problems Landowners Have Experienced With Boat Access in the Previous 5 Years

10

5

16

20

22

28

0 20 40 60 80 100

Shallow water /low tides

Rude andirresponsible

behavior

Trespassing

Access-relatedissues

Poor waterquality

Other

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=66)

Q98. What are they? (Asked of those who have property from which a boat can be launched and who responded that there are problems or issues related specifically to

boat access that they have experienced in the past 5 years on their property.)

(Landowners)

38% gave one (or both) of these answers

222 Responsive Management

The landowner survey asked 14 questions about possible problems that landowners may have

had with anglers in the past 5 years, shown in Table 12. For each problem, landowners rated

it as being a major problem, a moderate problem, a minor problem, or not a problem at all.

Note that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent.

• Four problems stand out in the top tier, each with 40% or more saying it has been a major

or moderate problem with anglers in the past 5 years: trespassing/use without

permission (51%), loss of privacy (51%), pollution/litter (47%), and poor stewardship/

care of the land/water (40%) (Figure 180).

• A large middle tier exists, all from 22% to 34%, many pertaining to anglers’ behavior

(e.g., verbal disagreements with trespassers, unsafe behavior, vandalism, rowdiness).

• Two items pertaining to liability were asked that explored other recreationists’ injuries,

both at the bottom of the ranking: a trespasser (i.e., angler there without permission)

being injured (13%) and an angler with permission being hurt or injured while on the

property or water (7%).

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say major problem and the

percentages who say not a problem, are shown in Figures 179 through 181.

Table 12. Possible Problems Landowners May Have Had With Anglers in the Previous 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey

Potential Problems Landowners May Have Had With Anglers (ranked by the percentage saying major or moderate problem)

Percent Who Said the Problem Has Been Major or

Moderate Q61. Trespassing and/or use without permission 51 Q69. Loss of privacy 51 Q66. Pollution or litter 47 Q67. Poor stewardship or care for the land or water 40 Q72. Verbal disagreements with trespassers 34 Q62. Unsafe behavior 32 Q65. Vandalism 29 Q63. Rowdy or disruptive behavior 25 Q64. Irresponsible alcohol use 24 Q68. Too many people or crowding 24 Q70. Fishermen getting out of the water or off their boat onto your property without

permission 22

Q71. Verbal disagreements with fishermen fishing with permission 14 Q74. A trespasser being hurt while on the property or water 13 Q73. A fisherman with permission being hurt while on the property or water 7

Fishing Access in the United States 223

Figure 179. Major Problems Landowners Have Had With Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who rated each of the following as being a major problem for the respondent with fishermen

on their property or accessing the water from their property in the past 5 years.

(Landowners)

11

12

14

27

25

24

22

17

17

9

8

6

5

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q66. Pollution or litter

Q61. Trespassing and/or use without permission

Q69. Loss of privacy

Q67. Poor stewardship or care for the land orwater

Q63. Rowdy or disruptive behavior

Q72. Verbal disagreements with trespassers

Q68. Too many people or crowding

Q62. Unsafe behavior

Q70. Fishermen getting out of the water or offtheir boat onto your property without permission

Q64. Irresponsible alcohol use

Q65. Vandalism

Q74. A trespasser being hurt while on theproperty or water

Q71. Verbal disagreements with fishermen withpermission

Q73. A fisherman with permission being hurtwhile on the property or water

Percent

224 Responsive Management

Figure 180. Major or Moderate Problems Landowners Have Had With Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who rated each of the following as being a major or moderate problem for the respondent with fishermen on their property or accessing the water

from their property in the past 5 years.(Landowners)

24

25

29

51

51

47

40

34

32

24

22

14

13

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q61. Trespassing and/or use without permission

Q69. Loss of privacy

Q66. Pollution or litter

Q67. Poor stewardship or care for the land orwater

Q72. Verbal disagreements with trespassers

Q62. Unsafe behavior

Q65. Vandalism

Q63. Rowdy or disruptive behavior

Q64. Irresponsible alcohol use

Q68. Too many people or crowding

Q70. Fishermen getting out of the water or offtheir boat onto your property without permission

Q71. Verbal disagreements with fishermen withpermission

Q74. A trespasser being hurt while on theproperty or water

Q73. A fisherman with permission being hurtwhile on the property or water

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 225

Figure 181. Things That Landowners Say Have Not Been Problems With Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who rated each of the following as being not at all a problem for the respondent with

fishermen on their property or accessing the water from their property in the past 5 years.

(Landowners)

51

51

56

87

81

75

65

61

59

45

42

31

29

19

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q73. A fisherman with permission being hurtwhile on the property or water

Q74. A trespasser being hurt while on theproperty or water

Q71. Verbal disagreements with fishermen withpermission

Q68. Too many people or crowding

Q70. Fishermen getting out of the water or offtheir boat onto your property without permission

Q64. Irresponsible alcohol use

Q62. Unsafe behavior

Q63. Rowdy or disruptive behavior

Q65. Vandalism

Q72. Verbal disagreements with trespassers

Q67. Poor stewardship or care for the land orwater

Q69. Loss of privacy

Q66. Pollution or litter

Q61. Trespassing and/or use without permission

Percent

226 Responsive Management

The landowner survey asked about the same 14 items that were discussed above, except the

survey asked specifically about people other than fishermen, as shown in Table 13. Note that

the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent.

• Trespassing/use without permission by people other than fishermen (48%) and

pollution/litter by people other than fishermen (43%) are the top in the ranking by major

or moderate problem (Figure 183).

• Four items make up a middle tier in the ranking by major or moderate problem: poor

stewardship/care of the land/water (37%), unsafe behavior by people other than

fishermen (36%), rowdy/disruptive behavior by people other than fishermen (36%), and

loss of privacy (also 36%).

• As with the series of questions about angler problems, the questions about people getting

hurt/injured are at the bottom of the ranking.

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say major problem and the

percentages who say not a problem, are shown in Figures 182 through 184.

Table 13. Possible Problems Landowners May Have Had With People Other Than Anglers in the Past 5 Years That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey

Potential Problems Landowners May Have Had With Non-Anglers (ranked by the percentage saying major or moderate problem)

Percent Who Said the Problem Has Been Major or

Moderate Q80. Trespassing and/or use without permission 48 Q85. Pollution or litter 43 Q86. Poor stewardship or care for the land or water 37 Q81. Unsafe behavior 36 Q82. Rowdy or disruptive behavior 36 Q88. Loss of privacy 36 Q91. Verbal disagreements with trespassers other than fishermen 30 Q84. Vandalism 26 Q90. Verbal disagreements with people other than fishermen who are there with

permission 22

Q87. Too many people or crowding 20 Q83. Irresponsible alcohol use 19 Q89. People other than fishermen getting out of the water or off their boat onto your

property without permission 17

Q93. A trespasser other than a fisherman being hurt while on the property or water 9 Q92. A person other than a fisherman there with permission being hurt while on the

property or water 6

Fishing Access in the United States 227

Figure 182. Major Problems Landowners Have Had With Non-Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who rated each of the following as being a major problem for the respondent with people

other than fishermen on their property or accessing the water from their property in the past 5 years.

(Landowners)

12

12

14

24

23

22

21

19

19

10

6

5

5

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q85. Pollution or littering by people other thanfishermen

Q80. Trespassing or use without permission bypeople other than fishermen

Q86. Poor stewardship or care for the land orwater by people other than fishermen

Q81. Unsafe behavior by people other thanfishermen

Q82. Rowdy or disruptive behavior by peopleother than fishermen

Q88. Loss of privacy from people other thanfishermen

Q91. Verbal disagreements with trespassersother than fishermen

Q84. Vandalism by people other than fishermen

Q90. Verbal disagreements with a person otherthan a fisherman with permission

Q83. Irresponsible alcohol use by people otherthan fishermen

Q93. A trespasser other than a fisherman beinghurt while on the property or water

Q87. Too many people or crowding by peopleother than fishermen

Q89. People other than fishermen getting out ofthe water or off their boat onto your property

without permissionQ92. A person other than fishermen with

permission being hurt while on the property orwater

Percent

228 Responsive Management

Figure 183. Major or Moderate Problems Landowners Have Had With Non-Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who rated each of the following as being a major or moderate problem for the respondent with

people other than fishermen on their property or accessing the water from their property in the past

5 years.(Landowners)

22

26

30

48

43

37

36

36

36

20

19

17

9

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q80. Trespassing or use without permission bypeople other than fishermen

Q85. Pollution or littering by people other thanfishermen

Q86. Poor stewardship or care for the land orwater by people other than fishermen

Q81. Unsafe behavior by people other thanfishermen

Q82. Rowdy or disruptive behavior by peopleother than fishermen

Q88. Loss of privacy from people other thanfishermen

Q91. Verbal disagreements with trespassersother than fishermen

Q84. Vandalism by people other than fishermen

Q90. Verbal disagreements with a person otherthan a fisherman with permission

Q87. Too many people or crowding by peopleother than fishermen

Q83. Irresponsible alcohol use by people otherthan fishermen

Q89. People other than fishermen getting out ofthe water or off their boat onto your property

without permissionQ93. A trespasser other than a fisherman being

hurt while on the property or waterQ92. A person other than fishermen with

permission being hurt while on the property orwater

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 229

Figure 184. Things That Landowners Say Have Not Been Problems With Non-Anglers in the Previous 5 Years

Percent who rated each of the following as being not at all a problem for the respondent with people other than fishermen on their property or accessing

the water from their property in the past 5 years.(Landowners)

47

49

50

87

83

68

67

64

63

47

46

46

35

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q92. A person other than fishermen withpermission being hurt while on the property or

waterQ93. A trespasser other than a fisherman being

hurt while on the property or water

Q87. Too many people or crowding by peopleother than fishermen

Q89. People other than fishermen getting out ofthe water or off their boat onto your property

without permissionQ83. Irresponsible alcohol use by people other

than fishermen

Q90. Verbal disagreements with a person otherthan a fisherman with permission

Q86. Poor stewardship or care for the land orwater by people other than fishermen

Q84. Vandalism by people other than fishermen

Q88. Loss of privacy from people other thanfishermen

Q91. Verbal disagreements with trespassersother than fishermen

Q81. Unsafe behavior by people other thanfishermen

Q82. Rowdy or disruptive behavior by peopleother than fishermen

Q85. Pollution or littering by people other thanfishermen

Q80. Trespassing or use without permission bypeople other than fishermen

Percent

230 Responsive Management

When they have accessed water from private land owned by someone they did not know,

anglers most commonly obtained permission through a private business or through a club

that leases the land (Figure 185). Other common ways include following signs indicating

that access is open to the public, knocking on the landowner’s door, or calling the landowner

in advance.

Figure 185. How Anglers Obtained Permission To Access Fishing Areas on Private Land

1

2

3

29

22

12

10

9

7

2

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angler went through a private business

Member of a club that has a lease or anagreement with the landowner

Followed signs indicating access areawas open to the public

Did not ask permission

Knocked on landowner's door

Called landowner in advance

Rented property with access

Family or friend connections

Just asked

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=245)

Q82. In the past 5 years, when you have accessed (body of water) from private land owned by someone you did not know prior to accessing the water from their land, how did you get permission? (Asked of those who have accessed water from private land owned by someone else they did not know prior

to accessing the water from the land.)(Anglers)

Fishing Access in the United States 231

STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE ACCESS The angler survey asked anglers if they are aware of any programs or resources designed to

assist anglers with accessing water for fishing: 9% said that they are aware of a program or resource (Figure 186). In follow-up, they were asked to name the program or resource; most commonly they named state fish and wildlife/natural resource departments (36%), conservation associations/sportsmen’s clubs (15%), other governmental agencies (13%), Internet resources (12%), and publications for anglers (8%) (Figure 187). • Each respondent was asked to rate the effectiveness of the program that he/she named in

the previous question. All of the major groupings of programs have positive ratings: from 71% to 86% gave an excellent or good response when crosstabulated by major program groupings, while from 9% to 21% gave a fair or poor rating (Figure 188). The best ratings are for conservation associations/sportsmen’s clubs (86% in the excellent/good category, 9% in the fair/poor category) and state fish and wildlife/natural resource departments (84% excellent/good, 13% fair/poor). o Follow-up questions asked respondents to indicate why they had given the rating that

they gave. Figures 189 through 203 show the reasons for giving excellent, good, or fair/poor ratings.

Figure 186. Anglers’ Awareness of Programs/Resources To Assist Anglers With Access

Q209. This question is about fishing access in general (i.e., not regarding a specific type of fishing or body of water). Are you aware of any programs

or resources designed to assist anglers with accessing water for fishing?

(Anglers)

9

90

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

232 Responsive Management

Figure 187. Types of Programs/Resources of Which Anglers Are Aware

13

18

36

15

13

12

8

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

State fish and wildlife departments /departments of natural resources

Conservation associations /sportsmen's clubs

Other government programs /departments

Internet resources

Publications for anglers

Landowners / guides

Other miscellaneous

Don't know / can't remember

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=367)

Q211-Q216. Percent who are aware of at least one of the following programs or resources designed to assist anglers

with accessing water for fishing. (Asked of those who are aware of at least one program or resource designed to assist

anglers with accessing water for fishing.)

Fishing Access in the United States 233

Figure 188. Ratings of Types of Programs/Resources of Which Anglers Are Aware

Q218-222. How would you rate the following programs or resources at making access to water

for fishing easier?(Anglers)

41

27

29

47

48

50

10

21

4

7

0

21

24

34

49

59

43

18

9

11

9

2

0

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

State fish and wildlife departments /departments of natural resources

Conservation associations /sportsmen's clubs

Other government programs /departments

Internet resources

Publications for anglers

Landowners / guides

Percent

ExcellentGoodFairPoor

"Don't know" responses not shown

234 Responsive Management

Figure 189. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent: Conservation Associations and Sportsmen’s Clubs

8

10

13

15

18

18

8

10

21

0 20 40 60 80 100

Attempts to make fishing areasavailable to the public

Plenty of updated information availablethrough newsletters and/or website

Easy access (e.g., boat ramps present,close to major roads, work with

landowners)

Water and area is well maintained /improve and cleanup fishing areas

Provides opportunities for the youth

Have had good results / goodexperience

Provides opportunities for disabledanglers

Other

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=39)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (conservation association/sportsmen's club)* excellent at making access

easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource excellent at making access easier.)

(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 235

Figure 190. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: Conservation Associations and Sportsmen’s Clubs

39

6

6

11

11

28

0 20 40 60 80 100

Program is just good / haven't usedit much / not that familiar with it

Program is improving / growing

Provides good information / club iswell informed

Provides more areas for fishing

Have had successful trips

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=18)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (conservation association/sportsmen's club)* good at making access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the program

or resource good at making access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

236 Responsive Management

Figure 191. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor: Conservation Associations and Sportsmen’s Clubs

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Limits access

Land was already bought andposted when the program started /

started too late

Closed the dam

Only interested in money

Don't do enough work in the area

Need permission to access

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=6)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (conservation association/sportsmen's club)* fair or poor at making access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the

program or resource fair or poor at making access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 237

Figure 192. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent: State Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources Departments

7

10

15

17

27

57

0 20 40 60 80 100

Plenty of accurate, updated informationavailable through handouts and website

(e.g., detailed maps, information onregulations)

Well managed

Helpful / do a good job

Easy access (e.g., areas locatedlocally, docks present, work with

landowners)

Attempts to make fishing areasavailable to the public / acquire

additional land

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=60)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (state fish and wildlife department/natural resource department)* excellent at making

access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource excellent at making access

easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

238 Responsive Management

Figure 193. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: State Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources Departments

4

7

13

14

20

39

2

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Plenty of accurate, updated informationavailable through publications and

website (e.g., detailed maps,information on regulations)

Helpful / do a good job

Well managed

Easy access (e.g., areas locatedlocally, disabled accessible, plenty of

places to access)

Good information but could be better,easier to use, or more updated

Need more funding

Need more disabled parking

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=56)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (state fish and wildlife department/natural resource department)* good at making access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who

rated the program or resource good at making access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 239

Figure 194. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor: State Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources Departments

6

6

11

11

28

39

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Needs better, easier to understand,or updated information / maps

Not managed well / needs morehelp

Needs easily accessible information/ maps

Needs more funding / too expensivefor public

Needs more publicity

Other

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=18)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (state fish and wildlife department/natural resource department)* fair or poor at making access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource fair or poor at

making access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

240 Responsive Management

Figure 195. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent: Internet Resources

19

6

13

13

50

0 20 40 60 80 100

Plenty of accurate, updatedinformation (e.g., maps, tide times,

weather, access sites)

Easy to access information

Good network system betweenanglers

Well publicized

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=16)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (Internet resource)* excellent at making access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or

resource excellent at making access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 241

Figure 196. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: Internet Resources

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (Internet resource)* good at making access easier? (Graph

shows responses among those who rated the program or resource good at making access

easier.)(Anglers)

23

9

9

9

18

41

0 20 40 60 80 100

Plenty of accurate, updatedinformation (e.g., maps, access

sites, tips from guides)

Just a good website

Easy to access information

Quick way to find information

Easy to understand information /clear and concise

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=22)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

242 Responsive Management

Figure 197. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor: Internet Resources

17

33

50

50

0 20 40 60 80 100

Information isnot updated

Information isconfusing / not

clear

Hard tonavigate the

site

Needs moregraphics

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=6)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (Internet resource)* fair or poor at making access easier?

(Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource fair or poor at making

access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 243

Figure 198. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent: Publications for Anglers

14

14

14

14

57

0 20 40 60 80 100

Detailed, precise, and accurateinformation (e.g., good maps, sites

for specific fish species)

Easy to understand information

Good articles

Just a good publication

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=7)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (publication for anglers)* excellent at making access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource

excellent at making access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

244 Responsive Management

Figure 199. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: Publications for Anglers

21

7

7

7

57

0 20 40 60 80 100

Detailed, precise, and accurateinformation (e.g., good maps, sites

for specific fish species, waterdepth, weather)

Encourage participation in fishing

Just a good publication

Other

Don't know / no reason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=14)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (publication for anglers)* good at making access easier? (Graph shows

responses among those who rated the program or resource good at making access easier.)

(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 245

Figure 200. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor: Publications for Anglers

20

20

20

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not enoughinformation (e.g.,

no regulationslisted, no

directions)

Get moreinformation on

the Internet

Not publishedoften enough

Don't know / noreason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=5)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (publication for anglers)* fair or poor at making access easier? (Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource

fair or poor at making access easier.)(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

246 Responsive Management

Figure 201. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Excellent: Other Government Programs/Departments

13

8

13

13

21

21

25

8

8

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Plenty of information (e.g., accesssites, how to navigate boat through

waters, sites for specific fish species)

Well funded / not expensive / freeaccess

Easy access for the public

Good maintenance of site (e.g., boatramps well maintained, good ramps for

disabled access)

Provides training for the novice angler

Well publicized

Well marked / signs are visible / knowboundaries

Gets the public involved / getslandowners to participate

Provides equipment / rentals

Other

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=24)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (other government program/department)* excellent at making access easier?

(Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource excellent at making access easier.)

(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 247

Figure 202. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Good: Other Government Programs/Departments

14

7

7

7

14

14

36

0 20 40 60 80 100

Access is alwaysavailable / good

locations

Good informationavailable

Should begrowing faster /just catching up

Just good

Ramps and piersneed

improvement

Other

Don't know / noreason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=14)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (other government program/department)* good at making access easier? (Graph

shows responses among those who rated the program or resource good at making access easier.)

(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

248 Responsive Management

Figure 203. Anglers’ Perceptions of What Makes Programs/Resources Fair or Poor: Other Government Programs/Departments

50

10

20

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Don't updateinformation often

enough / notenough fishing

information

Politics get in theway

Not publicizedenough

Don't know / noreason

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=10)

Q224-228. In your opinion what makes (other government program/department)* fair or poor at making access easier?

(Graph shows responses among those who rated the program or resource fair or poor at making access easier.)

(Anglers)

* The interviewer used the name of the actual program previously mentioned in the survey by the respondent.

Fishing Access in the United States 249

The landowner survey asked landowners about their awareness of any programs or resources

to assist landowners who allow public access to the water from their property: only 3%

indicated being aware of any programs/resources (Figure 204).

• The most common types of programs or resources about which landowners are aware are

private conservation group programs/resources (27% of those who are aware of

programs/resources) or governmental department programs/resources (21%)

(Figure 205).

• Participation in the programs named overall is 32% among those aware of any program

(1% among landowners overall) (Figure 206). Another graph shows the breakdown by

type of program (Figure 207).

• Ratings of the programs/resources that landowners named are shown in Figure 208, with

generally positive results. The rating was at giving landowners the assistance they need

to make allowing public access to the water from their property easy.

• Reasons for not rating the program/resource higher at making access easy are shown in

Figure 209.

• Ratings of the programs/resources at giving landowners the assistance they need to make

allowing public access to the water from their property worthwhile are shown in

Figure 210.

• Reasons for not rating the program/resource higher at making access worthwhile are

shown in Figure 211.

• Things that might make the program/resource more effective at convincing the landowner

to allow (or assisting the landowner at allowing) public access to the water from their

property are shown in Figure 212.

• As discussed previously, only 1% of landowners indicated being aware of any state

legislation reducing landowner liability for private landowners who allow anglers to

access the water from their property (see Figure 168 in the section of this report titled

“Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access”).

250 Responsive Management

Figure 204. Landowners’ Awareness of Programs/Resources To Assist Landowners With Allowing Access

Q113. Are you aware of any programs or resources to assist landowners who allow public access to

the water from their property?(Landowners)

1

96

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

Fishing Access in the United States 251

Figure 205. Types of Programs/Resources of Which Landowners Are Aware

Q117/Q125. What is the program or resource? (Asked of those who were aware of any program or

resource.)(Landowners)

30

13

1

9

21

27

0 20 40 60 80 100

Privateconservation

group program /resource

Governmentaldepartmentprogram /resource

Local city groupprogram /resource

General children'sprogram /resource

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=73)

252 Responsive Management

Figure 206. Participation in Programs/Resources of Which Landowners Are Aware

Q118/Q126. Do you currently participate in (the program or resource named in Q117 or Q125)?

(Asked of those who were aware of any program or resource.)

(Landowners)

32

67

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=73)

Fishing Access in the United States 253

Figure 207. Participation in Programs/Resources of Which Landowners Are Aware by Type of Program

Q118/Q126. Do you currently participate in (the program or resource named in Q117 or Q125)?

(Asked of those who were aware of any program or resource.)

(Landowners)

46

50

40

60

67

33

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Percent (n=73)

Private conservation groupprogram / resourceGovernmental departmentprogram / resourceLocal city group program /resource

254 Responsive Management

Figure 208. Ratings of Types of Programs/Resources at Making Access Easy of Which Landowners Are Aware by Type of Program

28

0

44

22

6

29

12

14

26

19

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent (n=73)

Private conservation groupprogram / resourceGovernmental departmentprogram / resource

Q119/Q127. How do you rate (the program or resource named in Q117 or Q125) at giving landowners the assistance they

need to make allowing public access to the water from their property easy? (Asked of those who were aware of any

program or resource.)(Landowners)

Fishing Access in the United States 255

Figure 209. Reasons Landowners Did Not Rate Programs/Resources Higher at Making Access Easy

50

0

25

25

0

0

29

19

14

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Poor managementof program

Never used it

Always room forimprovement

Not big enough

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=25)

Private conservation groupprogram / resourceGovernmental departmentprogram / resource

Q120/Q128. Why did you not rate (the program or resource named in Q117 or Q125) higher at giving landowners the

assistance they need to make allowing public access to the water from their property easy? (Among those who gave

any rating other than excellent.)(Landowners)

256 Responsive Management

Figure 210. Ratings of Types of Programs/Resources at Making Access Worthwhile of Which Landowners Are Aware by Type of Program

0

22

35

0

43

26

12

21

12

29

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't know

Percent (n=73)

Private conservation groupprogram / resourceGovernmental departmentprogram / resource

Q121/Q129. How do you rate (the program or resource named in Q117 or Q125) at giving landowners the assistance they need to make allowing public access to the water from their property worthwhile? (Asked of those who were aware

of any program or resource.)(Landowners)

Fishing Access in the United States 257

Figure 211. Reasons Landowners Did Not Rate Programs/Resources Higher at Making Access Worthwhile

33

0

33

0

33

0

24

14

0

24

14

24

0 20 40 60 80 100

Generalunhappiness with

program

Not big enough

Never used theprogram

Enough is beingdone

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=26)

Private conservation groupprogram / resourceGovernmental departmentprogram / resource

Q122/Q130. Why did you not rate (the program or resource named in Q117 or Q125) higher at giving landowners the

assistance they need to make allowing public access to the water from their property worthwhile? (Among those who

gave any rating other than excellent.)(Landowners)

258 Responsive Management

Figure 212. Landowners’ Perceptions of Things That Would Make Programs/Resources More Effective

Q123/Q131. What would make (the program or resource named in Q117 or Q125) more effective at convincing or assisting you to allow public access to the water from your property? (Asked of those

who were aware of any program or resource.)(Landowners)

9

17

35

9

4

0

11

11

8

0

56

8

0

8

0

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nothing

Larger payments and faster approvalprocess

Already a part of program

Better communication with participantsand more advertising

Cannot participate due to homeowner'sassociation

Lower fees for other programs

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=73)

Private conservation groupprogram / resourceGovernmental departmentprogram / resource

Fishing Access in the United States 259

The angler survey asked 16 questions about the effectiveness of potential efforts that could be undertaken to improve access, as shown in Table 14. Three tiers of efforts emerge when ranked by the percentage saying the effort would be very effective at making access easier. Note that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent. • The top tier consists of 5 of the 16 items, all with more than 50% saying it would be very

effective at making access easier, most pertaining to information dissemination (Figure 213). o Having up-to-date information on a website showing public access areas and access

from private lands open to the public (60%). o Having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (60%). o Having up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that

have been closed (57%). o Having signs that clearly mark access to fishing areas from public and private lands

(55%). o State agencies buying more land for fishing access and boat access areas (52%).

• As the graph shows, a large middle tier exists, consisting of 9 of the 16 items, ranging from 47% down to 37%. The bottom tier consists of 2 items, both with less than 20% saying they would be very effective.

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say either very or somewhat effective and the percentages who say not effective, are shown in Figures 213 through 215.

Table 14. Potential Efforts That Could Be Undertaken Whose Effectiveness Was Asked About in the Angler Survey

Effort (ranked by the percentage saying very effective)

Percent Who Said the Effort Would Be Very Effective

Q195. Having up-to-date information on a website showing public access areas and access from private lands open to the public 60

Q198. Having maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website 60 Q196. Having up-to-date info. on recreational fishing/access areas that have been closed 57 Q194. Having signs that clearly mark access to fishing areas from public/private lands 55 Q203. State agencies buying more land for fishing access and boat access areas 52 Q197. Having paper maps of fishing access and boat access areas 47 Q205. Having state programs or legislation that reduces landowner liability for private

landowners who allow the public to access the water from their land for fishing 46

Q207. State agencies providing anglers with more info. on water access laws/regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land 43

Q199. Being able to find access areas using a GPS 40 Q206. Having land cooperatives through which anglers would share access areas and

responsibility for maintaining the areas 39

260 Responsive Management

Effort (ranked by the percentage saying very effective)

Percent Who Said the Effort Would Be Very Effective

Q193. Having a list of landowners with telephone numbers you could call to ask to access water for fishing from their land 38

Q204. Having easements/rights-of-way on private land to access water for fishing 38 Q208. State agencies providing landowners with more information on water access laws

and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

38

Q200. Having more boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 37 Q201. Being able to pay a user fee to access waters from restricted public land for fishing 19 Q202. Being able to pay a user fee to access waters from private land for fishing 17

Figure 213. Efforts That Anglers Think Would Be Very Effective at Making Fishing Access Easier

Percent who think the following efforts would be very effective for making it easier for them to

access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Anglers)

17

19

37

38

38

38

39

47

52

55

57

60

60

46

43

40

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q195. Up-to-date info. on website showing public access areas /access from private lands

Q198. Maps of fishing / boat access areas on website

Q196. Up-to-date info on recreational fishing / access areas thathave been closed

Q194. Signs that clearly mark access to fishing areas from public /private lands

Q203. State agencies buying land for fishing / boat access

Q197. Paper maps of fishing / boat access

Q205. State programs / legislation that reduces landowner liabilityfor landowners who allow access for fishing

Q207. State agencies providing anglers info on access laws / regsfor fishing in public waters on, adjacent to, or through private land

Q199. Being able to find access areas using a GPS

Q206. Land cooperatives through which anglers share access andresponsibility for maintenance

Q193. List of landowners with phone numbers to ask for access forfishing

Q204. Easements / rights-of-way on private land for fishing access

Q208. State agencies providing landowners with info on accesslaws / regs for fishing in public waters on, adjacent to, or through

private land

Q200. Having more boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q201. Being able to pay user fee to access waters from restrictedpublic land for fishing

Q202. Being able to pay user fee to access waters from privateland for fishing

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 261

Figure 214. Efforts That Anglers Think Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at Making Fishing Access Easier

Percent who think the following efforts would be very or somewhat effective for making it easier for

them to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.(Anglers)

49

49

61

64

64

66

70

75

77

79

79

81

81

73

72

72

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q195. Having up-to-date information on a website showingpublic access areas and access from private lands open to the

public

Q198. Having maps of fishing access and boat access areas ona website

Q194. Having signs that clearly mark access to fishing areasfrom public and private lands

Q196. Having up-to-date information on recreational fishingareas and access areas that have been closed

Q197. Having paper maps of fishing access and boat accessareas

Q203. State agencies buying more land for fishing access andboat access areas

Q207. State agencies providing anglers with more information onwater access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters

that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q206. Having land cooperatives through which anglers wouldshare access areas and responsibility for maintaining the areas

Q208. State agencies providing landowners with moreinformation on water access laws and regulations for fishing in

public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private landQ205. Having state programs or legislation that reduces

landowner liability for private landowners who allow the public toaccess the water from their land for fishing

Q199. Being able to find access areas using a GPS

Q200. Having more boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q204. Easements / rights-of-way on private land for fishingaccess

Q193. Having a list of landowners with telephone numbers youcould call to ask to access water for fishing from their land

Q201. Being able to pay a user fee to access waters fromrestricted public land for fishing

Q202. Being able to pay a user fee to access waters fromprivate land for fishing

Percent

262 Responsive Management

Figure 215. Efforts That Anglers Think Would Not Be Effective at Making Fishing Access Easier

Percent who think the following efforts would not be effective at all for making it easier for them to access freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

(Anglers)

17

23

23

24

47

46

36

32

31

31

22

21

21

19

18

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q202. Being able to pay a user fee to access waters fromprivate land for fishing

Q201. Being able to pay a user fee to access waters fromrestricted public land for fishing

Q193. Having a list of landowners with telephone numbers youcould call to ask to access water for fishing from their land

Q200. Having more boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites

Q199. Being able to find access areas using a GPS

Q204. Easements / rights-of-way on private land for fishingaccess

Q205. Having state programs or legislation that reduceslandowner liability for private landowners who allow the public to

access the water from their land for fishing

Q206. Having land cooperatives through which anglers wouldshare access areas and responsibility for maintaining the areas

Q207. State agencies providing anglers with more informationon water access laws and regulations for fishing in publicwaters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q208. State agencies providing landowners with moreinformation on water access laws and regulations for fishing in

public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private

Q197. Having paper maps of fishing access and boat accessareas

Q203. State agencies buying more land for fishing access andboat access areas

Q194. Having signs that clearly mark access to fishing areasfrom public and private lands

Q196. Having up-to-date information on recreational fishingareas and access areas that have been closed

Q195. Having up-to-date information on a website showingpublic access areas and access from private lands open to the

public

Q198. Having maps of fishing access and boat access areas ona website

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 263

The landowner survey asked 11 questions about programs or efforts that might help

landowners with problems they may have had with people accessing the water from their

property, as shown in Table 15. For each item, the survey asked landowners if they thought

it would be very effective, somewhat effective, or not at all effective at getting them to allow

public access to the water from their property (or allow more access if they already allow

some access). Note that the order of the questions was randomized for each respondent.

• One item is markedly above the others in the percentage of landowners who say the

program/effort would be very or somewhat effective at encouraging them to allow access

to water from their property: a state agency providing fishermen with more information

on water access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to,

or run through private land (30%) (Figure 217). All other items are below 20% in the

percentage thinking that the program/effort would be very or somewhat effective.

• In a middle tier (from 11% to 19% thinking it would be very or somewhat effective) are:

o A state agency providing you (the landowner) with more information on water access

laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run

through private land (19%).

o Having land cooperatives through which fishermen would have access to the water

from private property but would have responsibility for maintaining the access areas

they use (17%).

o Having your property listed on a map showing private lands from which public access

to the water for fishing is allowed with the status listed as “open” or “ask for

permission” (12%).

o Having a regularly updated information source on which you can indicate and change

the “open” or “closed” status of the water access area on your property at any time

(11%).

o Having a state agency provide signs indicating how, where, and when the public is

allowed to access the water from your property for fishing (11%).

o Financial compensation or incentives from the state for allowing public access to the

water from your property (11%).

• The remaining four items are all at well less than 10%.

264 Responsive Management

• The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say either very effective and

the percentages who say not effective, are shown in Figures 216 through 218.

Table 15. Possible Programs or Efforts That Would Encourage Landowners To Allow Access To the Water From Their Property That Were Asked About in the Landowner Survey

Effort (ranked by the percentage saying very or somewhat effective)

Percent Who Said the Effort Would

Be Very or Somewhat Effective

Q110. A state agency providing fishermen with more information on water access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

30

Q109. A state agency providing you with more information on water access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

19

Q108. Having land cooperatives through which fishermen would have access to the water from private property but would have responsibility for maintaining the access areas they use

17

Q105. Having your property listed on a map showing private lands from which public access to the water for fishing is allowed with the status listed as "open" or "ask for permission"

12

Q104. Having a regularly updated information source on which you can indicate and change the "open" or "closed" status of the water access area on your property at any time

11

Q107. Having a state agency provide signs indicating how, where, and when the public is allowed to access the water from your property for fishing 11

Q112. Financial compensation or incentives from the state for allowing public access to the water from your property 11

Q102. Having your name and telephone number on a list or in a directory compiled by a state agency for licensed fishermen to contact you directly to ask for permission to access the water from your property for fishing

7

Q103. Having your property listed on a state agency website showing private lands from which public access to the water for fishing is allowed 6

Q106. Having a designated easement or public right-of-way on your property for the public to use to access the water for fishing 6

Q111. Being able to charge a fee for others to access the water from your property 5

Fishing Access in the United States 265

Figure 216. Efforts That Landowners Think Would Be Very Effective at Helping Them With Problems They Have Experienced With People Accessing the Water

Percent who rated each of the following as being very effective at helping with the problems they

have experienced with people accessing the water from their property.

(Landowners)

2

2

3

13

6

5

5

4

4

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q110. A state agency providing fishermen with more info. onwater access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters

that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q108. Having land cooperatives through which fishermenwould have access to the water from private property but wouldhave responsibility for maintaining the access areas they use

Q107. Having a state agency provide signs indicating how,where, and when the public is allowed to access the water from

your property

Q109. A state agency providing you with more info. on wateraccess laws / regulations for fishing in public waters that are

on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q104. Having a regularly updated information source on whichyou can indicate and change the "open" or "closed" status of

the water access on your property at any time

Q105. Having your property listed on map showing privatelands from which public access to water for fishing is allowed

with the status listed as "open" or "ask for permission"

Q112. Financial compensation or incentives from the state forallowing public access to the water from your property

Q102. Having your name / phone number on list or in directorycompiled by state agency for licensed fishermen to contact you

directly to ask for permission to access the water from yourproperty

Q103. Having your property listed on state agency websiteshowing private lands from which public access to water for

fishing is allowed

Q106. Having a designated easement or public right-of-way onyour property for the public to use to access the water

Q111. Being able to charge a fee for others to access thewater from your property

Percent

266 Responsive Management

Figure 217. Efforts That Landowners Think Would Be Very or Somewhat Effective at Helping Them With Problems They Have Experienced With People Accessing the Water

Percent who rated each of the following as being very or somewhat effective at helping with the problems they have experienced with people

accessing the water from their property.(Landowners)

6

7

11

30

19

17

12

11

11

6

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q110. A state agency providing fishermen with more info. onwater access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters

that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q109. A state agency providing you with more info. on wateraccess laws / regulations for fishing in public waters that are

on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q108. Having land cooperatives through which fishermenwould have access to the water from private property but

would have responsibility for maintaining the access areasthey use

Q105. Having your property listed on map showing privatelands from which public access to water for fishing is allowed

with the status listed as "open" or "ask for permission"

Q104. Having a regularly updated information source onwhich you can indicate and change the "open" or "closed"

status of the water access on your property at any time

Q107. Having a state agency provide signs indicating how,where, and when the public is allowed to access the water

from your property

Q112. Financial compensation or incentives from the state forallowing public access to the water from your property

Q102. Having your name / phone number on list or indirectory compiled by state agency for licensed fishermen tocontact you directly to ask for permission to access the water

from your property

Q103. Having your property listed on state agency websiteshowing private lands from which public access to water for

fishing is allowed

Q106. Having a designated easement or public right-of-wayon your property for the public to use to access the water

Q111. Being able to charge a fee for others to access thewater from your property

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 267

Figure 218. Efforts That Landowners Think Would Not Be Effective at Helping Them With Problems They Have Experienced With People Accessing the Water

Percent who rated each of the following as being not at all effective at helping with the problems they have experienced with people accessing the water

from their property.(Landowners)

80

86

86

93

92

92

91

87

86

77

62

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q111. Being able to charge a fee for others to access thewater from your property

Q102. Having your name / phone number on list or indirectory compiled by state agency for licensed fishermen tocontact you directly to ask for permission to access the water

from your property

Q103. Having your property listed on state agency websiteshowing private lands from which public access to water for

fishing is allowed

Q106. Having a designated easement or public right-of-wayon your property for the public to use to access the water

Q107. Having a state agency provide signs indicating how,where, and when the public is allowed to access the water

from your property

Q104. Having a regularly updated information source onwhich you can indicate and change the "open" or "closed"

status of the water access on your property at any time

Q105. Having your property listed on map showing privatelands from which public access to water for fishing is allowed

with the status listed as "open" or "ask for permission"

Q112. Financial compensation or incentives from the state forallowing public access to the water from your property

Q108. Having land cooperatives through which fishermenwould have access to the water from private property but

would have responsibility for maintaining the access areasthey use

Q109. A state agency providing you with more info. on wateraccess laws / regulations for fishing in public waters that are

on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q110. A state agency providing fishermen with more info. onwater access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters

that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Percent

268 Responsive Management

The professionals survey presented a list of 11 efforts in which their agencies may be involved, shown in Table 16. For each one, they were asked to indicate whether their agency’s effort could be improved a lot, a moderate amount, or a little, or whether no improvement is necessary. • Two efforts are at the top of the ranking by percentage saying a lot or a moderate amount

of improvement could be made (Figure 220): o Providing easements or public rights-of-way on private land to access the water for

fishing (62%). o Buying more land for fishing access and boat access areas (58%).

• There are five more efforts in which about half of professionals say their agency could improve a lot or a moderate amount: o Providing landowners with more information on water access laws/regulations for

fishing in public waters on, adjacent to, or that run through private land (52%). o Providing anglers with more information on water access laws and regulations for

fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land (50%). o Providing more boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites (50%). o Providing maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (not necessarily

the agency website) (48%). o Providing up-to-date information on a website showing public fishing access and/or

boat access areas (47%). • The complete set of graphs, including the percentages who say a lot and the percentages

who say the effort needs no improvement, are shown in Figures 219 through 221. Table 16. Agency Efforts That Professionals Rated for Level of Needed Improvement That Were Asked About in the Professionals Survey

Effort (ranked by the percentage saying a lot or a moderate amount)

Percent Who Said That the Agency Could Improve a

Lot or a Moderate Amount

Q11i. Providing easements/rights-of-way on private land to access the water for fishing 62 Q11h. Buying more land for fishing access and boat access areas 58 Q11k. Providing landowners w/ more info. on water access laws/regulations for fishing in

public waters on, adjacent to, or that run through private land 52

Q11f. Providing more boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 50 Q11j. Providing anglers with more information on water access laws and regulations for

fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land 50

Q11e. Providing maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (not necessarily the agency website) 48

Fishing Access in the United States 269

Q11b. Providing up-to-date information on a website showing public fishing access and/or boat access areas 47

Q11a. Providing signs that clearly mark access to fishing areas from public lands 42 Q11d. Providing paper maps of fishing access and boat access areas 37 Q11c. Providing up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas

that have been closed 29

Q11g. Having a user fee to access waters from restricted public land for fishing 16

Figure 219. Professionals’ Opinions of Agency Efforts That Could Be Improved a Lot

Percent who indicated that the following agency efforts could be improved a lot with regard to the

public lands that their agency or organization manages.

(Professionals)

5

8

15

18

19

20

28

33

14

9

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q11i. Providing easements or public rights-of-way onprivate land to access the water for fishing

Q11h. Buying more land for fishing access and boataccess areas

Q11k. Providing landowners w/ more info. on wateraccess laws / regulations for fishing in public waters on,

adjacent to, or that run through private land

Q11e. Providing maps of fishing access and boat accessareas on a website (not necessarily the agency website)

Q11b. Providing up-to-date information on a websiteshowing public fishing access and/or boat access areas

Q11j. Providing anglers with more information on wateraccess laws and regulations for fishing in public waters

that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q11f. Providing more boat ramps, launches, or put-insites

Q11d. Providing paper maps of fishing access and boataccess areas

Q11a. Providing signs that clearly mark access to fishingareas from public lands

Q11c. Providing up-to-date information on recreationalfishing areas and access areas that have been closed

Q11g. Having a user fee to access waters fromrestricted public land for fishing

Percent

270 Responsive Management

Figure 220. Professionals’ Opinions of Agency Efforts That Could Be Improved a Lot or a Moderate Amount

Percent who indicated that the following agency efforts could be improved a lot or a moderate

amount with regard to the public lands that their agency or organization manages.

(Professionals)

16

29

48

50

50

52

58

62

47

42

37

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q11i. Providing easements or public rights-of-way onprivate land to access the water for fishing

Q11h. Buying more land for fishing access and boataccess areas

Q11k. Providing landowners w/ more info. on wateraccess laws / regulations for fishing in public waters on,

adjacent to, or that run through private land

Q11j. Providing anglers with more information on wateraccess laws and regulations for fishing in public waters

that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q11f. Providing more boat ramps, launches, or put-insites

Q11e. Providing maps of fishing access and boataccess areas on a website (not necessarily the agency

website)

Q11b. Providing up-to-date information on a websiteshowing public fishing access and/or boat access areas

Q11a. Providing signs that clearly mark access tofishing areas from public lands

Q11d. Providing paper maps of fishing access and boataccess areas

Q11c. Providing up-to-date information on recreationalfishing areas and access areas that have been closed

Q11g. Having a user fee to access waters fromrestricted public land for fishing

Percent

Fishing Access in the United States 271

Figure 221. Professionals’ Opinions of Agency Efforts That Need No Improvement

Percent who indicated that the following agency efforts needed no improvement at all with regard to the public lands that their agency or organization

manages.(Professionals)

9

9

12

14

15

20

34

40

11

11

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q11g. Having a user fee to access waters from restrictedpublic land for fishing

Q11c. Providing up-to-date information on recreationalfishing areas and access areas that have been closed

Q11d. Providing paper maps of fishing access and boataccess areas

Q11h. Buying more land for fishing access and boataccess areas

Q11e. Providing maps of fishing access and boat accessareas on a website (not necessarily the agency website)

Q11b. Providing up-to-date information on a websiteshowing public fishing access and/or boat access areas

Q11f. Providing more boat ramps, launches, or put-insites

Q11i. Providing easements or public rights-of-way onprivate land to access the water for fishing

Q11j. Providing anglers with more information on wateraccess laws and regulations for fishing in public waters

that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

Q11a. Providing signs that clearly mark access to fishingareas from public lands

Q11k. Providing landowners w/ more info. on wateraccess laws / regulations for fishing in public waters on,

adjacent to, or that run through private land

Percent

The results of the above series of questions were crosstabulated by federal versus state

personnel. Table 17 shows the differences in the percentages of federal and state personnel

who say that their agency needs a lot or a moderate amount of improvement, as well as the

differences in the percentages saying that no improvement is necessary. The table is ranked

by the difference in the percentage saying a lot or a moderate amount of improvement is

272 Responsive Management

needed between the two groups; in other words, the top of the table shows those items for

which state agency employees are more likely to say improvement is needed. Shading

indicates where differences in the percentages giving the a lot or a moderate amount

responses between the two groups is at least 5 percentage points.

• State agency personnel have a higher percentage, relative to federal agency personnel,

thinking that improvement is needed in providing more boat ramps/facilities and in

acquiring (by sale or through easements) lands for access. Their federal agency

counterparts think more improvement could be made in informational efforts and

signage.

Table 17. Comparison of Perceptions of Needed Improvement in Agency Efforts by Federal Versus State Agency Personnel

Percent saying effort needs a lot

or a moderate amount of

improvement

Percent saying effort needs no improvement

Effort

Fede

ral

agen

cy

pers

onne

l

Stat

e ag

ency

pe

rson

nel

Diff

eren

ce

Fede

ral

agen

cy

pers

onne

l

Stat

e ag

ency

pe

rson

nel

Diff

eren

ce

Stat

istic

al si

gnifi

canc

e

of d

iffer

ence

s

Providing more boat ramps, launches, or put-in sites 33 57 -24 17 8 9 p < 0.001Buying more land for fishing access and boat access areas 43 65 -22 26 10 16 p < 0.001

Providing easements or public rights-of-way on private land to access the water for fishing 54 67 -13 14 10 4 p > 0.05

Providing anglers with more information on water access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

50 52 -2 10 10 0 p > 0.05

Providing landowners with more information on water access laws and regulations for fishing in public waters that are on, adjacent to, or run through private land

51 53 -2 9 9 0 p > 0.05

Having a user fee to access waters from restricted public land for fishing 16 13 3 37 45 -8 p > 0.05

Providing paper maps of fishing access and boat access areas 42 35 7 16 22 -6 p > 0.05

Providing signs that clearly mark access to fishing areas from public lands 47 38 9 8 9 -1 p > 0.05

Providing maps of fishing access and boat access areas on a website (not necessarily the agency website) 54 44 10 6 18 -12 p < 0.01

Providing up-to-date information on recreational fishing areas and access areas that have been closed 40 22 18 28 38 -10 p < 0.001

Providing up-to-date information on a website showing public fishing access and/or boat access areas 61 39 22 4 17 -13 p < 0.001

Fishing Access in the United States 273

The landowner survey asked landowners how likely they would be to participate in a

collaborative program between landowners and a state agency in which the state agency

would provide them with financial assistance or compensation for allowing public access to

the water from their property: 10% indicated being likely, but most of that was somewhat

likely; only 2% indicated being very likely (Figure 222). On the other side, 88% indicated

being not at all likely.

• When the landowner survey asked a similar question, but about providing non-financial

assistance instead, 9% of landowners indicated being likely to participate in a

collaborative program with a state agency, with only 2% being very likely (Figure 223).

Again, 88% would be not at all likely.

Figure 222. Landowners’ Likelihood To Participate in a Collaborative Program That Provides Them With Incentives for Allowing Fishing Access on Their Properties

2

88

8

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Not at all likely

Don't know

Percent (n=1201)

Q163. How likely would you be to participate in a collaborative program between landowners and a state

agency in which the state agency would provide you with financial assistance or compensation for allowing public

access to the water from your property?(Landowners)

274 Responsive Management

Figure 223. Landowners’ Likelihood To Participate in a Collaborative Program That Provides Them With Non-Financial Incentives for Allowing Fishing Access on Their Properties

3

88

7

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Not at all likely

Don't know

Percent (n=1201)

Q164. How likely would you be to participate in a collaborative program between landowners and a state

agency in which the state agency would provide you with non-financial assistance for allowing public access to the

water from your property for fishing?(Landowners)

It is worth recalling in this section some previous results that pertain to programs that shield

landowners from legal liability for allowing fishing access.

• A quarter of landowners (25%) say that state legislation reducing landowner liability

would be very or somewhat effective at getting them to allow fishing access, while 70%

say that state legislation reducing landowner liability would be not at all effective (see

Figure 169 in the section of this report titled “Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in

Allowing Access”).

• A majority of anglers (66%) think that legislation reducing landowner liability would be

very or somewhat effective at improving fishing access from private lands, while 23%

Fishing Access in the United States 275

think it would be not at all effective (see Figure 170 in the section of this report titled

“Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access”).

• A majority of professionals (71%) think that legislation that reduces landowner liability

would be effective in getting private landowners to allow anglers to access the water from

their property; 14% think such legislation would not be at all effective (see Figure 172 in

the section of this report titled “Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access”).

It is also worth recalling in this section about programs some previous results that pertain to

programs that provide incentives to landowners for opening fishing access on their lands.

• The landowners survey asked landowners to rate the effectiveness of being allowed to

charge a fee for others to access their property in getting them to allow access for fishing.

Only 5% of landowners said that this would be effective in getting them to allow access

(see Figure 161 in the section of this report titled “Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in

Allowing Access”).

• The majority of anglers (71%) think that a program providing the landowner

compensation or an incentive for opening access to the water on their land would be very

or somewhat effective at improving fishing access from private lands; meanwhile, 21% of

anglers think it would be not at all effective (see Figure 164 in the section of this report

titled “Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access”).

• A majority of professionals (79%) think a collaborative program in which their agency

provides landowners with compensation would be very or somewhat effective at

increasing access to water from private lands; only 9% think it would be not at all

effective (see Figure 165 in the section of this report titled “Factors in Landowners’

Decisions in Allowing Access”).

• A majority of professionals (59%) think a collaborative program in which their agency

provides landowners specifically with non-financial compensation would be very or

somewhat effective at increasing access to water from private lands; while 27% think it

would be not at all effective (see Figure 166 in the section of this report titled “Factors in

Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access”).

276 Responsive Management

A majority of anglers oppose (59%) a general access fee of $20 (or less) in addition to their

fishing license fee to support fishing access programs; meanwhile, 31% support (Figure 224).

This is almost a 2:1 ratio among anglers against the fee.

Figure 224. Anglers’ Support of or Opposition To a General Access Fee

Q234. Would you support or oppose a general access fee of $20 or less in addition to your fishing

license fee to support fishing access programs?(Anglers)

12

19

7

16

43

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly support

Moderatelysupport

Neither supportnor oppose

Moderatelyoppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

Fishing Access in the United States 277

Also in this section concerning programs/strategies is a question about how best to

communicate with landowners about issues relating to access. Most commonly, landowners

say that their preferred method of being provided information is direct mail (37% chose this

as an option), by far the top answer (Figure 225). Other notable answers include the Internet

in general (14%) and newspapers (11%).

Figure 225. Landowners’ Preferred Way To Be Provided With Information About Fishing Access

Q167/Q170. What is the best way to provide you with information about issues related to fishing

access on private land? (We are not sending information at this time; we are simply measuring

interest.)(Landowners)

12

14

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

4

11

14

37

3

2

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Direct mail

Internet in general / search engine

Newspaper

Internet (specific website)

E-mail

T.V.

Local festival / event

State agency

Friends / family / word-of-mouth

Newsletter

Magazines

Pamphlets / brochures

Radio

Phone contact

License agent / sporting goods store

Association meetings

Other

Don't knowNone of these / does not want to receive

information

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=2424)

278 Responsive Management

The professionals survey asked each respondent to indicate the importance of fishing access

development and maintenance on the public lands the agency manages, on a scale of 0 to 10,

with 10 being the most important. The mean rating among professionals is 7.11

(Figure 226). Furthermore, 77% gave a rating above the midpoint.

• In a crosstabulation of this question that compares federal and state agency personnel, the

state agency personnel give higher ratings to the importance of fishing access

development and maintenance on public lands, relative to federal agency personnel

(p < 0.001) (Figure 227).

• The professionals survey also asked respondents to rate how important fishing access

development and maintenance should be for their agency. The mean is 8.11, with 90%

giving a rating above the midpoint (Figure 228). In the aforementioned crosstabulation,

state agency personnel again gave higher ratings of importance, relative to the ratings

given by federal agency personnel (p < 0.001) (Figure 229).

• Along these lines, professionals were asked to indicate how much of a priority is fishing

access for their agency during the development of land management plans: Just under

half (49%) indicate that it is an extremely high or a high priority, 28% say it is a medium

priority, and 16% say it is a low priority or not a priority at all (Figure 230). Again, it

was more of a priority for the state agency personnel than it was for the federal agency

personnel (p < 0.001) (Figure 231).

Fishing Access in the United States 279

Figure 226. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Place on Fishing Access Development and Maintenance

Q3. How important would you say fishing access development and maintenance on the public lands your agency manages currently is for your agency on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important

and 10 is extremely important?(Professionals)

2

3

5

19

11

22

14

11

10

1

3

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Don't know

Percent (n=400)

Mean = 7.11

280 Responsive Management

Figure 227. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Place on Fishing Access Development and Maintenance by Federal Versus State Agency

Q3. How important would you say fishing access development and maintenance on the public lands your agency manages currently is for your agency on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important

and 10 is extremely important?(Professionals)

5

6

11

8

5

18

13

15

13

2

41

0

0

0

3

8

8

15

25

14

26

0 20 40 60 80 100

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=132)State agency personnel(n=239)

MeansFederal agency personnel = 5.90State agency personnel = 7.84

Fishing Access in the United States 281

Figure 228. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Should Place on Fishing Access Development and Maintenance

Q4. How important would you say fishing access development and maintenance on the public lands your agency manages should be for your agency

on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important?

(Professionals)

1

1

1

28

20

24

12

6

6

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

0

Don't know

Percent (n=400)

Mean = 8.11

282 Responsive Management

Figure 229. Professionals’ Perceptions of the Importance That Their Agencies Should Place on Fishing Access Development and Maintenance by Federal Versus State Agency

Q4. How important would you say fishing access development and maintenance on the public lands your agency manages should be for your agency

on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important?

(Professionals)

2

3

2

14

14

22

17

11

12

2

10

1

0

0

0

2

2

9

36

23

26

0 20 40 60 80 100

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

0

Don't know

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=131)State agency personnel(n=239)

MeansFederal agency personnel = 7.14State agency personnel = 8.68

Fishing Access in the United States 283

Figure 230. Level of Priority Given To Fishing Access When Professionals’ Agencies Develop Land Management Plans

Q5. In general, when developing a land management plan, how much of a priority is fishing

access for your agency during the planning process?

(Professionals)

14

35

28

13

3

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Extremely highpriority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Not a priority at all

Don't know

Percent (n=398)

284 Responsive Management

Figure 231. Level of Priority Given To Fishing Access When Professionals’ Agencies Develop Land Management Plans by Federal Versus State Agency

Q5. In general, when developing a land management plan, how much of a priority is fishing

access for your agency during the planning process?

(Professionals)

2

16

39

30

8

66

1

3

21

47

22

0 20 40 60 80 100

Extremely highpriority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Not a priority atall

Don't know

Percent

Federal agency personnel(n=132)State agency personnel(n=239)

Fishing Access in the United States 285

CHARACTERISTICS OF ANGLERS, LANDOWNERS, AND THEIR PROPERTIES This section contains demographic and other general data on the samples of anglers and

landowners. The primary purpose of these questions was for crosstabulating other data;

nonetheless, the results are of interest on their own, particularly in examining target groups

within the overall population of anglers and landowners.

Years Fished, Avidity, Organization Memberships, and Angler Demographic Data The sample contains anglers with a wide range of years fished, from nascent anglers to those

with more than 60 years of experience. The graph follows a bell curve, with the peak in the

41-50 years period; the mean is 38.8 years (Figure 232).

Figure 232. Number of Years Fished Among Anglers

Q11. How many years have you fished?(Anglers)

9

7

15

24

21

14

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 60years

51 - 60 years

41 - 50 years

31 - 40 years

21 - 30 years

11 - 20 years

1 - 10 years

Percent (n=4131)

Mean = 38.76

286 Responsive Management

The angler survey asked anglers to indicate the number of the past 5 years that they had

freshwater and saltwater fished. Note that the survey screened out those who had not fished

at least once in the previous 5 years.

• A large majority of anglers (75%) freshwater fished all 5 of the past 5 years (Figure 233).

In total, 93% had freshwater fished at least 1 year, meaning that 7% had only saltwater

fished in the past 5 years.

• Just over a fourth of anglers (26%) had saltwater fished all 5 of the past 5 years

(Figure 234). In total, 49% had saltwater fished at least 1 year, meaning that 51% had

only freshwater fished in the past 5 years.

Figure 233. Number of Past 5 Years Anglers Had Freshwater Fished

Q14. How many of the past 5 years have you been freshwater fishing?

(Anglers)

75

4

6

5

4

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

5 years

4 years

3 years

2 years

1 years

Have not been freshwater fishing inthe past 5 years (i.e., has only

saltwater fished in past 5 years)

Percent (n=4131)

Mean = 4.19

Fishing Access in the United States 287

Figure 234. Number of Past 5 Years Anglers Had Saltwater Fished

Q19. How many of the past 5 years have you been saltwater fishing?

(Anglers)

26

2

5

7

8

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

5 years

4 years

3 years

2 years

1 years

Have not been saltwater fishing in thepast 5 years (i.e., has only freshwater

fished in past 5 years)

Percent (n=4131)

Mean = 1.79

Collectively, about a quarter (27%) of freshwater and saltwater anglers usually fish no more

than 5 days annually; on the other end, 13% do so more than 50 days (Figure 235). The

median amount of time spent fishing is 15 days.

• The “days fished” question was crosstabulated by freshwater and saltwater bodies. There

is little notable difference in days fished when crosstabulated by freshwater bodies;

nonetheless, the differences that existed were statistically significant (p < 0.05)

(Figure 236). Regarding saltwater bodies, there were no statistically significant

differences (Figure 237).

288 Responsive Management

Figure 235. Typical Number of Days Anglers Fish Annually

Q30. About how many days do you usually go (freshwater/saltwater) fishing (in/from) (body of

water) each year?(Anglers)

2

5

6

5

9

10

9

9

4

5

5

8

5

0

1

3

3

7

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 60 days

51 - 60 days

41 - 50 days

31 - 40 days

26 - 30 days

21 - 25 days

16 - 20 days

11 - 15 days

10 days

9 days

8 days

7 days

6 days

5 days

4 days

3 days

2 days

1 day

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

Median = 15

16%

27%

Fishing Access in the United States 289

Figure 236. Typical Number of Days Anglers Fish Annually by Type of Freshwater Body

Q30. About how many days do you usually go freshwater fishing (in/from) (body of water) each

year?(Anglers)

12

5

5

6

10

6

10

9

15

19

3

9

6

10

13

16

20

3

3

12

4

10

10

18

24

3

23

12

10

8

4

2

6

8

8

18

1

5

3

11

5

5

3

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 60days

51 - 60 days

41 - 50 days

31 - 40 days

26 - 30 days

21 - 25 days

16 - 20 days

11 - 15 days

6 - 10 days

1 - 5 days

Don't know

Percent

Great Lakes (n=145)

Reservoirs and/or lakesother than the Great Lakes(n=1438)Rivers and/or streams(n=1008)

Ponds and/or otherfreshwater bodies (n=332)

290 Responsive Management

Figure 237. Typical Number of Days Anglers Fish Annually by Type of Saltwater Body

Q30. About how many days do you usually go saltwater fishing (in/from) (body of water) each

year?(Anglers)

3

2

3

3

5

3

5

9

14

51

1

5

5

7

8

19

36

1

3

12

1

7

9

24

34

0

16

6

6

3

2

3

5

4

4

50

2

6

4

5

5

4

3

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 60days

51 - 60 days

41 - 50 days

31 - 40 days

26 - 30 days

21 - 25 days

16 - 20 days

11 - 15 days

6 - 10 days

1 - 5 days

Don't know

Percent

Beach, shore, or surf of acoastal area (n=187)

Ocean (n=552)

Tidal bays and sounds(n=281)

Tidal portions of rivers(n=68)

Fishing Access in the United States 291

Anglers were asked to assess their level of participation in fishing over the past 5 years: they

most often say that their amount of fishing has stayed about the same (45%) (Figure 238).

Otherwise, slightly more say it has decreased (31%) than say it has increased (24%).

Figure 238. Anglers’ Self-Reported Trend in Fishing Participation Over Previous 5 Years

Q39. Would you say your fishing participation (in/from) (body of water) has increased, stayed the

same, or decreased over the past 5 years?(Anglers)

24

45

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Increased

Stayed the same

Decreased

Percent (n=4131)

Approximately 2 in 5 anglers (39%) have donated to or been a member of a conservation or

sportsmen’s organization in the past 2 years (Figure 239). Anglers were asked to name all

the conservation and/or sportsmen’s organizations to which they donated or belonged. The

leading organizations are Ducks Unlimited, the National Rifle Association, and Trout

Unlimited (Figure 240). The graph shows the full results, with approximately 20

organizations named.

292 Responsive Management

Figure 239. Anglers’ Membership in Conservation and Sportsmen’s Organizations

Q286. In the past 2 years, have you been a member of or donated to any conservation or sportsmen's

organizations?(Anglers)

39

59

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

Fishing Access in the United States 293

Figure 240. Organizations To Which Anglers Belonged or Donated

1122

1414

1111111

333

1915

117

43

333311

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ducks Unlimited

National Rifle Association

Trout Unlimited

B.A.S.S. / BASS Masters / Red Man North American

National Wildlife Federation

North American Fishing Club

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Pheasants Forever

Coastal Conservation Association

North American Hunting Club

The Nature Conservancy

National Wild Turkey Federation

State natural resources / fish and wildlife agency

Sierra Club

Buckmasters

Izaak Walton League of America

State's Wildlife Federation

Quail Unlimited

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

FLW Outdoors (Forrest L. Wood)

Safari Club International or SCI

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Various national / local sportsmen's clubs (e.g., rod & gun clubs)

Other conservation associations (local, state, national)

Various fly fishers clubs (e.g., Federation of Fly Fishers)

Various deer foundations (e.g., Whitetails Unlimited)

Various waterfowl associations (e.g., Delta Waterfowl)

Various trout associations (e.g., California Trout)

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=1629)

Q289. Which conservation or sportsmen's organizations have you been a member of or donated to in the past 2 years?

(Among the 39% of all anglers who have been a member of or donated to any conservation or sportsmen's organizations in

the past 2 years.)(Anglers)

Note: The previous question found that

39.4% of anglers had been a member of or

had donated to a conservation or

sportsmen's organization.

294 Responsive Management

Participation in freshwater fishing tournaments in the previous 5 years among anglers is at

13%; participation in saltwater fishing tournaments is at 12% (Figure 241). Overall,

participation in either freshwater or saltwater tournaments in the previous 5 years stands at

17%. Finally, 1% of anglers fished in both freshwater and saltwater tournaments.

• The specific freshwater tournaments named by anglers include local and/or club

tournaments, B.A.S.S./BASS Masters/Red Man North American, species-specific

tournaments (e.g., a catfish tournament), Forrest L. Wood, and specific type (e.g., fly

fishing, ice fishing) or specific location (e.g., Lake Erie) tournaments (Figure 242).

• The most common saltwater tournaments named are local and/or club tournaments,

tournaments at specific sites (e.g., Puget Sound), species-specific tournaments (e.g.,

flounder), and/or tournaments for specific types of saltwater fishing (Figure 243).

Figure 241. Anglers’ Participation in Fishing Tournaments

Q291/Q293. Have you participated in any (freshwater / saltwater) fishing tournaments in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and national

tournaments? (Asked of those who have been (freshwater / saltwater) fishing in the past 5 years.)

(Anglers)

13

87

1

12

87

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don t know

Percent

Freshwater tournaments (n=3,823)

Saltwater tournaments (n=2,037)

17% of anglers overall participated in either1% of anglers overall participated in both

Fishing Access in the United States 295

Figure 242. Freshwater Tournaments in Which Anglers Participated

9

3

4

29

17

8

5

5

4

32

0 20 40 60 80 100

Local / club tournaments

B.A.S.S. / BASS Masters / Red ManNorth American

Species-specific tournament (e.g.,salmon, catfish, trout, walleye,

crappie)

FLW outdoors (Forrest L. Wood)

Specific type of fishing tournament(e.g., flyfishing, ice fishing)

Tournaments at a specific site (e.g.,Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Trinity

River)

Unspecified regional tournaments

Government sponsored tournament(e.g., National Guard, state's

department of natural resourses)

Other

Don't know / can't remember / noresponse

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=170)

Q292. In which freshwater fishing tournaments have you participated in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and

national tournaments? (Asked of those who have been freshwater fishing and have participated in a freshwater

fishing tournament in the past 5 years.)(Anglers)

296 Responsive Management

Figure 243. Saltwater Tournaments in Which Anglers Participated

24

38

24

21

7

3

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Local / club tournaments

Tournaments at a specific site (e.g.,Martha's Vineyard, Chesapeake Bay,

Palm Beach, Puget Sound)

Species-specific tournament (e.g.,flounder, fluke, halibut)

Specific type of fishing tournament(e.g., brackish fishing, spearfishing)

State sponsored tournament

Other

Don't know / can't remember / noresponse

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=86)

Q294. In which saltwater fishing tournaments have you participated in the past 5 years, including local, regional, and

national tournaments? (Asked of those who have been saltwater fishing, and have participated in a saltwater fishing

tournament in the past 5 years.)(Anglers)

Demographic data regarding anglers is shown.

• Anglers are mostly male: 87% are male, while 13% are female (Figure 244).

• Figure 245 shows the ages of anglers; the mean age is 53.4 years.

• Figure 246 shows the years of residency in the angler’s current state of residence. The

graph of the number of years of residency follows a bell curve, with the peak in the 41 to

50 years and 51 to 60 years categories.

Fishing Access in the United States 297

• Most commonly, anglers are from a rural area (31%) or a small city/town (30%)

(Figure 247). Nonetheless, 19% are from a large city/urban area, and 18% are from a

suburban area.

• Two-thirds of anglers (67%) have some college or trade school coursework, with or

without a degree (Figure 248). Additionally, 37% have a bachelor’s degree, with or

without any higher degrees.

• Incomes of anglers are shown (Figure 249).

• Among anglers, 22% own, lease, or live on a waterfront or shoreline property or on

property that has a fishable body of water on it, adjacent to it, or running through it

(Figure 250).

Figure 244. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Gender

Q309. Respondent's gender (observed, not asked, by interviewer).

(Anglers)

87

13

0 20 40 60 80 100

Male

Female

Percent (n=4131)

298 Responsive Management

Figure 245. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Age

Q302. Respondent's age.(Anglers)

2

22

28

24

14

7

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

65 years old orolder

55 - 64 years old

45 - 54 years old

35 - 44 years old

25 - 34 years old

18 - 24 years old

Refused

Percent (n=4131)

Mean = 53.41

Fishing Access in the United States 299

Figure 246. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Years of Residency in State

Q295. How long have you lived in your state?(Anglers)

1

8

10

5

14

18

18

14

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 70years

61 - 70 years

51 - 60 years

41 - 50 years

31 - 40 years

21 - 30 years

11 - 20 years

10 years or less

Don't know /refused

Percent (n=4131)

Mean = 41.80

300 Responsive Management

Figure 247. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Type of Residential Area

Q298. Do you consider your place of residence to be a large city or urban area, a suburban area, a

small city or town, a rural area on a farm or ranch, or a rural area not on a farm or ranch?

(Anglers)

1

19

18

30

10

21

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Large city orurban area

Suburban area

Small city or town

Rural area on afarm or ranch

Rural area not ona farm or ranch

Don't know

Refused

Percent (n=4131)

31%

Fishing Access in the United States 301

Figure 248. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Education Level

Q300. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

(Anglers)

2

4

4

27

18

12

23

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not a high schoolgraduate

High schoolgraduate orequivalent

Some college ortrade school, no

degree

Associate'sdegree or tradeschool degree

Bachelor's degree

Master's degree

Professional ordoctorate degree

Refused

Percent (n=4131)

67%

37%

302 Responsive Management

Figure 249. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Household Income

Q301. Which of these categories best describes your total household income before taxes last

year?(Anglers)

25

3

4

9

14

13

10

22

0 20 40 60 80 100

Under $20,000

$20,000-$39,999

$40,000-$59,000

$60,000-$79,000

$80,000-$99,000

$100,000 or more

Don't know

Refused

Percent (n=4131)

Fishing Access in the United States 303

Figure 250. Anglers’ Demographic Data: Residency on Waterfront or Shoreline Property

Q299. Do you currently own, lease, or live on a waterfront or shoreline property or property with a fishable body of water on, adjacent to, or running

through it?(Anglers)

22

77

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=4131)

304 Responsive Management

The nonparametric analysis that was conducted on the responses in the angler survey

included the gender question. (A full discussion of how to read the nonparametric analysis

results is included in the Introduction and Methodology.)

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with being

male:

o In the past 5 years, has been freshwater fishing in all 5 of the past 5 years (p < 0.001). o Has fished for more than the median of 40 years (p < 0.001). o Has participated in a freshwater fishing tournament in the past 5 years, including

local, regional, and national tournaments (p < 0.001). o Usually goes freshwater/saltwater fishing in/from (body of water) each year the

median of 15 days or more (p < 0.001). o When fishing in/from (body of water), does not indicate mostly fishing in the same

locations each year (p < 0.01). o In the past 5 years, has been saltwater fishing (p < 0.01). o Indicated that his fishing participation in/from (body of water) has stayed the same

over the past 5 years (p < 0.01). o Does not indicate rating access to (body of water) for fishing as excellent (p < 0.001). o Indicates that there is something that has taken away from his enjoyment of fishing

in/from (body of water), even if it didn’t prevent him from actually going (p < 0.05). o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that it is

very important to him that the access area is well-maintained (e.g., docks or piers, roads, or parking area) (all at p < 0.001 or greater significance).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that it is very important to him that the access area is one he is familiar with (p < 0.01), is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05), or is owned by someone he knows personally (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that it is very important to him that the access area is not on or near private land where he may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.01) or while accessing the water (p < 0.01).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that he always or sometimes scouts or physically looks for places to access the water for fishing (p < 0.01), uses paper maps to find a place to access the water (p < 0.01), and knocks on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land (p < 0.05).

o Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001), the irresponsible behavior of other anglers (p < 0.01), and the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05) have been problems for him in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general

o Not enough boat access areas (p < 0.05) and not enough places to access the water to fish (p < 0.05) have been problems for him in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Would support a general access fee of $20 or less in addition to his fishing license fee to support fishing access programs (p < 0.01).

Fishing Access in the United States 305

o Has been a member of or donated to a conservation or sportsmen’s organization in the past 2 years (p < 0.001).

o Household income is $80,000 or more (p < 0.001). o Education level is associate’s, trade school, or higher degree (p < 0.01). o Lives in large city or urban area, or suburban area (p < 0.01).

• The nonparametric analysis found that the following responses are correlated with being

female:

o In the past 5 years, has been freshwater fishing for less than 5 of the past 5 years (p < 0.001).

o Has fished for the median of 40 years or less (p < 0.001). o Does not indicate that she has participated in a freshwater fishing tournament in the

past 5 years, including local, regional, and national tournaments (p < 0.001). o Usually goes freshwater/saltwater fishing in/from (body of water) each year less than

the median of 15 days (p < 0.001). o When fishing in/from (body of water), indicates mostly fishing in the same locations

each year (p < 0.01). o In the past 5 years, has not been saltwater fishing (p < 0.01). o Indicated that her fishing participation in/from (body of water) has increased over the

past 5 years (p < 0.05). o Indicated that nothing has taken away from her enjoyment of fishing in/from (body of

water) (p < 0.05). o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very

important to her that the access area is well-maintained (e.g., docks or piers, roads, and parking area) (all at p < 0.001 or greater significance).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to her that the access area is one she is familiar with (p < 0.01), is not crowded with recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05), and is owned by someone she knows personally (p < 0.05).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, indicates that it is very important to her that the access area is not on or near private land where she may have an encounter with a landowner while in the water or leaving the water (p < 0.01) and while accessing the water (p < 0.01).

o When deciding where to access (body of water) to fish, does not indicate that she always or sometimes scouts or physically looks for places to access the water for fishing (p < 0.01), uses paper maps to find a place to access the water (p < 0.01), or knocks on a landowner’s door to ask permission to access the water from his/her land (p < 0.05).

o Leaving an area because of crowding from recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.001), the irresponsible behavior of other anglers (p < 0.01), or the irresponsible behavior of recreationists other than anglers (p < 0.05) have not been problems for her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

o Not enough boat access areas (p < 0.05) or less fishing access or boat access areas due to development (p < 0.05) have not been problems for her in the past 5 years while freshwater/saltwater fishing in general.

306 Responsive Management

o Does not indicate that she would support a general access fee of $20 or less in addition to her fishing license fee to support fishing access programs (p < 0.01).

o Does not indicate that she has been a member of or donated to a conservation or sportsmen’s organization in the past 2 years (p < 0.001).

o Education level is no higher than some college or trade school with no degree (p < 0.01).

o Is between ages 18-34 (p < 0.01). o Lives in small city or town, or rural area (p < 0.05).

Fishing Access in the United States 307

Property and Landowner Characteristics Note that all references to landowners in the report refers to landowners with water access

on, adjacent to, or running through their property.

The properties about which the landowners answered questions had the following distribution: 86% freshwater, 9% saltwater (with 5% of landowners having some of both types of water on/adjacent to their property) (Figure 251). • In follow-up in the landowner survey, the types of freshwater are apportioned as follows:

40% have reservoirs/lakes accessible from their property (41% if the 1% who have property on the Great Lakes is included), 34% have rivers/streams, 21% have ponds/other freshwater bodies (Figure 252). Note that respondents could give more than one response.

• The types of saltwater are apportioned as follows: 51% have tidal bays/sounds accessible from their property, 35% have tidal portions of rivers, and 8% have ocean access (Figure 253).

Figure 251. Types of Water on, Adjacent To, or Running Through Landowners’ Properties

Q13. Is the body of water on, adjacent to, or running through your property freshwater or

saltwater?(Landowners)

9

5

86

0 20 40 60 80 100

Freshwater

Both

Saltwater

Percent (n=4017)

308 Responsive Management

Figure 252. Types of Freshwater Accessible From Properties

Q16. Which of the following types of freshwater are accessible from your property? (Asked of those

who said a body of freshwater was on, adjacent to, or running through their property.)

(Landowners)

1

4

1

24

34

40

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reservoirs and/orlakes other thanthe Great Lakes

Rivers and/orstreams

Ponds and/orother freshwater

bodies

The Great Lakes

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=2156)

Fishing Access in the United States 309

Figure 253. Types of Saltwater Accessible From Properties

Q20. Which of the following types of saltwater are accessible from your property? (Asked of those

who said a body of saltwater was on, adjacent to, or running through their property.)

(Landowners)

2

5

8

35

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

Tidal bay orsound

Tidal portion ofrivers

Ocean

Other

Don't know

Mul

tiple

Res

pons

es A

llow

ed

Percent (n=382)

310 Responsive Management

Just more than a third of landowners (35%) have property from which a boat can be launched

or put in to the water (Figure 254).

Figure 254. Boat Access on Landowners’ Properties

Q96. Can a boat be launched or put in to the water from the access area on your property?

(Landowners)

1

64

35

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

As discussed previously, just under half of landowners (47%) go fishing in the waters that are

accessible from their property. Also, 61% allow people not living in their household to

access the land for fishing. In total, 79% of the properties discussed in the survey have

fishing taking place on them. (See Figures 146 and 147 in the section of this report titled,

“Landowners’ Attitudes Toward Anglers and Other Outdoor Recreationists.”)

Fishing Access in the United States 311

It is also worth recalling, as shown in Figure 174 in the section of this report titled, “Factors

in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access,” that just over a quarter of landowners (27%)

have a “private” or “no trespassing” sign or a similar sign posted at the water access area.

Regarding the property about which landowners answered questions in their survey, the

mean number of years that they had lived on the property is 22.2 years (Figure 255).

Nonetheless, answers ran the gamut, from more than 60 years down to less than a year.

Figure 255. Landowners’ Years of Residency on Properties Referred To in Survey

Q11. How many years have you owned, leased, or lived on this property?

(Landowners)

27

17

13

7

5

5

26

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

More than 60years

50 - 59 years

40 - 49 years

30 - 39 years

20 - 29 years

10 - 19 years

0 - 9 years

Don't know

Percent (n=2424)

Mean = 22.2Median = 17

312 Responsive Management

IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS The data contained in this report have utility beyond the implications discussed below. The

report can be used as a continuing resource for information pertaining to access. The results,

for instance, can be used as baseline data for comparison to any future surveys and research

that is undertaken. While the researchers discuss many implications of the research in this

section, there may be other implications of the data that professionals and stakeholders may

see that the researchers did not see, including various nuances of the data or items that are

particularly important to certain professionals and stakeholders.

The implications that follow discuss ways to improve access, which does not always mean

increasing access. It may be that some areas or water bodies are at their carrying capacity or

that some fisheries are experiencing their maximum sustainable fishing pressure. In these

situations, more access does not necessarily mean improved access. In such situations,

improved access may mean dispersing the access over a greater area without necessarily

increasing the amount of access.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE LOCATIONS OF ANGLERS’ FISHING ACTIVITIES Knowing the proportion of anglers who access the water from various types of land and in

various ways is important in improving access. As each type of land presents its own access

challenges, information on locations of fishing activities is useful for helping to improve

access. Among the important findings regarding anglers’ primary fishing locations:

• Two-thirds of anglers use public land “mostly”; the overwhelming majority use public

land either mostly or equally with private land.

• About half of freshwater anglers fish primarily in reservoirs and lakes; about a third of

freshwater anglers fish in rivers or streams.

• About half of freshwater anglers primarily use a boat while fishing, overwhelmingly

private boats. The remaining are mostly apportioned among those who describe their

fishing as from the bank or shore and those who fish from docks or piers.

• Just under half of saltwater anglers fish in the ocean (more than half if surf fishing is

included); about a quarter fish in tidal bays and sounds, and the rest are apportioned

between the beach and tidal portions of rivers.

Fishing Access in the United States 313

• About half of saltwater anglers primarily use a private boat; about a quarter of saltwater

anglers primarily use a chartered boat. In total, about three-quarters of saltwater anglers

primarily use a boat of some kind.

The above data have implications for providing access. For instance, while private land

access is important, prioritization of strategies must account for the fact that most anglers use

public land more than they do private land for accessing the water. Additionally, boat use is

robust: about half of freshwater anglers and a large majority of saltwater anglers use a boat

to fish their primary body of water. The section of this report titled “Locations of Anglers’

Fishing Activities” provides valuable data on fishing locations, including the percentage of

anglers who could possibly be affected by an action as well as the percentage who would

receive little benefit from an action.

About half of anglers describe themselves as fishing in various locations each year (rather

than from the same location each year). This demonstrates a willingness to try different

places for fishing. (It is interesting to compare this with hunters: only 9% of hunters say that

they hunt in different locations each year.)

• Among saltwater anglers, those who describe their saltwater fishing location as in the

ocean and those who fish at the beach/on shore/in the surf are more likely to fish various

locations, when compared to anglers who fish either tidal bays/sounds or tidal portions of

rivers.

The survey shows that about 22% of all anglers access the water using private land owned by

someone they do not know. While private land access programs are important, the

prioritization of programs must account for the fact that private land access programs may

not benefit a large portion of anglers.

Public boat ramps and similar facilities are of great importance. As indicated above, more

than half of anglers typically use a boat when fishing, and the majority of boat users use a

public facility.

314 Responsive Management

In a finding that pertains to the geographical distribution of fishing access sites, the survey

found that the median distance that anglers travel to go fishing is 35 miles. Nonetheless,

more distant travel is common, with about a third of anglers typically traveling more than 50

miles to go fishing.

• Boat use was found to be correlated with saying that having the access area be close to

home is very important. This suggests that travel distances are more of a concern among

anglers using (and, perhaps, hauling behind their vehicle) a boat.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RATINGS GIVEN TO ACCESS FOR FISHING To start the discussion of fishing access ratings, it is important to realize that anglers are

positive about access ratings: a majority give an excellent or good rating to access in

general, to access to public land, and to access to private land. Additionally, in general,

professionals’ ratings of access are worse than anglers’ ratings. This situation is good in that

it is better for professionals to be more concerned than anglers rather than for professionals to

be less concerned.

• It is interesting to note that professionals generally give less positive ratings compared to

anglers, but professionals are more likely to say that public land access has gotten better

than are anglers. This suggests that anglers may be unaware of some of the access efforts

undertaken by professionals; if so, professionals may consider communicating why

access is getting better.

• Also in this line, professionals are more likely than are anglers to give negative ratings to

private land access. However, anglers’ ratings may, in the near future, approach the

negativity of professionals’ ratings, because anglers perceive private land access to be

getting worse.

It is fortunate for professionals that anglers generally are positive about access. This means

that professionals are dealing with a group that is not overly pessimistic (at this point).

• Although anglers’ ratings of fishing access are generally positive, in looking at types of

freshwater bodies, the lowest ratings are for access to rivers and streams (although still

generally positive). The crosstabulation of ratings by types of water bodies includes data

on where access problems are the greatest and provides a guide for efforts to improve

Fishing Access in the United States 315

access (see Figures 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 in the section of this report titled, “Ratings

of Access for Fishing”).

FACTORS IN ANGLERS’ DECISIONS REGARDING WHERE TO FISH, AND CONSTRAINTS TO FISHING PARTICIPATION: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS

One finding of the angler survey is that access-related problems were the top type of

dissatisfaction named in an open-ended question—this reinforces the need to address access

problems.

• Lack of time was also commonly mentioned as a dissatisfaction with fishing. While that

may seem to be out of the control of professionals, lack of time might be lessened as a

constraint if better access reduces the time it takes to get to the fishing spot.

Among anglers, boat access is an important factor in their decisions regarding where to fish

(recall that about half of freshwater anglers and about three-fourths of saltwater anglers

typically use a boat when fishing). Maintenance of facilities is also of importance.

Proximity of access is of less importance than maintenance, particularly in light of the fact

that many anglers currently drive more than 50 miles to go fishing on a typical trip.

Crowding is commonly named as a constraint or dissatisfaction with fishing.

• In a large series of potential problems that anglers may face regarding access, crowding

emerged as important. It may be that information about under-utilized access areas may

help to better disperse anglers attempting to access the water. Dispersing access to limit

crowding may also help with fishing pressure in some areas. The professionals focus

group included a discussion that more access is not always better access because some

areas and fisheries could not support more access.

• Behavior of anglers and other recreationists can affect access; more specifically, bad

behavior can exacerbate feelings of crowding. Professionals planning and administering

access programs and efforts would do well to consider the multiple links between

recreationists’ behavior and access. (Bad behavior and its effects on landowners’

decisions regarding whether to allow access are discussed further on in the section titled,

“Factors in Landowners’ Decisions in Allowing Access: The Implications for Access.”)

316 Responsive Management

It is also important to look at the actions that anglers typically take when deciding where to

fish. A majority of anglers typically ask a friend or family member where to fish when

deciding where to go fishing. Additionally, just under a majority use paper maps, research

access places on the Internet, and/or scout for locations to access the water for fishing. These

findings should be of use in developing strategies pertaining to access.

• While paper maps are far less cost-effective in transmitting information to anglers when

compared to the Internet, it appears that, for the time being at least, many anglers still use

paper maps.

• Note that the nonparametric analysis found some interesting correlations within this

series of questions to anglers. It found that use of paper maps was correlated with fishing

in various locations from year to year (rather than the same location). Use of paper maps

was also correlated to traveling farther. Also, asking a friend or family member as a

strategy to find access is correlated with having lived in the state for less than the median

number of years.

• Regarding ways to disseminate information, the Internet was the top source among

anglers (other than friends/family/word of mouth) for information about fishing locations

and fishing access. It was the top answer among anglers when they were asked to name

their top preferred way to receive information.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF LANDOWNERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD FISHING Fortunately, there is little anti-fishing bias among landowners: the overwhelming majority of

landowners (92%) approve of legal, recreational fishing, and nearly the same amount (88%)

think that it is important to know that people have the opportunity to fish in their state.

FACTORS IN LANDOWNERS’ DECISIONS IN ALLOWING ACCESS: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS

Recognizing that use of public lands for access far exceeds use of private lands, there is still a

substantial portion of anglers who use private land for access, suggesting that private land

access programs will help some anglers. Fortunately, the survey of landowners found that

about two-thirds of private landowners surveyed allow access for fishing. Additionally, the

Fishing Access in the United States 317

landowner survey found that landowners are more willing to allow anglers than to allow

other recreationists on their land.

• In a related finding, about a quarter of landowners indicated that they posted signs, such

as No Trespassing, on their property. (Note that allowing fishing access and posting

property are not mutually exclusive; some landowners who posted land allowed access

for fishing.)

The landowner survey found that landowners are mostly concerned about privacy, wanting to

personally use the water for fishing (which may tend to limit how much they want others to

use the same spot), littering and poor behavior of anglers and other recreationists, and

liability.

The landowner survey found that not knowing a person is an important reason that

landowners disallow access. Furthermore, the landowner survey found that even landowners

who allow access are not, in general, allowing access to total strangers. This suggests a need

for helping to allay landowners’ concerns about strangers on their property—any efforts that

facilitate communication between anglers and landowners may help in this regard.

Landowners, in general, express much concern about the behavior of recreationists, including

anglers. While anglers may be unfairly getting the blame for some problems that they do not

cause, the net effect is that they will suffer the consequences of the negative behavior if the

landowner closes his/her land to water access. This suggests that programs that allow access

to private land in the context of allowing a responsible person on the land may be good.

Despite expressing concern about liability (in a direct question, about three-fourths of

landowners indicated being concerned about liability), most landowners said that a program

to reduce landowners’ liability would not be effective at encouraging them to open their land

to fishing access. Nonetheless, 25% indicated that such a reduction of liability would be very

or somewhat effective at getting them to allow fishing access.

• The surveys of each group found that anglers and professionals are more likely

(compared to landowners) to think that a program to reduce a landowner’s liability would

318 Responsive Management

be effective at improving access. Compared to the 25% of landowners who think it

would be effective, 66% of anglers and 71% of professionals think such a program would

be effective.

• A quite low percentage of landowners—only 1%—were aware of any laws in their state

that reduce a landowner’s liability for allowing access to the water.

The surveys included questions about private land incentive programs that provide either

financial or non-financial assistance to landowners who open their property to fishing access.

• The survey found that only 2% of private landowners indicate that they would be very

likely to participate in a program providing financial assistance, and only 10% would be

very or somewhat likely; fully 88% describe themselves as not at all likely to participate.

The results are equally negative regarding non-financial assistance.

• In an open-ended question, landowners were asked to name any types of incentives or

assistance from the state that would make them more likely to allow fishing access.

While the overwhelming majority of landowners said that nothing would make them

more likely to allow fishing access, 4% gave an answer relating to lower taxes or other

financial incentives, and 2% gave an answer relating to assistance with land upkeep.

• In the series of questions in the landowner survey about the effectiveness of things that

might get landowners to allow access for fishing, only 5% of landowners said that being

allowed to charge a fee for others to access their property would be effective in getting

them to allow access.

• These findings suggest that incentives would have only limited effect in encouraging

landowners’ to allow access for fishing, particularly monetary incentives.

One problem that was raised in focus groups was private land blocking access to public land

for accessing the water. A not insubstantial percentage of anglers (14%) said that this had

been a major or moderate problem with access in the past 5 years.

• Note that 30% of professionals indicated that this is a major or moderate problem on land

their agency manages.

Fishing Access in the United States 319

THE IMPLICATIONS OF LANDOWNERS’ INTERACTIONS WITH ANGLERS AND OTHER OUTDOOR RECREATIONISTS

The landowner survey found that nearly a quarter of landowners had experienced a negative

interaction with an angler and/or other recreationist within the previous 5 years: 11% had

experienced a negative interaction with an angler, and 15% with an “other” recreationist,

with 23% having experienced a negative interaction with either an angler or other

recreationist (not the sum of the two questions individually, because some landowners

experienced problems with both).

As discussed above, the umbrella of “other outdoor recreationists” is a problem: landowners

have a negative view of this “other” group, which can taint their view of anglers as well. A

communication strategy that reinforces to landowners the differences between anglers as a

group and non-anglers would serve the fishing community well, in light of the negative view

of the latter group.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS REGARDING STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE ACCESS

The particular demographic characteristics of anglers have implications on access strategies

and programs. Approximately three-fourths of anglers are male. Although there are,

obviously, exceptions, anglers are also slightly older than the general population as a whole,

and they tend to be fairly long-term residents of their state. The majority of anglers describe

their residence as in a rural area or a small city/town; nonetheless, about a third live in a large

city/urban area or a suburban area.

• The angler survey found that about three-fourths of anglers must travel to fish (i.e., less

than a quarter have access to water from their property).

The nonparametric analysis results on gender (contained in the section of this report titled,

“Years Fished, Avidity, Organization Memberships, and Angler Demographic Data”) that

examined the differences in behaviors and responses to questions between males and females

may be useful in developing and/or administering access strategies and programs. For

instance, the nonparametric analysis found that males tend to be more avid anglers; are more

likely to have fished in tournaments, to have saltwater fished, to have fished various locations

320 Responsive Management

(rather than the same), and to have scouted for fishing access; and males show less concern

than do females about crowding from other anglers and encountering landowners while

accessing the water. Females tend to be more concerned about the maintenance of the access

area, and they are more likely than males to fish the same (i.e., familiar) location rather than

various locations.

Awareness of fishing access programs and resources is low, with less than 1 in 10 anglers

saying that they are aware of any fishing access programs or resources. While it may be that

some of those not aware are in no need of assistance with access, certainly some of them may

benefit from access programs and/or resources. In other instances, they may benefit from an

access program or resource without realizing it; in such cases, it may be worthwhile for

professionals to publicize how the angler is actually benefiting from the program/resource.

• Landowners are even less aware of any programs that assist landowners in providing

access (including any programs that may assist them with any problems pertaining to

fishing access): only 3% of landowners indicated being aware of any such programs.

• It is worth noting that anglers as a group responded well in the survey to programs that

provide more information to anglers about access; as a group they tended to describe such

efforts as being effective in improving access.

• Regarding information sources among anglers, it is notable that the leading source of

information about angler access and related issues is word of mouth. While this source is

convenient—perhaps even passively obtained with almost no effort from anglers—it is a

source that may provide (and perpetuate) misinformation or out-of-date information.

Any actions agencies can do to step into this information “void” would be helpful in the

dissemination of accurate, timely information.

The ratings of programs of which anglers were aware is positive. The section of the report

titled, “Strategies and Programs To Improve Access,” including Figures 188 through 203,

contains data on anglers’ ratings, including their reasons for giving the various ratings, which

may be of use to planning and administering access programs and resources.

Fishing Access in the United States 321

While the finding that two-thirds of landowners allow fishing access is positive, the survey

found less positive results regarding landowners’ responses to various strategies presented to

them for helping with fishing access and access problems. The landowner survey asked 11

questions about programs or efforts that might help landowners with problems they may have

had with people accessing the water from their property; no program or effort had more than

30% of landowners saying that it would be very or somewhat effective.

Anglers as a group have relatively robust participation in sportsmen’s groups, such as Ducks

Unlimited, the National Rifle Association, and Trout Unlimited (the three top-named

organizations in the angler survey). Any cooperative efforts in communication or other

access improvement strategies should consider this; Figure 240 contains a fuller listing of

not-for-profit organizations to which anglers belonged.

Finally of interest regarding potential efforts to improve access, by a 2:1 margin, more

anglers oppose a general access fee of $20 (or less) in addition to their fishing license fee to

support fishing access programs than support it.

322 Responsive Management

ABOUT RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT Responsive Management is a nationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research

firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues. Its mission is to help natural

resource and outdoor recreation agencies and organizations better understand and work with their

constituents, customers, and the public.

Utilizing its in-house, full-service, computer-assisted telephone and mail survey center with 45

professional interviewers, Responsive Management has conducted more than 1,000 telephone

surveys, mail surveys, personal interviews, and focus groups, as well as numerous marketing and

communications plans, need assessments, and program evaluations on natural resource and

outdoor recreation issues.

Clients include most of the federal and state natural resource, outdoor recreation, and

environmental agencies, and most of the top conservation organizations. Responsive

Management also collects attitude and opinion data for many of the nation’s top universities,

including the University of Southern California, Virginia Tech, Colorado State University,

Auburn, Texas Tech, the University of California—Davis, Michigan State University, the

University of Florida, North Carolina State University, Penn State, West Virginia University, and

others.

Among the wide range of work Responsive Management has completed during the past 20 years

are studies on how the general population values natural resources and outdoor recreation, and

their opinions on and attitudes toward an array of natural resource-related issues. Responsive

Management has conducted dozens of studies of selected groups of outdoor recreationists,

including anglers, boaters, hunters, wildlife watchers, birdwatchers, park visitors, historic site

visitors, hikers, and campers, as well as selected groups within the general population, such as

landowners, farmers, urban and rural residents, women, senior citizens, children, Hispanics,

Asians, and African-Americans. Responsive Management has conducted studies on

environmental education, endangered species, waterfowl, wetlands, water quality, and the

reintroduction of numerous species such as wolves, grizzly bears, the California condor, and the

Florida panther.

Fishing Access in the United States 323

Responsive Management has conducted research on numerous natural resource ballot initiatives

and referenda and helped agencies and organizations find alternative funding and increase their

memberships and donations. Responsive Management has conducted major agency and

organizational program needs assessments and helped develop more effective programs based on

a solid foundation of fact. Responsive Management has developed websites for natural resource

organizations, conducted training workshops on the human dimensions of natural resources, and

presented numerous studies each year in presentations and as keynote speakers at major natural

resource, outdoor recreation, conservation, and environmental conferences and meetings.

Responsive Management has conducted research on public attitudes toward natural resources

and outdoor recreation in almost every state in the United States, as well as in Canada, Australia,

the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. Responsive Management routinely conducts

surveys in Spanish and has also conducted surveys and focus groups in Chinese, Korean,

Japanese, and Vietnamese.

Responsive Management’s research has been featured in most of the nation’s major media,

including CNN, ESPN, The Washington Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, The Wall Street

Journal, and on the front pages of The Washington Post and USA Today.

Visit the Responsive Management website at:

www.responsivemanagement.com