Economic impacts of sport fishing in Muskegon and Ottawa Counties a study of the Lake Michigan fisheries from October 1981 to October 1982

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

MICHIGAN
OCZ14 GRANT RIA-80-AA-H-CZ1157
SUBTASK

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SPORT FISHING IN MUSKEGON
AND OTTAWA COUNTIES

A Study of the Lake Michigan Fisheries
from October 1981 to October 1982

Scott W. Jordan and Daniel R. Talhelm

Depa.-tment of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

This document was prepared in part
through f:nancial assistance prov;(Ied by
SH the Coastal Zone Managenen, Act of 1972
473 administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management
J6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1982

December 1982

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SPORT FISHING IN MUSKEGON
AND OTTAWA COUNTIES

A Study of the Lake Michigan Fisheries
from October 1981 to October 1982

Scott W. Jordan and Daniel R. Talhelm

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

December 1982

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the Land Resource Programs
Division of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources, the Boards

of Commisssioners of Muskegon and Ottawa counties, the North West

Ottawa County Chamber of Commerce, the Grand Haven Charter Boat
Association,'the West Michigan Marine Association, the Holland

Fish and Game Club, the Holland Area Steelheaders, and the Holland

Area Chamber of Commerce. The following people were of particular

assistance during the project. In the Holland area; Terry

Hofmeyer, City Manager; Ross Giles and Louis Hallacy, Holland

Chamber of Commerce; John Dumez, Holland Fire Chieti and

interviewers Mike Leisher and Ken Talkie. In the Grand Haven area;

Greg Buckley, Assistant City Manageri Ed Lystra and Jack Smant,

Grand Haven Chamber of Commerce; Ken Whitney, Michigan Charter

Boat Association president; and interviewers Larry Smith and Pets

Tullis. In the Muskegon area; Richard Maher, Muskegon County

Planner; Dave Covell and Roy Winnegar, Muskegon Chanber of

Commerce; Richard McKeoun and John Mercer, Muskegon Sportfishing

Association; Craig Engweiler, Bernie Halvorson, Gary St.Martin,

and Ben Cihak, charter boat captains; and interviewers Bob

Chancellor, Scott Rogers, Tate King, and Joann Aurich. In the

Whitehall-Montague area; Carol Wood, Whitehall-Montague Chamber of

Commerce; and interviewers Dr. Ken Linton, Tom Hamilton, V.

Donley, D. Patton, J. Luttrull, and L. Krull of the Whitehall

Sportfishing Association, and Michael Braodbent.

Our special appreciation is extended to Charles Pistis, Sea

Grant District Extension Marine Agent, who acted as a liaison
be.tween Michigan State University and all local interested

parties. His efforts and support were instrumental in initiating

and implementating this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...................................... 2

List of Tables ........................................ 4

Summary ............................................... 6

Introduction .......................................... 7
Surveys .................... I ........................... 13

Winter lee Fishing .................................... Is

Pier Fishing .......................................... 32

Boat Fishing .......................................... 46

Grand Haven Bayou Boat Fishing ........................ 59

Charter Fishing ....................................... 62

Conclusions .......................................... 65

References ............................................ 69

Appendin A: Questionnaires ............................ 70

LIST OF TABLES

Table a a e

1. Holland ice anglers' average daily expenditures 19
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

2. Holland ice angler comments. 20

3. Grand Haven ice anglers' average daily expenditures 23
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

4. Grand Haven ice angler comments. 24

5. Muskegon ice anglers' average daily expenditures 26
made at home, en route, and in Muskegon County.

6. Muskegon ice angler comments. 27

7. Whitehall-Montague ice anglers' average daily 29
expenditures made at home, en route, and in
Muskegon County.

S. Whitehall-Montague ice angler comments. 30

9. Holland pier anglers' average daily expenditures 34
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

10. Holland pier angler comments. 35

11. Grand Haven pier anglers' average daily expenditures 38
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

12. Grand Haven pier angler comments. 3?

13. Muskegon pier anglers' average daily expenditures 41
made at home, en route, and in Muskegon County.

14. Muskegon pier angler comments. 42

15. Whitehall-Montague pier anglers' average daily 43
expenditures made at home, en route, and in
Muskegon County.

16. Whitehall-Montague pier angler comments. 44

17. Holland boat anglers' average daily expenditures 47
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

Table Paue

18. Holland boat angler comments. 48

19. Grand Haven boat anglers' average daily expenditures 50
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

20. Grand Haven boat angler comments. 51

21. Muskegon boat anglers' average daily expenditures 53
made at home, en route, and in Muskegon County.

22. Muskegon boat angler comments. 54

23. Whitehall-Montague boat anglers' average daily 56
expenditures made at home, en route, and in
Muskegon County.

24. Whitehall-Montague boat angler comments. 57

25. Grand Haven bayou boat anglers' average daily 60
expenditures made at home, en route, and in
Ottawa County.

26. Grand Haven bayou boat anglers' comments. 61

27. Grand Haven charter anglers' average daily 64
expenditures in Ottawa County.

28. Ottawa County's total and non-resident use and 65
expenditures summary.

29. Muskegon County's total and non-resident use and 66
expenditures summary.

30. Adjusted gross expenditures and direct not income 68
from non-resident angler expenditures in Ottawa and
Muskegon counties.

SUMMARY

This study estimates the economic impacts of angling in

Muskegon and Ottawa Counties for Great Lakes fish for one year

from October, 1981 to October, 1982. For each of fourteen Great

Lakes-related fisheries we estimated 1) angling effort, 2)
itemized ex'penditures by county residents and non-residents at

home, en route, and in the county fished, and 3) anglers' opinions

about local businesses, government agencies and other matters in

general. We estimated that anglers spent about 65 million for

200,000 angler days in Ottawa County, $4 million of which was

spent in the county. Anglers spent about $3 million for 150,000

angler days in Muskegon County, about $2 million of which was

spent in the county. Angling during our sample year was

apparently unusually poor, so our spending estimates may be lower

than a typical year. In-county spending attributable to the

fourteen fisheries is summarized as:

Location
Fishery Whitehall/ Grand
Montacue Muskecon Haven Holland

Ice fishing 35,000 82,000 31,000 23,000

Gt. Lk. boat 320,000 710,000 11900,000 880,000

Pier 48,000 56,000 280,000 120,000

Gt. Lk. charter na na 410,000 na

shore/bayou na na 660,000 nAL

TOTAL $603,000 $848,000 $3,281,000 $1,023,000

na means that the expenditures were not estimated. Charter
figures will be added when available.

INTRODUCTION

As Michigan's manufacturing-based economy continues to suffer

from the current recession, the economic contribution of

recreation-tourism industries in Michigan takes on increasing
significance in many localities. While recreation and tourism

dollars will probably never replace all the manufacturing jobs and

income lost throughout the state, the current economic problems

have focused the attention of public officials and private

citizens on the present and potential future contribution of

Michigan's tourism resources.

Great Lakes sport fishing has for many years been one of

Michigan's major recreational pursuits and tourist attractions.

Many of Michigan's coastal communities benefit in varying degrees

from the influx of angler dollars. In a prior study of the
economic impacts of Great Lakes sport fishing in Alcona County

(Jordan and Talhelm, 1982), we found that in at least that rural

area$ where the economic base was resticted and fishing pressure

was great, the local economy was substantially impacted by angler

expenditures. In the more populous and industrialized areas which

are the focus of this investigation, we found that whereas the
total dollar impacts war* several tim*s greater than they were in

Alcona County, their impact relativo to the much larger overall

local economy was slight. If anglers' dollars were not available,

many residents in this area would scarcely notice the difference.

This study is similar to the previous investigation of Great

Lakes sport fishing economic impacts done in Alcona County,

Michigan. Alcona County (population 10,000) is located on Lake

Huron in the northeast cornor of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. That

study was initiated when local businesses became concerned that

local residents and governement officials incorrectly percieved

that Great Lakes sport fishing was of no benefit to Alcona's

economy. The results of that study showed Great Lakes anglers

spent over $1.3 million per year in Alcona County, and that those

dollars were distributed over a wide spectrum of the local

business community. An important aspect of that study was that it
used 'the angler as its informat'ion source, which gave added
credibility to the estimated use and dollar amounts. Also, because

of the personal interviews done with anglers, the local

communities were able to document and address those issues and

problems which were of particular concern to the anglers

themselves.

As the reports of the Alcona study spread throughout the

state, other counties realized their need for similar information

about their own Great Lakes fishing opportunities. When Muskegon

and Ottawa counties expressed interest in having a study done, we

saw it as an excellent opportunity to analyze an area of the state

much different from Alcona County. Muskegon and Ottawa counties

are located midway on the lower peninsula's Lake Michigan

shoreline (rigure 1).

The Muskegon-Ottawa region has a varied economy with many

light to heavy manufacturing industries, a large farming

community, and a well established tourism trade based on a variety

of natural resource and cultural attractions. The character of the

communities along the Lake Michigan shoreline range from the

"small town" type represented by Whitehall-Montague to the

relatively "modern urban" type represented by Muskegon. Because of

the difference in communities and our perceptions of local

concerns to maintain civic autonomy in the study, the survey

efforts were segregated by four municipal areas; Holland and Crand

Haven in Ottawa County, and Muskegon and Whitehall-Montague in

Muskegon County. Throughout this report they will be refered to as

the sampling areas.

Figure 1. Muskegon-Ottawa Study Area.

ONM46M

r
IRAV 14WR .40WWA

IV=
Wli;;@ wvrmw- IVXA

sca 6WM;1;4 ViFo

IYUROW
MfWArM tWlflC_,Wlr_A, ISANI.&AkA.
VAUAND

r
'-Ti
usc, A

mimr
L_ I "Nfsff
44LISM 'SNIAWA$,

ALLE"N SAW IAW Nmwm @@i
L
Ollf
W10 V.Vf

LSDALS LIAAAWIC
T MOW"

The fishing opportunities available in those four cities are

much more varied than the stictly open-water salmonid fishery

available in Alcona County. There is a winter ice fishery for a

variety of gamefish (walleye Stizostedion vitreum, northern pike
Esox lucius, yellow perch Perca- flavescenst crappie Pomoxis app.,
and bluegill Lenomis macrochirus) on Lake Macatawa, the Pigeon

River,the Grand River bayous, Muskegon Lake, and White Lake.

Those same waters - all of which are connected to Lake Michigan

also offer warm-weather fishing opportunities for those same

species and largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, smallmouth bass

Micropterus dolomieuis and catfish Ictalurus spp..

On Lake Michigan anglers fish for salmon Oncorhynchus spp.,

lake trout Salvalinus namavcush, steelhead Salm aairdneri, brown

trout Salmo- trutta menominee Prosopium Cylindraceum, and yellow

perch from boats, piers, and the shore.

The primary goals of this investigation were to 1) estimate

the total number of angler days - an angler day is one person

fishing any part of one day - spent fishing by anglers in all the

Great Lakes-associated fisheries in the two counties, 2) estimate

the average daily expenditures by both county resident and county

non-resident anglers for each of the different fisheries

previously listed in each of the four municipal areas, and 3) to

solicit subjective responses from anglers as to their perceptions

of the adequacy of both public and privately offered goods and

services in the study area, along with their overall impressions

of the fishing opportunities available in Muskegon and Ottawa

counties.

A one year study always presents the risk of sampling a time

period which does not represent the norm. From conversations with

local people and from actual experience through the interviewing

process, it appears that fishing success was much below normal in

the 1981-1982 fishing year.

Ice fishing was not as good as expected in all four sampling

areas, with the fishing being particularly abysmal in the Grand
River bayous around Grand Haven. In the past these bayous have

provided such outstanding winter fishing that they received

national attention and drew thousands of anglers to the area to
ice fish. This year anglers originating from outside the study
area were conspicuously absent, representing only 5% of our winter

sample in the bayous.

In the Muskegon area ice fishing on Muskegon Lake was also
generally poor. In the northern and eastern areas of Muskegon Lake

the winter walleye fishing declined after developing nicely over

the past two years. We recorded very few walleye caught in our

survey of winter anglers, and except for some steady activity with

northern pike near the Cobb power plant, the fishing in these

parts of the lake could be considered a bust. Yellow perch

fishing on Muskegon Lake was at times fair, but anglers often

complained that the fishing was slow and that the perch caught

were mostly small ones.

Yellow perch fishing on White Lake in the Whitehall-Montague
area was better than on Muskegon Lake. Although anglers at White

Lake complained of the poor fishing, their average catch rate was

more than twice what it was at in any of the other three sampling

areas. However, the northern pike fishing on White Lake - both

with hook-and-line and spears - was slow through the season.

In the Holland area in the winter the situation was the same.

Anglers fishing on Lake Macatawa at times had good catches, but

success was not consistant, and again the size of the fish was
generally small. At Port Sheldon, catches of yellow perch on the
average were better than those on Lake Macatawa.

On Lake Michigan the catch of spring stetlhead and brown

trout from the piers in all four sampling areas was very low, and

as summer progressed, the usually good perch fishing on the piers
and on the connecting lakes (Macatawa, Muskegon, and White) never

materialized. Offshore salmonid fishing was fair in May, terrible

in June, not quite fair in July and August, and because of an

unexplainable delay in the salmon run, was only fair in September

and the first part of October. The fall pier fishing for salmonids

was particularly dismal because of the late runs. Not until late

October did anglers began to consistantIy catch fish.

The overall poor fishing in the area during the year of this

study is consistantly reflected in our calculated catch rates in

the individual fisheries sections through the report. Again we
believe the poor fishing in many cases restricted the influx of

non-resident anglers. Therefore, we reasonably expect that many of

the results from this study underestimate the sport fishing

impacts associated with a "typical" year's fishing in the

Muskegon-Ottawa region.

For the entire study period we estimated that anglers spent

258,203 days fishing and $4,279,314 in Ottawa County, of which

149,796 days and $3,089,406 was attributable to non-resident

(out-of-county) anglers. We estimated that anglers spent 165,595

days fishing and $1,448,288 in Muskegon County, of which 32,193

days and $376,604 was attributable to non-resident anglers. Those

estimates are apportioned by fishery and sampling area (city) in

the different fisheries sections of this report.

The three comments expressed most frequently by anglers in

all of the sampling areas were 1) something should be done to stop

the indiscriminate gillnotting of Great Lakes sport fish, 2)

greater numbers of fish (anglers specified many species) need to

be planted, and 3) the Department of Natural Resources should not

charge to launch a boat at their access facilities.

SURVEYS

Anglers were interviewed at all fishing access points within

a sampling area, which were either 1) observed by us to have

angling usage or 2) were pointed out by local people to be areas

of fishing activity. Our four sampling areas from south to north

in the study area were Holland, Grand Haven, Muskegon, and

Whitehall-Montague.

In the Holland area we sampled the fishing activity on (1)

Lake Macatawa, (2) Lake Michigan piers, (3) Lake Michigan

(offshore salmonids) off the entrance to Lake Macatawa, (4) the

Pigeon River near Port Sheldon, and (5) Lake Michigan (offshore

salmonids) off the mouth of the Pigeon River. In the Grand Haven

area we sampled fishing on (1) the Grand River bayous, (2) the

Lake Michigan piers, and (3) Lake Michigan (offshore salmonid) off
the mouth of the Grand River. In Muskegon we sampled fishing

activity on (1) Muskegon Lake, (2) the Lake Michigan piers, and

(3) Lake Michigan (offshore salmonid) off the entrance to Muskegon

Lake. In the Whitehall-Montague area we sampled fishing on (1)

White Lake, (2) the Lake Michigan piers, and (3) Lake Michigan

(offshore salmonid) off the entrance to White Lake.

Anglers were questioned about their trip eupenditures, their

length of stay, their fishing sucess, where they were from, where

they were staying, their impressions of the fishing in that sample

area, whether they had reasons other than fishing for their trip,

if they knew about the artificial reef and had ever fished over

it, and personal information.

Ice, Pier, and shore fishina

Ice, pier, and shore fishing use was estimated using a roving

survey (Hayne, 1966, 1972; Malvestuto, Davies and Shelton, 1978;

and Talhelm, 1972). A roving survey consists of systematic

traverses of either sections of shoreline, a pier, or a
concentration of ice anglers. In'all three instances, anglers are

asked how long they plan on fishing that day, and based on (1) the

probability of an interviewer encountering an angler fishing a
specified number of hours, (2) the number of anglers counted on a

traverse, and (3) the number of traverses of a particular fishing

site done that day, the total number of anglers fishing at that

site that day can be estimated. We then averaged daily estimates

for each site for each season, distinquishing between weekday and

weekend/holiday usage, to arrive at total estimated use for each

identified fishery.

Because shore, pier, and ice anglers were usually interviewed

before they had finished fishing for the day, their daily catch

had to be estimated. This was done by taking the ratio of the

number of hours they planned on fishing that day to the number of

hours they had already fished when interviewed, and multiplying it

by the number of fish they had caught at the time of the

interview.

Boat fishina

Private boat angler use was estimated in two ways. The first

method was used for all the offshore salmonid fishing in Lake

Michigan and for the fisheries on Lake Macatawa, Muskegon Lake,

and White Lake. This method was developed to specifically address

a problem associated with Lake Macatawa, Muskegon Lake, and White

Lake, all of which connect with Lake Michigan. The problem is that

anglers departing from any of the numerous access sites and

marinas on each lake could plan to fish either on Lake Michigan,

the connecting lake, or both. Instantaneous counts of effort on

either the connecting lakes or Lake Michigan would be biased
because: 1) counts on Lake Michigan would assume that all boats
originating out of a particular sampling area were within visual

range, and 2) the geography of Lake Macatawa and White Lake made

it impossible to see either lake in its entirety. Furthurmore,

the origins of effort on Lake Michigan would be biased if we

assumed that all the boats within@visual range at a sampling area

had originated from that sampling area.

Therefore, from the entrances of Lake Macatawa, Muskegon

Lake, and White Lake, and from the mouth of the Grand River, we

counted, on randomly selected hours, the number of positively
identified fishing boats heading out onto Lake Michigan. Using
those,counts, we calculated the average hourly number of fishing

boats from each sampling area going out on Lake Michigan. By
adding those hourly averages for weekdays and weekend-days
repectively, we calculated average daily totals of weekday and
weekend-day fishing boat trips onto Lake Michigan for each

sampling area. We then multiplied the average daily totals by the

number of weekdays and weekend-days in the boating season to
obtain the annual number of boat trips onto Lake Michigan.

In our interviews done with boat anglers at sampling area
launch sites and marinas, we noted how many people on each boat

actually fished that day, and whether on that day the party fished

either on Lake Michigan, the connecting lake, or both. From that

information we calculated the ratio of sampled boat anglers who

went out on Lake Michigan to those who did not. Using that ratio

and the total estimated number of fishing boats that went out on
Lake Michigan, we estimated the number of boat trips made

exclusively to fish on the connecting lakes. Having estimated the

total number of daily fishing boat trips on Lake Michigan and the

connecting lakes, we multiplied by the average number of anglers

per boat to arrive at our estimates of boat angler usage for each

sampling area.
The second method was used for estimating boat angler usage on

the Grand River bayous and at Port Sheldon in the Holland area. On

randomly selected days at each of the various access sites, an

early morning count of boat trailers was made, to which was added
the number of additional boat launchings made that day. Those

total daily estimates were averaged and then multiplied by the

mumber of days in the boating season to calculate the total number

of fishing boat trips made from that access site. That estimate
was Chen multiplied by the average number of anglers per boat
fishing the bayous or at Fort Sheldon to arrive at an estimate of

total boat angler usage.

Charter boat-fishing

A one page questionnaire for the charter boat fishery was

specif'ically designed to be administered by the charter captains.

To encourage the captains' cooperation, it was much briefer than

the standard questionnaire, and was done on a party basis rather

than for each individual client. The questionnaire's main focus

was county expenditures. Even with the simplified form, however,
few charter captains cooperated. The notable exception were some

captains in the Grand Haven area. Therefore, we were able to do a

thorough analysis of charter fishing impacts only in that area. In

the other sampling areas we used the Grand Haven expenditures

estimates and expanded them by the level of client use reported by

the captains. The estimates of charter client use for all four

sampling areas came from the captains' logbooks of charters for

the 1982 season.

Ausiness survey

A questionnaire was mailed to over 700 businesses in the

study area for the purpose of estimating the secondary economic

impacts of anglers expenditures. In the Alcona study we had used

economic multipliers from the Literature (Kalter and Lord, 1968;

Pearse and Laub, 1969). However, in this investigation we hoped to

refine our estimates of the secondary impacts by surveying the

study area businesses, and then applying input-output model tables

16 -

developed by Diamond and Chappelle (1981) for the Manistee County
economy to the responses we received from cooperating businesses.

. In the questionnaire we asked businesses 1) their grosss
annual receipts, 2) their major products and/or services and the

percentage of their gross receipts attributable to each, 3) the
number' of full-time equivalent employees they had, 4) what

percentage of their total revenues would they attribute to

anglers' purchases, 5) for 26 different sectors of the economy,

what percentage of their total revenues did they use for purchases

in each sector, and 6) for purchases within each sector, what

percentage was purchased within the county.

By using a questionnaire of this sort and by applying

input-output modeling techniques, we had hoped to derive

mutipliers for each category of business establishment we felt

anglers patronized in the study area. In that way the secondary

impacts for Muskegon and Ottawa counties could be more precisely

estimated. However, as of the date of this report, too few of the

questionnaires have been returned (approximately 20) for any

reasonable analysis.

We suspect in part this was due to the anti-government and

anti-study attitude prevalent in today's business community. Some

of the returned questionnaires sported comments colorfully

empounding that attitude. However, we are continuing efforts to

solicit businesses' cooperation, and if a worthwhile sample is
obtained we will analyze the data and append a report to this

report. In lieu of the more detailed analysis, we will use the

multipliers from the literature which were used in the Alcona

study.

Copies of the angler, charter, and business questionnaires
can be found in Appendix A.

17 -

WINTER ICE FISHING

lee fishing did not begin in the study area until well into
January 1982. The ice was unsafe until then, except on the Grand

River bayous, where safe ice formed soon after Christmas. In the

Holland and Grand Haven areas fishing was best for the first few

weeks. After that, fishing was generally poor. In Muskegon

'County on Muskegon Lake and White Lake the fishing was more

consistant through the season. Anglers on Muskegon Lake had

marginal success, while anglers on White Lake had the best success

of any of the sample areas. However, the overall concensus among

anglers was that the 1981 winter season was below par.

We expected ice fishing to be a local phenomenon, with few

out-of-county anglers. The overall poor fishing probably would

heigthen that phenomenon. In the Holland area 6.3% of the anglers

sampled were non-residents. In the three other sample areas, a

surprisingly high 22-23% were non-residents. We found, however,

that 78% of the non-resident anglers in Muskegon County came from

Ottawa County and vice versa. Therefore, we still feel the ice

fishery is predominantly a local fishery, and that the below par

fishing reduced the level of use by non-residents of the study

area.

Two types of ice angler use were estimated. Anglers fishing in

the open were counted and their associated use estimated using the

roving survey-probability methods described in the Surveys

section.

Shanty fishing effort was estimated using a throe-st*p method.

First, shanties were counted on each sampling day at each site.

These counts were used to calculate the average daily number of

shanties for the season at each site. Second, from shanty angler

interviews, we calculated the average number of anglers per shanty

at a site. Third, interviewed shanty anglers were asked how many

times during the ice fishing season they expected to use their

shanty. Since shanty anglers who fished more often were more

likely to be interviewed, we weighted each observation of nuimber

of anglers per shanty and number of days the angler expected to

use the shanty during the ice' season by the probability of

encountering that angler. For instance, if an angler told us he

was going to fish 10 times that season, and the season was 80 days

long, then we weighted his response by a factor of eight.

By multiplying the average daily number of shanties by the

weighted average of number of anglers in a shanty, and then again

by the weighted average of number of times anglers expected to use

their shanties, we estimated total shanty angler use at each ice

fishing site.

Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7 list the average daily expenditures

made by ice anglers in the four sampling areas for a number of

categories of purchases. The averages listed are for the entire

population of anglers (resident and non-resident), whereas the

figures in parentheses are the average non-resident expenditures.

The non-resident expenditures to the amounts of "new" money coming

into the local economy. We beleive the local nature of the fishery

and the apparent below normal participation by anglers from

outside the study area explain the very low expenditure patterns.

Totals of 18,499 angler days and $54,245 were spent in Ottawa

County for ice angling, and 19,608 angler days and $117,076 in

Muskegon County. Of those totals non-residents spent 3271 angler

days and $5197 in Ottawa County, and 4,548 angler days and $26,173

in Muskegon County.

Tables 2, 4, 6, and a list anglers' comments about their

perceptions of the adequacy of both private and public facilities

and services in the sampling area. These questions were designed

to permit anglers to express their mindful concerns, rather than

19 -

to lead them into particular responses. Therefore, while the

frequency of any particular response was low, each repsonse

represents a conscience concern of an angler.

Holland

lee fishing in the Holland area was concentrated off the

State Park campground on Lake Macatawa. Anglers on the Pigeon

River at Port Sheldon were also sampled. Non-resident anglers

accounted for 8.3% of our sample.

For all anglers interviewed at both sites, 61% had caught

fish on the day questioned. Anglers caught an average of 15 fish

per day, 9Z% of which were yellow perch.

Table 1. Holland ice anglers' average daily expenditures made at
home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

Type of expenditure Home En route County

Major fishing equip. .22

Tackle-small gear .67
.25)

Licenses .48

Restaurants .54

Groceries .04

Beer .07 .13
.80)

Vehicle gas .16 1.00
( 1.84) I-Z5)

Miscellaneous

Total .23 3.20

Non-residont subtotal ( 2.64) 1.75)

20 -

The total estimated gross expenditures of all Holland ice

anglers in Ottawa County were:

7,243 angler days X $3.20 per angler day = $23,178

The estimated gross expenditures of Holland non-resident ice

anglers in Ottawa County were:

630 angler days X $1.75 per angler day = $1,103

Table 2. Holland ice angler comments.

I. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed analers

1. Bait stores need a wider selection
of baits. 13.0%

2. Bait stores need to open earlier in
the day. 6.5%

3. Need a place that will cash out of
town checks. 4.3%

Seventy-eight percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies.

ResponsPLE % of interviewed angle[s

1. DNR should not charge to launch
boats during the summer. 30.4%

2. Somehow the Indian gillnetting must
be stopped. 10.9%

3.-More walleye should be stocked. 4.3%

4. More muskies should be stocked. 4.3%

21 -

Table 2 continued:

Fifty-four percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
faci-lities.

III. General responses.

Respo nse % of interviewed anglers

1. The yellow perch are small. 10.9%

2. Agree with salmon snagging. 4.3%

3. Holland Fish and Game Club has a
good program. 2.2%

4. Enjoys the fishing here. 2.2%

Grand Haven

The ice fishing in the Grand Haven area occurs on a number of

bayous, or backwater areas, of the lower Grand River. On all the

bayous anglers fish primarily for bluegill, yellow perch, and

crappies. On Stearns Bayou many of them spear northern pike. The

Grand River bayous (Pottawatomie, Millhouse, Stearns, Bruce,

Lloyds, and Spring Lake) have historically been oucellent winter

fishing locations. As recently as the late 1970's bluegill fishing

was particularly outstanding, but has declined over the past few

years. Some of the local anglers interviewed felt the recent

programs of poisoning the bayous for wood control caused the poor

fishing.

Fishing was good for a few weeks after "first ice" this
winter, but then dropped off rapidly. Anglers said that in recent

years thousands of anglers would come over the course of the ice
fishing season to fish the bayous, with hundreds of people present

every weekend. In our sampling we never saw more than fifty people

22 -

outside of shanties on all the bayous combined on a sample day.

Although there was a season average of over 150 shanties on the

bayous, most of them belonged to local residents and residents of

Musk-egon. Only 22.9% of our sample were non-residents, and 84% of

them came from Muskegon County.

Only 43% of the anglers interviewed had caught fish on the

day questioned, and the aggregate catch for all species was 5.2

fish per angler day. The catch was almost equally divided between

yellow perch (30%), bluegiII (25%), and crappie (32%).

Table 3. Grand Haven ice anglers' average daily expenditures made
at home, an route, and in Ottawa County.

Type of expenditure Home ED route, County

Tackle-smaIl gear .02 .67
.09) .36)

Groceries .17
.18)

Beer .21 .02 .13
.91) .09) .55)

Vehicle gas .31 1.52
( 1.34) .46)

Miscellaneous .27

Total .54 .02 2.76

Non-resident subtotal ( 2.34) .09) 1.55)

23 -

The total estimated gross expenditures of all Grand Haven ice

anglers in Ottawa County were:

11,256 angler days X $2.76 per day = $31,067

The estimated gross expenditures of Grand Haven non-resident

ice anglers in Ottawa County were:

2641 angler days X $1.55 per day = $4,094

Table 4. Grand Haven ice angler comments.

I. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewe� anglera

1. More tackle stores need to sell bait. 6.3%

2. Tackle stores need a wider selection
of gear. 4.2%

3. Bait and tackle stores need to open
earlier in the morning. 4.2%

4. Bait and tackle store prices are
too high. 2.1%

Eighty-three percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

11. Responses about government agencies.

RexponLgA % of interviewed anglers

1. Need public access to Stearn's bayou. 18.8%

2. License fees are too high. 4.2%

3. Need snow plowed at the access sites. 4.2%

4. Do not charge to launch boats in the
summer. 4.2%

5. Stock walleye in the Grand River. 4.2%

24 -

Table 4 continued:

Fifty-six percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

III. General responses.

Response % of interviewed analers

1. The Grand.Haven area has good fishing. 20.8%

-2. The fishing is poor. 4.2%

3. Ban speedboats on the bayous in the
summer. 4.2%

4. Property owners should not spray the
aquatic weeds in the bayous. 8.3%

5. Appreciates Bill's Sport Shop plowing
the Lloyd's Bayou access. 2.1%

Muskegon

Muskegon Lake had the most ice fishing activity of any of the

sampling areas during 1982. We believe a major reason for the
greater activity is the lake's proximity to a metropolitan area

with many of its residents out of work. Many of the people we

interviewed were unemployed locals.

While angler use was substantial, fishing success was only

marginal. Yellow perch fishing, which accounts for most of the

winter use, varied from good to poor throughout the season. The

best catches were made in the southwest portion of the lake near

the yaught club and sand docks, though anglers complained that the
fish were too small. Pike fishing off the Cobb power plant was

fair throughout the season. The walleye fishing was spotty most of

the season, both off the Cobb power plant and off the North

Muskegon shoreline. Two weekend yellow perch tournaments

sponsored by local sporting goods stores drew close to 1000

anglers apiece. Non-residents comprised 23.2% of our sample.

Fifty-nine percent of all anglers interviewed had caught fish

on the day questioned. The aggregate catch was 6.6 fish per

angler day, 94% of which were yellow perch.

Table S. Muskegon ice anglers' average daily expenditures made at
home, en route, and in Muskegon County.

Type of expenditure HOMA En route County

Major fishing equip. .61

Tackle-small gear .04 1.94
.16) ( 1.90)

Restaurants .61
( 1.84)

Groceries .49
.21)

Beer .59
.26)

Vehicle gas .33 1.07
( 1.42) .74)

Miscellaneous .23
.79)

Total .37 5.54

Non-resident subtotal ( 1.58) 5.74)

The total estimated gross expenditures of all Muskegon ice

anglers in Muskegon County were:

14,781 angler days X $5.54 per angler day $81,887

The estimated gross expenditures of Muskegon non-resident ice

anglers in Muskegon County were:

3,425 angler days X $5.74 per angler day = $19,660

Table 6. Muskegon ice angler comments.

1. Responses about the local businesses.

ResRonses % of interviewed analers

1. Bait stores should open earlier. 2.4%

2. Bait store prices are too high. 1.2%

3. Need an open restaurant closer to
the marina in winter. 1.2%

Ninety-three percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies.

ResgonLjj % of interviewed anglers

1. Need winter parking at South Marina area. 15.9%

2. DNR should not charge to launch boats
in summer. 13.4%

3. Plant more walleye. 7.3%

4. Need more boat launching sites on
Muskegon Lake. 4.9%
5. Need more winter parking at Johnson's Point. 3.7%

6. Access sites should be plowed more often
in winter. 2.4%

27 -

Table 6 continued:

Fifty-one percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

III. General responses.

Res2 onse % of interviewed anglers

1. The fishing is good around Muskegon. 20.7%

2. Muskegon Lake is much cleaner now. 7.3%

3. Likes having the waLleyes back in
Muskegon Lake. 4.9%

4. Giddings ramp and lot is nice. 3.7%

5. Still thinks Muskegon Lake is polluted. 2.4%

6. Appreciates H. Muskegon plowing the
Second Street lot. 2.4%

7. Great Lakes fishing is becoming a rich
man's sport. 2.4%

8. Need to promote Muskegon's fishing more
vigorously. 2.4%

Whitehall-Montacue

White Lake had the best ice fishing, especially for yellow

parch, of all the sampling areas. Seventy-one percent of all the

anglers interviewed had caught fish on the day questioned, and the

aggregate catch was 20.2 fish per day. The catch rate for yellow

perch was 19.2 fish per day. Most of the perch fishing activity

was concentrated on the eastern and of the lake.

A fair number of shanty anglers speared and jigged for

northern pike on the south side of the lake. For all of the
anglers interviewed, the catch rate for northern pike was 0.3 fish

per angler day.

28 -

Non-residents accounted for 23.3 % of our sample.

Table 7. Whitehall-Montague ice anglers' average daily
expenditures made at home, en route, and in Muskegon
County.

Type of expenditure Home En route, County

Major fishing equip. .76

Tackle-small gear .04 2.22
.15) 2.20)

Restaurants .71
1.10)

Groceries .12 .35
.50)

Beer .06 .76
.25) .15)

Vehicle gas .91 2.32
3.90) 2.00)

Miscellaneous .04 .17
.15) .35)

Total 1.17 7.29

Non-resident subtotal 4.95) 5.80)

The total estimated gross expenditures of all

Whitehall-Montague ice anglers in Muskegon County were:

4,827 angler days X $7.29 per angler day - $35,18?

The estimated gross expenditures of Whitehall-Montague

non-resident ice anglers in Muskegon County were:

1,123 angler days X $5.80 per angler day = 16,513

Table 8. Whitehall-Montague ice angler comments.

I. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed Anglers

1. Cet rid of Hooker Chemical Co. 8.1%

2. Bait shops need to open earlier 3.5%
3. Area needs more fishing contests. 1.2%

4. Area needs more boat rentals in
summer. 1.2%

5. Area needs more cocktail bars. 1.2%

Ninety percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the local
businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies.

Hesponses % of inte-r-yiewed analars

1. Clean the woods out of the channel. 8.1%

2. Need to plow more parking in winter. 7.0%

3. Stock perch. 4.7%

4. Clean up White Lake. 4.7%

5. Stop the Indian gillnetting. 3.5%

6. Need a public boat launch near the
mouth of White Lake. 3.5%

7. Stock more walleye. 3.5%

Forty-seven percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

30 -

Table 8 continued:

III.-General responses.

Response % of interviewed analers

1. Too many small fish. 11.6%
2. The fishing is poor. 9.3%
3. The people in this area are nice. 3.5%
4. The lake water is cloudy. 2.3%
S. The fishing is good. 2.3%
6. The scenery is beautiful. 2.3%

31 -

PIER FISHING

All four sampling areas have pier fishing available. The

piers are actually breakwalls built by the United States Army

Corps of Engineers to maintain channels for ocean-going ships to

enter the ports of the four cities. Anglers fish from the piers

from early spring until early winter.

Anglers fish for a variety of species of fish from the piers,

the p redominant one varying with the season. The general pattern,

with some local exceptions, is for anglers to begin by fishing for

steelhead and brown trout in early spring. In late spring and for

most of the summer, anglers fish primarily for yellow perch.

Anglers fish for salmon in late summer and into the fall, as well

as for the steelhead and brown trout which follow the salmon on

their migration up the rivers. Anglers also fish for menominee

from the piers in the late summer and through the fall. Finally,

pier anglers fish for lake trout, which make spawning runs up some

of the rivers in late fall.

In Muskegon County we estimated that over 90% of angler use

was by local residents. We believe the close proximity to a large

city, especially one with high umemployment, explains much of that

local use. Non-residents accounted for 58% of our sample in

Ottawa County. Pier fishing in Ottawa County can be excellent,
especially on the Grand Haven pier, and over the years the Ottawa

County piers have earned a reputation which attracts people from

all around the Great Lakes region.

Fishing on the piers was generally poor for the entire year.

The salmonid fishing was extremely slow, with catch rates ranging

from 0.01-0.18 fish per angler day. With the exception of the

White Lake pier (15.8 fish per angler day), yellow perch fishing
was also very slow, with catch rates ranging from 2.8-4.3 fish per

angler day.

Tables 9, 11, 13, and 15 list the average daily expenditures
made by pier anglers. We believe the average expenditures are not

higher'because many of the non-residents came from the adjacent

county (Muskegon to Ottawa, and vice versa). Also, because many of

the non-residents originated close by, they usually stayed for
only one day, and whereas daily expenditures increase with longer

visits, most non-residents in this case did not stay long enough

to spend any appreciable amounts of money.

Totals of 49,220 angler days and $401,715 were spent in

Ottawa County for pier angling, and 15,827 angler days and

$104,595 in Muskegon County. Of those totals non-residents spent

28,447 angler days and $273,370 in Ottawa County, and 1,370 angler

days and $7,796 in Muskegon County.

Tables 10, 12, 14, and 16 list anglers' comments about their
perceptions of the adequacy of both private and public facilities

in the sampling area.

Holland

The Holland piers are located where Lake Macatawa empties

into Lake Michigan. The south pier in Holland is not accessible to

the public. A few Local residents with property near the south

pier are the only people who fish there. The north pier is within

the boundaries of Holland State Park, and it is only for that pier

that an analysis was conducted.

For all anglers interviewed on the north pier, 40% had caught

fish on the day questioned. That percentage is an average for all

angling from the spring through the fall seasons. Anglers caught

an average of 2.8 fish per angler day, 99% of which were yellow

perch.

Table 9. Holland pier anglers' average daily expenditures
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

Type of expenditure Home En rou_Le County

Tackle-small-gear .09 .04 2.94
.17) .08) 3.91)

Licenses .62
.48)

Launch fees .05

Boat gas and oil .03
.05)

Camping .07 .47
.14) .52)

Lodging .18
.31)

Restaurants .15 .23
.30) .29)

Groceries .05 .35 1.00
.10) .69) 1.31)

Beer .01 .08
.03) .04)

Vehicle gas .65 2.67 1.81
( 1.26) 5.20) 2.57)

Miscellaneous .16

Family spending .05
.10)

Total .80 3.31 6.74

Mon-resident subtotal ( 1.80) 6.46) 8.51)

34 -

The total esNtimated gross expenditures in Ottawa County of

all Holland pier anglers were:

17,574 angler days X $6.74 per angler day = $121,961

The estimated gross expenditures in Ottawa County of Holland

non-resident pier anglers were:

9,015 angler days X $8.51 per angler day $76,718

Table 10. Holland pier angler comments.

1. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed anglers

1. Bait store prices are too high. 1.0%
2. Bait stores need to open earlier. 0.5%
3. Bait stores need to open on Sunday. 0.5%

4. A cocktail bar would be nice near
the north pier 0.5%

Ninety-seven percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

35 -

Table 10 continued:

Il. Responses about government agencies.

Responses % of interviewed analers

1. Sta'te Park admission fees are too
high. 7.8%

2. Put a sidewalk out to the pier. 6.7%

3. Need bathrooms on or near the pier. 5.2%

4. Enforce NO SWIMMING off the pier. 3.6%

5. Open the restrooms earlier in the
State Park. 2.6%

6. Something must be done to increase
the* yellow perch population. 2.1%
7. Need more parking at the State Park 2.1%

8. Somehow the Indian gillnetting must
be stopped. 2.1%

Fifty-six percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

III. General responses.

Response % of interviewed anclers

1. Need cushions on the pier. 0.5%

2. This is a nice area. 0.5%

3. The Anchorage Marina is nice. 0.5%

4. Likes the bike path into town. 0.5%

5. Thinks American Tackle Outfitters
is a good tackle store. 0.5%

Grand Haven

The Grand Haven piers are located where the Grand River flows

into Lake Michigan. Both piers have good access. The piers

36 -

receive heavy use because of the reputation they have of providing

good fishing.
For all anglers interviewed on the north pier, 36% had caught

fish- on the day questioned. That percentage is an average for all

species from the spring through the fall seasons. The aggregate

catch for a~ql~ql species on days anglers were interviewed was 4.2
fish p~'er day. Yellow perch comprised 68% of the fish we observed

caught.

Table 11. Grand-Haven pier anglers' average daily expenditures
made at home, en route, and in Ottawa County.

Type of expenditure Home En route County

Major fishing equip. ~.1~q6 ~.57
.2~q6) ~.47)

Tackle-small gear .25 ~.~q8~q6 1.20
.40) 1.36) 1.46)

Licenses .05 ~.04 ~.41
.09) .04) ~.20)

Boat gas and oil ~.0~q1 ~.0~q1
.02) ~.02)

Camping ~.59 ~.5~q8
~.9~q6) .~q82)

Lodging ~.12 ~.37
.20) ~.~q6~q1)

Restaurants .0~q8 1~.13
.09) ~q( 1.~q68)

Groceries 2.48 ~.~q01 ~.79
4.04) ~.0~q1) ( 1.07)

Beer ~.0~q1 28
.0~q2) ~.28)

Vehicle gas 1.14 ~.~q1~q1 3.00
~q1~.8~q6) .~q18) 2.86)

Miscellaneous ~q.30 .0~q6
.49) .0~2q6)

Family spending ~q.44
~q.59)

Total 4.40 1.81 8.84

Non-resident total 7.18) 2.84) (10.12)

37 -

The total estimated gross expenditures in Ottawa County of

all Grand Haven pier anglers were:

31,646 angler days X $8.84 per day = $279,751

The estimated gross expenditures in Ottawa County of Grand

Haven non-resident pier anglers were: 19,432 angler days X

$10.12'per day $196,652 1

Table 12. Grand Haven pier angler comments.

I. Responses.about the local businesses.

Responses %_ of interviewed anglers

1. Need a tackle store closer to the
I North pier. 5.3%

2. More tackle stores need to sell
live bait. 4.4%

3. Tackle stores need to open earlier. 3.8%

4. Need a tackle store closer to the
South pier. 2.0%

5. Tackle stores have a limited selection
of merchandise. 1.8%

6. Need better bait shops. 1.8%

Eighty-two percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

Table 12 continued:

II. Responses about government agencies.

Responses % of interviewed analars

1. Stop the Indian gillnetting. 15.5%

2. Plant more steelhead and brown trout. 4.1%

3. Clean and fix N.pier restrooms. 3.5%

4. Need more parking at N.pier lot. 2.3%

5. Grand Haven needs an artificial reef. 2.0%

6. Do not charge to park at S.pier lot. 2.0%

7. Plant more walleye. 1.8%

S. Clean restrooms at municipal boat launch. 1.8%

Fifty-seven percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

Ill. General responses.

Response % of intervigwed anglers

1. Grand Haven is a good place to fish. 11.1%

2. The fishing is poor. 5.3%

3. North pier lot and walkway is nice. 4.4%

4. Grand Haven is a great place. 3.5%

5. The piers are nice. 2.3%

Muskecon

For all anglers interviewed on the north pier, 40% had caught

fish on the day questioned. That percentage is an average for all

species from the spring through the fall seasons. The aggregate

ca.tch for all species on days anglers were interviewed was 5.7

fish per day. Yellow perch comprised 75% of the fish we observed

caught.

- 39 -

Table 13. Muskegon pier anglers' average daily expenditures made
at home, en route, and in Muskegon County.

Type of exp2nditure Home En route County

Major fishing equip. .26

TackIe-small gear .03 .03 1.71
.45) .43) .54)

Licenses .04 .04 1.15
.60) .57) 1.07)

Launch fees .01

Camping .02

Lodging .15
( 2.14)

Restaurants .57
( 2.26)

Groceries .03 .70
.43) .36)

Beer .23
.54)

Vehicle gas .02 2.31
.31) 5.50)

Miscellaneous .01 .13
.07) .54)

Family spending .08
1.07)

Total .13 .07 6.26

Non-resident total 1.85) 1.00) 8.53)

The total estimated gross expenditures in Muskegon County of

all Muskegon pier anglers were:

9,015 angler days X $6.26 per angler day = $56,434

The estimated gross expenditures in Muskegon County of

Muskegon non-resident pier anglers war*:
634 angler days X $8.53 per angler day - $5,408

- 41 -

Table 14. Muskegon pier angler comments.

I. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed anaIers

1. Bait stores need to open earlier. 1.5%

2. Tackle stores have a limited selection
of merchandise. 1.5%

3. Need a bait store closer to the pier. 1.5%

4. Prices in the area are too high. 1.0%

Ninety-two percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local 'businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies.

Responses % of interviewed anclers

1. Stop the Indian gillnetting. 7.0%

2. Muskegon Lake launching ramps need
to be -better maintained. 3.0%

3. Move the rocks away from the pier. 2.0%

4. Do not charge to launch boats. 1.5%

5. Put a cement walk on the North pier. 1.5%

6. Do something to improve the perch fishing. 1.5%

Seventy-six percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

Table 14 continued:

III. General responses.

Rgsponse % of interviewed analers

1. The fishing is poor. 3.5%

2. The'Muskegon area has good fishing. 3.0%

3. Support snagging. 2.0%

4. The Muskegon area is nice. 1.5%

5. Boats come too close to the pier. 1.5%

Whitehall-Montaoue,

For all anglers interviewed on the Whitehall-Montague piers,

84% had caught fish on the day questioned. That percentage is an

average for all angling from the spring through the fall seasons.

Anglers caught an average of 19.5 fish per angler day, 81% of

which were yellow perch.

Table 13. Whitehall-Montague pier anglers' average daily
expenditures made at home, en route, and in Muskegon
County.

Type of expenditure Home En route County

Tackle-small gear .03 1.86
1.14)

Restaurants .30
.02)

Groceries .06 1.24
( .63) .76)

Boer .02 .34
.23) 1.10)

Vehicle gas .28 3.15
( 1.28) .11)

Miscellaneous .18

Total .37 .07 7.07

Mon-resident total ( 1.91) .23) 3.13)

43 -

The total estimated gross expenditures in Muskegon County of

all Whitehall-Kontague pier anglers were:

6812 angler days X $7.07 per angler day = $48,161

The estimated gross expenditures in Muskegon County of

Whitehall-Kontague non-resident anglers were:

736 angler days X $3.13 per angler day = $2,388

Table 16. Whitehall-Montague pier angler comments.

I. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed analgrs

1. Need a tackle store near the piers. 5.4%

Ninety-five percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

ri. Responses about government agencies.

Responses % of interviewed analars

1. Need more parking at access sites. 8.1%

2. Need restrooms on the pier. 6.8%

3. Clean up White Lake. 5.4%

4. Need boat launch at west end of
White Lake. 4.1%

Seventy-four percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

44 -

Table 16 continued:

III. General responses.

Response % of interviewed anglers

1. Likes the Whitehall-Montague area. 4.1%

2. The fishing is poor. 2.7%

BOAT FISHING

In all of the sampling areas boat fishing accounted for the
largest proportion of angler use and economic impact. The

percentage of angler days ranged from 80% in Whitehall-Montague to

53% in Grand Haven. Boat anglers also had the highest average

daily expenditures, the average in-county expenditures for all

four sampling areas being $22.00 per day.

Holland

Boat anglers' use estimates for the Holland area were based

on three subsets of anglers; those that launched their boats on

Lake Macatawa and either 1) fished on Lake Michigan at some time

during that day, or 2) fished only on Lake Macatawa, or 3) those

that launched their boats at Port Sheldon and fished on Lake

Michigan. All three subsets of anglers were analyzed as one group

for the expenditure estimates.

We estimated that 2.1% of all fishing boat trips were

strictly for fishing on Lake Macatawa. Therefore, out of the total

64,660 boat angler days estimated for the Holland area, 1,320 are

attributable to fishing on Lake Macatawa.

Of all anglers interviewed, 48% had caught fish on the day

questioned, and the aggregate catch for all species on days

anglers were interviewed was 1.83 fish per angler day. Chinook

salmon and lake trout comprised together 62% of the catch.

Table 17. Boat anglers' average daily expenditures made at home,
en route, and in the Holland area.

Type of expenditure Home En routIp County

Major Iishing equip. .05

Tackle-small gear 1.58
1.10)

Licenses .31
.92)

Boa.t rentals .32
1.46)

Launch fees .16
.06)

Boat gas and oil .29 .20 4.73
1.31) .42) 2.44)

Camping .06
.25)

Lodging .06
.26)

Restaurants .57
.32)

Groceries .09 .24 .95
.29) 1.06) .54)

Beer .03 .63
.13) .22)

Vehicle gas 1.95 .18 1.40
( 2.34) .83) 3.43)

Miscellanoous 2.81
.04)

Family spending .94
4.25)

Total 1.81 .62 13.58

Non-resident total ( 4.28) 2.31) (14.75)

The total estimated gross expenditures of all Holland boat

anglers in Ottawa County were:

64,660 angler days X $13.58 per angler day = $878,083

The estimated gross expenditures of Holland non-resident boat

anglers in Ottawa County were:

14,303 angler days X $14.75'per angler day $210,969

Table 18. Holland boat angler comments.

1. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed anglers

1. Need another marina on Lake Macatawa. 1.4%

2. Need boat rentals. 1.0%

Ninety-seven percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequ'ate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies,

Responses % of interviewed analers

1. Stop the Indian gillnetting. 9.6

2. Need more ramps at the DNR launch. 9.2%

3. Do not charge to launch boats, 8.8%

4. Plant more salmon. 6.9%

5. Need more dockage at the DNR launch. 3.2%

6. Need a municipal marina. 2.3%

Fifty-five percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

- 48 -

Table 18 continued:

111. General responses.

Response % of interviewed anQlers

1. The'fishing is poor. 1.5%

2. The fishing is good. 1.0%

Grand Haven

Grand Haven is Ottawa County's real drawing card for Great

Lakes' offshore fishing. The Grand River receives one of the

largest runs of anadromous salmonids in Michigan, and the

concentrations of fish off the mouth of the river provides some of

the state's best fishing. Grand Haven has a reputation of success

throughout the Great Lakes region, and with the recent completion

of the fish ladder projects and the increased plants of fish to

bring sufficient numbers of fish up the Grand River into the

state's capitol, Grand Haven's reputation as a fish-producing area

has a secure future. The area's reputation was evident in our

sample, in that over 84% of the interviewed boat anglers came from

outside the county.

Of all boat anglers interviewed, 40% had caught fish on the

day questioned. The aggregate catch for all species was 1,25 fish

per angler day, with salmonids making up the entire catch.

49 -

Table 19. Boat anglers' average daily expenditures made at home,
en route, and in the Grand Haven area.

Type of expenditure Home Ell route County

Tackle-small gear 2.29
1.59)

Slip fees - transient .53
.64)

Launch fees .38

Boat gas and oil 4.42
4.31)

Camping .52
.38)

Restaurants 2.13
2.54 )

Groceries .80 2.52
.95) ( 2 71 )

Beer .56 1 15
.67) ( 1 37)

Vehicle gas 2.33 2.33 1.41
( 2.78) 2.78) ( 1.59)

Miscellaneous 4.40
( 5.24

Family spending 1.09
( I. 30)

Total 3.69 2.33 20.84

Non-resident total ( 4.40) 2.78) (21.98)

The total estimated gross expenditures of all Grand Haven

boat anglers were:

90,014 angler days X $20.84 per day w $1,875,892

The estimated gross expenditures of Grand Haven non-resident

boat anglers in Ottawa County were:

75,612 angler days X $21.98 per day = $1,661,952

- 50

Table 20. Grand Haven boat angler comments.

I. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed analers

1. Tackle stores need to open earlier. 2.3%

Ninety-eight percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies.

Respons-es % of interviewed analers

1. Stop the Indian gillnetting. 72.0%

2. Clean the restrooms at the municipal
launch. 32.0%

3. Get rid of the water use tax. 8.0%

Twenty percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

III. General responses.

ResponLL % of interviewed anglers

1. Likes the Grand Haven area. 22.3%

2. This area has good fishing. 15.6%

3. The fishing is poor. 11.7%

4. Enjoyed the musical fountain. 4.0%

51 -

Muskegon

.Muskegon provides many opportunities for the boat angler.

Besides the salmonid fishing on Lake Michigan, anglers can catch

bass, pike, perch, and walleye in addition to trout and salmon on
Muskegon Lake. Muskegon has more'public launch sites than any of

the other sampling areas, and the fishing resources are amply

utilized by the residents of the city. The impact of resident use

is obvious, when according to our use estimates, Muskegon had

almost as much total boat use as Grand Haven, but only one-sixth

as much non-resident use. That in large measure explains why the

economic impacts are not as dramatic as they are in the Grand

Haven area.

Of all the boat anglers interviewed, 65% had caught fish on

the day questioned. Their aggregate catch rate of all species was

2.5 fish per angler day. Anglers caught an average of 1.2

salmonids per angler day, while an average of 1.3 warm-water

species were caught per angler day.

Table 21. Boat anglers' average daily expenditures made at home,
en route, and in the Muskegon area.

Type of expenditure Home En routg County

Major fishing equip. .50
.49)

Tackle-small gear 02 .80
.09) 1.02)

Licenses .16
.83)

Slip fees .33
.02)

Launch fees .33
.44)

Boat gas and oil .10 3.27
.65) 2.98)

Camping .01 .07
.06) .41)

Lodging .12
.73)

Restaurants .06 .22
.24) .86)

Groceries .02 .02 .64
.14) .11) .04)

Beer .02 .01 .54
.14) .08) .06)

Vehicle gas .39 .05 2.40
1.99) .28) 4.38)

Miscellaneous .06
.05)

Family spending .03 .01
.19) .04)

Total .55 .17 8.54

Non-residont total 3.00) .95) (12.31)

53 -

The total estimated gross expenditures of all Muskegon boat

anglers in Muskegon County were:

83,008 angler days X $8.54 per angler day = $708,888

The estimated gross expenditures of Muskegon non-resident

boat anglers in Muskegon County were:

13,281 angler days X $12.31 per angler day $163,490

Table 22. Muskegon boat angler comments.

1. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed anclers

1. Most package stores in town are dirty. 0.8%

2. Businesses do not cater to fishermen. 0.8%

3. Some restaurants need to open earlier. 0.8%

Ninety-seven percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

11. Responses about government agencies.

Respona_2A % of interviewed AngleKs

1. Need more launch sites on Muskegon Lake. 7.3%

2. Stop the Indian gillnetting. 5.1%

3.. Do not charge to launch boats. 4.0%

4. Need longer docks at Hartshorn boat
launch. 3.3%

S. Need more parking area at Hartshorn lot. 2.2%

6..Need wider ramps at Hartshorn. 2.2%

54 -

Table 22 continued:
Seventy-four percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

III. General responses.

Response % of interviewed analers

1. The area has good fishing. 1.8%

Whiteh'all-Montague

Like anglers in Muskegon, anglers fishing in the
Whitehall-Montague area are blessed with many fishing resources.

White Lake produces fine catches of perch, bass, pike, and

walleyes, besides good catches of trout and salmon. One major

concern is that access is limited; all the existing boat launches

are concentrated at the eastern and of White Lake. Offshore

salmonid anglers were particularly vociferous about the

inconvenience of having to motor the length of White Lake to fish

on Lake Michigan. They strongly suggested the need for adequate

boat launching facilities on the western end of the lake.

Thirty-four percent of boat anglers fishing in the

Whitehall-Montague area were successful, which is below all the

other sample areas. However, those that did catch fish, caught

more fish than anglers in the other areas. The aggregate catch

rate for all species was 3.1 fish per angler day. Of all the

interviewed anglers who caught chinook salmon, the average catch

rate was 2.5 fish per angler day.

Table 23. Boat anglers' average daily espenditures made at home,
en route, and in the Whitehall-Montague area.

Type of expenditure Home En route County

Major-fishing equip. *14@ .30
.50) .19)

Tackle-small gear .01 .86
.05) 1.50)

Licenses .24
.47)

Slip fees .22
.07)

Launch fees .58
1.01)

Boat gas and oil .61 3.50
2.21) 2.41)

Camping .08
.29)

Lodging .15
.54)

Restaurants .58
1.73)

Groceries 1.39
.81)

Beer .01 .88
.02) .70)

Vehicle gas 1.38 .03 3.14
3.04) .10) 3.99)

Miscellaneous .02 .46
.06) .94)

Family spending .10
.03)

Total 2.16 .03 10.98

Mon-resident total 7.89) .10) (13.84)

56 -

The total estimated gross expenditures of all

Whitehall-Montague boat anglers in Muskegon County were:

47,152 angler days X $10.98 per angler day = $517,729

The estimated gross expenditures of Whitehall-Montague

non-resident boat anglers were:

12,944 angler days X $13.84,per angler day = $179,145

Table 24. WhitehaIL-Montague boat angler comments.

r. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of intervi2wed anglers

V. Need better motels. 1.0%

2. Need a place to gas boat on the water. 1.0%

Ninety-eight percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies.

Responses % of interviewed analgrs

1. Dredge the boat launch. 17.6%

2. Need more campgrounds in area. ?.5%

3. Clean the restrooms at the boat launch. 6.5%

4. Allow camping at the launch site. 4.9%

5. Need fish-cleaning facilities. 3.9%

6. Need another dock at the boat launch. 2.6%

7. Need potable water at the boat launch. 2.3%

8. Plant more steelhead. 2.0%

Sixty-seven percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

- 57 -

Table 24 continued:

III.-General responses.

Response I % of interviewed analers

1. This area has good fishing. 11.4%

2. The fishing was poor. 6.2%

- 58 -

GRAND HAVEN BAYOU BOAT FISHERY

The Grand River and its bayous in the Grand Haven area offer

a very productive warm-water fishery from spring through the fall.

Anglers make excellent catches of bluegills, crappie, catfish,

largemouth bass, and northern pike. There are a number of public

and private access sites on the river and the bayous, and two of

the private launches sponsor bass tournaments through the summer

(Felix's and Grand Valley). The bayous are well known for their

good fishing, and draw a large number of non-resident anglers; our

surveys showed more than 70% of bayou boat use was by

out-of-county people.

The majority of the fishing effort on the bayous is directed

at largemouth bass. Many bass clubs come to the area to

participate in the tournaments, and we believe it is primarily

their involvement which gives strong support to the economic

potential of the bayou fishery.

Eighty-four percent of the interviewed bayou boat anglers

caught fish on the day questioned. The aggregate catch rate for

those successful anglers was 3.7 fish per day. Successful bass

anglers averaged 2.4 bass per day.

59 -

Table 25. Grand Haven bayou boat anglers' average daily
expenditures made at home, en route, and in Ottawa
County.

Type of expenditure Hom-e En rouia County

Major fishing equip. 1.61, 1.47
2.22) ( 1.02)

Tackle-small gear .08 4.13
.11) ( 3.29)

Slip fees - annual .02
( .02)

Launch fees 1.45
( 2.00)

Boat gas and oil .08 3.44
.11) ( 3.63)

Camping .59
.82)

Lodging 2.12
( 2.92)

Restaurants 2.91
( 4.01)

Groceries 1.36
( 1.38)

Beer 1.66
( 1.93)

Vehicle gas .85 2.74
( 1.17) ( 3.24)

Miscellaneous 1.09
.93)

Family spending .57
.78)

Total .93 .08 23.55

Non-resident total ( 3.50) .11) (25.97)

The total estimated gross expenditures of all Grand Haven
bayou boat anglers in Ottawa County were: ;
27,889 angler days X $23.55 per day = $656,786

The estimated gross expenditures of Grand Haven non-resident

bayou boat anglers in Ottawa County:

20,242 angler days X $25-97'per day = $525,685

Table 26. Grand Haven bayou boat angler comments.

1. Responses about the local businesses.

Responses % of interviewed analers

1. Need better bathrooms at Stearn's bayou. 4.8%

2. Need more good restaurants along the
Grand River. 3.2%

3. Businesses should be more hospitable to
bass fishermen. 3.2%

Ninety-one percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
local businesses provided adequate services and facilities.

II. Responses about government agencies.

Responses % of interviewed analers

1. Stop the landfill at Riverside Park. 21.0%

2. Plant more largemouth bass. 21.0%

3. Enforce the NO WAKE law. 8.1%

4. Get rid of the shad. 8.1%

5. Stop the Indian gillnetting. 6.5%

Thirty-one percent of all the anglers interviewed felt the
government agencies involved provided adequate services and
facilities.

- 61 -

Table 26 continued:

III. General responses.

Responses % of interyiewgd anglers

1. People do not understand bass dlubs. 3.2%

CHARTER FISHING

Charter captains in all four sampling areas were asked to

help in the gathering of information for this study. Although

assurances of cooperation were given, only captains in Grand Haven

came through with an honest effort. Supposedly, the captains in

the other sampling areas will provide us with estimates of the

total number of clients they booked this past year, and should we

receive that information, we will revise our estimates using Grand

Haven as the norm.

Grand Haven's charter boat fleet has conducted surveys of its

clientele for the past two fishing seasons. Charter captains used

our questionnaire to ask their clients where they were from, how

many days they planned to stay in the area, what percentage of

their trip was for the purpose of fishing, and what their local

expenditures were for a variety of goods and services.

In addition to interviewing their clients, the charter

captains were asked to estimate the total number of clients they

booked for each of the past two seasons. Grand Haven's total for
the 1981 season was 3,813 clients based on 12 boats' responses,

and for the 1982 season the total was 4,0?5 clients based on 15

boats' responses. Grand Haven charter captains made 72 interviews

during the 1981 season and 58 interviews during the 1982 season.

We suggested the captains do a separate questionnaire for
each client in a party during the 1981 season. However, it was

found that the captains were reluctant to interview each client,

and in most cases the captains did one questionnaire for the whole

party or else interviewed the person who had spent the most money.

Although we were reluctant to do an interview per party because it

would reduce the statistical variance of our sample, we did not

want to lose what coope'ration we had with the captains. Therefore,

we agreed to a party interview for the 1982 season, and assigned

the average of party expenditures to each angler in the party for
both *the 1981 and 1982 samples. Our 1981 sample size was 180

anglers and the 1982 sample size was 319 anglers, the 1982 sample

being greater because of some large corporate charters.

Table 27 itemizes the average expenditures of Grand Haven

charter clients for a number of goods and services for both

seasons. The percentage in parentheses after each estimated

expenditure is the statistical confidence interval.

Table 27. Grand Haven non-resident charter anglers' average daily
expenditures in Ottawa County.

Cateapry 1981 1982

Charter fee 27.90 (12.4%) 31.43 (5.1%)

Licenses 2.15 ([email protected]%) 1.28 (20.6%)

Lodging 5.40 (23.3%) 6.65 (12.2%)

Restaurants 6.24 (16.3%) 5.35 (7.6%)

Groceries 2.33 (30.6%) 1.42 (15.9%)

Beer and Liqour 1.39 (15.6%)

Entertainment 1.63 (25.3%) .74 (25.6%)

Vehicle gas 2.88 (25.6%) 2.16 (10.8%)

Family shopping 2.75 (53.0%) .53 (33.8%)

Miscellaneous .68 (57.5%) .64 (23.2%)

Total 52.13 (10.4%) 51-59 (4.2%)

Average length
of stay 2.167 days 1.953 days

Gross expenditures calculAtionj

1981: 52.13 X 2,167 dAys X 3,813 clients = $430,738
day client

$112.97 / client

1982: 11.59 X 1.953 days X 4,095 clients = $912,593
day client

$100.76 / client

It is interesting that the total average daily expenditures
were practically identical for both seasons. However, we are more

confident of the 1982 estimates because of the larger sample size,

which is reflected in the lower confidence intervals.

64 -

CONCLUSIONS

Tables 28 and 29 summarize the total use and expenditures

for Ottawa and Muskegon counties. A real distinction between the

two counties is evident from the tables. The degree to which a
county is impacted by anglers' expenditures is dependent upon its
attraction to visitors. Even though the total use in Muskegon

County is more than half that in Ottawa County, because so few

people come there to fish, its total expenditures influx is

one-third that of Ottawa County. The bottom line is, people who

stay longer,"spend more.

Table 28. Ottawa County total and non-resident use and

expenditure summary.

ALL ANQLZRS kJON-RESIDENT

Fishery Use 1. V.2A I

Holland ice 7,243 23,178 630 1,103

Holland pier 17,574 121,964 91015 76,718

Holland boat 64,660 878,083 14,303 210,969

Holland total 89,477 1,023,225 23,948 288,790

G. Haven ice 11,256 31,067 2,641 4,094

G. Haven pier 31,646 279,751 19,432 196,652

G. Haven boat 90,014 1,875,892 75,612 1,661,952

G. Haven bayou 27,889 656,786 20,242 525,685

G. Haven charter 4,056 412,593 4,056 412,685

G. Haven total 168,726 3,256,089 123,846 21800,616

Ottawa total 258,203 4,279,314 149,796 3,081,406

- 65 -

Table 29. Muskegon County total and non-resident use and

expenditure summary.

ALL ANGLERS NON-RESIQENT

F i she'ry_ Use Use $

Muskegon ice 14,781 81,887 3,425 19,660

Muskegon pier 91015 56,434 634 5,408

Muskegon boat 83,008 708,888 13,281 163,490

Muskegon total 106,804 847,209 17,340 188,558

Whitehall ice 4,827 35,189 1,123 6,513

Whitehall pier 6,812 48,161 736 2,388

Whitehall boat 47,152 517,729 12,944 179,145

Whitehall total 58,791 601,079 14,853 188,046

Muskegon total 165,595 1,448,288 32,193 376,604

The economic impact of angling is not limited to the gross

expenditures of anglers. The money they spend has a multiplying
effect as it circulates through the local economy. Money
initially spent by anglers adds to the gross revenue received by
local merchants. The merchants in turn spend some of their

revenue locally and some elsewhere. That local respending becomes

part of other merchants' gross revenue, and so on. Successive

rounds of spending, beginning with the anglers and continuing with

community merchants will in affect multiply the impact of anglers'
original expenditures.

The scale of this multiplier effect depends on a number of

factors, including the mix of businesses (i.e., manufacturing-

66 -

service-retail ratios), their integration (i.e., manufacturing-
distributing-retailing-servicing linkages), and the distribution
of the original spending across area businesses. Depending on the

scale of those factors, successive proportions of the gross income

the counties receive from anglers' expenditures will leave the

area as payment for imported goods and services.

Since we were not able to empirically estimate multipliers

for Ottawa and Muskegon counties, we will use a multiplier from

the literature. Kalter and Lord (1968) estimated a multiplier of

1.5 for a -rural area in Wisconsin. Because Ottawa and Muskegon

counties are not strictly rural, and because they resemble in

their basic industry mix the situation in Manistee county, we will
use a'multiplier of 2.0, which is conservatively less than all the

multipliers estimated by Diamond and Chappell& (1981) for the

Manistee economy. In Table 30 we first apply the multiplier of

2.0 to non-resident anglers' gross expenditures to give us total

direct and indirect gross sales in the counties. Gross sales are

then adjusted by an income component to estimate what the direct

net income is to each county. From the literature (Pearse and

Laub, 1969; Kalter and Lord, 1968) a value of 35%, based on a

range (28%-51%) of income componenet values, is used.

67 -

Table 30. Adjusted gross expenditures and direct net income from
non-resident angler expenditures in Ottawa and Muskegon
counties.

Ottawa County

Gross Expenditures Multiplier Adjusted Gross

$3,089,406 X 2.00 $6,178,812

Adjusted Gross Income Component Not Income

$6,178,812 X 0.35 $2,162,584

Muskocon County

Gross Expenditures Multiplier Adjusted Grosa

$376,604 X 2.00 $753,208

Adimsted Gross Income Component Net IncoML

$753,208 X 0.35 $263,621

68 -

REFERENCES

Diamond, J. and D. E. Chappelle. 1981. Application of an
Input-Output Model based on secondary data in local
planning: The case of Manistee County. Michigan State
University Agricultural Euperiment Station, East Lansing,
Michigan. Research report 409. 16p.

Hayne,, D. W. 1966. Notes on creel,survey for Tennessee
Cooperative Fishery Unit. Tennessee Game and Fish
Commission. 25p.

Jordan, S. W. and D. R. Talhelm. 1982. Economics of Sport
Fishing in AIcona County. Michigan Sea Grant, 2200
Bonisteel Blvd., Ann Arbor, Michigan. MICHU-SG-82-204.
66 P.

Kalter, R. and W. Lord. 1968. Measurement of the Impact of
Recreation Investments on a local Economy. Am. J. Agr.
Econ. 50(2), pp. 243-256.

Malvestuto, S. P., W. D. Davies and W. L. Shelton. 1978. An
evaluation of the roving creel survey with nonuniform
probability sampling. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107 (2):
pp. 255-262.

Pearse, P. and M. Laub. 1969. The value of the Kootenay Lake
Sport Fishery: An Economic Analysis. Fish and Wildlife
Branch, Dept. of Recreation and Conservation, Victoria,
B. C., Canada. 60P.

TalheIm, D. R. 1972. Analytical economics of outdoor recrestion:
A case study of the southern Appalachian trout fishery.
Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh (unpublished). 308 p.

69 -

APPENDIX A

Survey Questionnaires

- 70 -

ANGLER QUESTIONNAIRE Keypunch number

Number of anglers skipped, it shore, pier or ice fishing
If first interview, write nsta;V; if'la-st, note number of anglers left.
1. City

2. Type of fishing
2
3. Interview number (interviewer., do not fill in) -7-7 7
4. Day of week (weekday = 1., weekend and holiday = 2)
5. Month / Day / Year J'-
7 8 9 lo 11 12
6. How many fish altogether have you caught today? A
Number of each species: -iT -1-7
Coho 'Ch-inookK Lake troutx Steelhead. Brown trouta
15 17- 17 19
IM Bass * SM Bass x - N. Pike o - Musky i, Walleye
20 21 22 23 27
PerchA- - Panfish.-- - Other -
25 26 27 28 29 30
7. How memy,hours do you plan..
on fishing today?" (hours in a 24-hour period,, midnight to - -
midnight) 31 32
8. Where are you from.? County -35 -S*q 75
State
9. How many miles will you drive round trip., including side
trips, if any? - - -
37 38 39 40
10. Percentage-wise, how much
was the purpose of this trip for fishing here?
41 42 43
11. If angler is not here just to fish, "What are up to two other major
purposes for this trip of yours?" - - -
44 45 46 47
12. If you could split the purpose of your fishing between the "sport of
it" and for the food., what % would you attribute to each?
SportPL 78 79 To Food x 71 T2 T3
13. How did you learn about the fishing opportunities here? 54 55
14. Have you f ished here before? (yes 1., no = blank) 59"
15. Will you f ish here again? (maybe 2)
57
16. HOW. many times in a year do you take a trip to fish here? x 5T 79
17. In what season of the year do you do most of your fishing? -6-0
18. What species of fish are you particularly trying to catch today? -61- -62-

19. If interveiwing a boat group, "How long is the boat?"
It 11. 73- -67-
20. If interveiwing a boat group, "How many in the party
fished today?" - 6"57
21. How many days will you be fishing in this county
on this.trip? -67-
22. If staying overnight, what accomodations do you have?

-69- 70
23. If interveiwing a boat group, "What body(ies) of water
did you just fish on?"
71
23a. How many days are you planning to be on this trip?

72 73

EXFODITURES (For this trip)

Home En route Here
A. Major fishing equipment A
(rodsl.reelq., downriggers) -1 7 -3 -5 9

B. Small fishing equipment - - -
(line, lurer,., bait) 10 11 12 74 T5 Y6- 77 78

C. Fishing license - - - -
19 20 21 22 23 T4 75 76 77

D. Boat rentals
- TT 37 3 -5
29 79 30- 31- T2 36-
E. Slip fees Transient - - 9 73 'W 75-
37 39 -3 TO- 71- U2
Yearly
46 4-7 4-8 79 30- 5-1 5-2 T3 -5@

F. Launching fees
55 57 T7 T8 T9 IrO Tl Z 2- 73
G. Boat gas@ oil, etc. -64- T5-- 9-6 T7- 78 6-9 7-0 7-1 7-2

T T -
H. camping and parking fees 2 3 -5 -7 -9

I. Lodging - - -
10 11 12 -17 15- -16' T7 -1T

J. Restaurants - - - - -
19 20 21 22 23 2V 75- .27 F7

K. Grocery food and snacks - -- -
(do not include beer) 28 29 30 - - T3 T4 T5 36-
31 32

L. Beer
37 D T9- TO- 71 U 73 W 75

M. Vehicle gas. oil, etc.
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

N. Miscellaneous
(entertainment, cigs, 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
sundries,, etc.)
0. Family spending (clothes, etc.) 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
a. Are you aware there is an artificial reef just south of the
Muskegon pier? 73

b. If so, how many times have you fished there?
74 75

c. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being poor, 3 being average, and
5 being great, how would you rate the fishing on the reef? 76
d. If you fished the reef on this trip, what percentage of the 77
purpose of your trip was to fish the reef?
74 75 76 (on card I

24. Is this area more or less expensive than comparable trips
to other areas? (more = 1, less = 2 same = 3) 1

25. Do you think the services and facilities provided by the
businesses of this community are adequate for your needs 2
as an angler and your family? (yes = l,no = blank)
26. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

1. 3 4 5 6
2. 7 8 9 10

4. 11 12

27. Do you think the services and facilities provided by the

government agencies involved in this area are adequate for 13
your needs as an angler and your family? (yes = 1, no blank)

28. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

1. 14 15 16 17

2. 18 19 20 21
3.

4. 22 23
5.

29. Was there any information you needed but could not
find about this area? 24 25 26 27

30. Is there anything you particularly liked or didn't like about your fishing
experience here? What were your "beat" and "worse" experiences, if any?

1.
28 29 30 31
2.
3. 32 33 34 35

4.
5. 36 37
Married? 49
31. If so, on fishing trips to here, what
of the time does your spouse accompany you? 38 39 40
32. When spouse or family are here with you, what are they
doing while you are fishing? 41 42 43 44
33. Age 45 46

34. Sex - (male = 1, female = 2)
47

35. To the nearest $5000-00s what is your immediate family's
gross annual income?
$ 48

CHARTER ANGLER QUESTIONNAIRE

Month Day Year If this interveiw is for a party,
number in party.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. What state and county are you from? 9 10 11 12
State County,

2. How many miles is it from your home to here?
13 14 15 16
3. How many days do you plan on staying in this area? 17 18
4. Percentage-wise, how much is the purpose of your trip
for fishing in this area?
19 20 21

5. How many fish did you/the party catch today?
22 23

EXPENDITURES FOR THIS TRIP AND IN THIS AREA

A. Charter fee and tips.
24 25 26 27
B. Fishing licenses.
28 29 30 31
C. Camping fees. 32 33 34 35

D. Lodging.
36 37 38 39

E. Restaurants.
40 41 42 43

F. Grocery food and snacks.
44 45 46 47
G Beer, liquor, and bar. 48 49 50 51
H. Vehicle gas, oil, and etc.
52 53 54 55

1. Entertainment.
56 57 58 59
J. Fishing equipment.
60 61 62 63
K. Family shopping.
64 65 66 67

L. Miscellaneous.
68 69 70 71

6. Port where interview conducted?

72 73 74 75
T. Interview number (do not fill in) 76 77 78 79

Muskegon-Ottawa Sport Fishing Economic Impact Business Survey

The counties of Muskegon and Ottawa in conjunction with Michigan State University have been conducting a year-long
investigation of the economic impacts of sport fishing in this area. Teams of interviewers have been making personal surveys of
anglers, questioning them about their fishing trip expenditures and the perceptions they have of their fishing experience in the two
counties. From the angler interviews MSU researchers expect to estimate the total gross expenditures of Great Lakes sport
fishermen in this area for various categories of purchases.
An important aspect of the analysis is to estimate the economic impacts of the subsequent respending of angler dollars by
businesses in Muskegon and Ottawa counties. While anglers' initial purchases generate income and employment for the local
economy, the local goods and services businesses purchase with,angler dollars translates into additional income and employ-
ment. Depending on the type of business, the secondary income and employment effects oftentimes exceed the impacts as-,
sociated with the initial expenditures. Therefore, to Ignore the secondary effects would be to grossly underestimate the economic
impacts of sport fishing in the two counties.
If you believe your business is never patronized by anglers, please do not complete or mail in this questionnaire. However,
if anglers represent all or part of your clientele, your cooperation in fully answering the following questions will help give Muske-
gon and Ottawa counties the best available information on the importance of Great Lakes sport fishing to the area's economy. At
no time will the confidentiality of an individual be compromised. A copy of all the findings will be available to anyone interested
through the MusRegon and Ottawa Cooperative Extension offices after the first of next year.

-1 . -Circle the county your business-is- in: MUSKEGON- - OTTAWA
If your business is in neither, please disregard this questionnaire. If you have business operations in both counties, please
circle the county where the business offices are to which this questionnaire was sent.
The following questions should be answered in regWd to your business operations which occur solely within the above
circled county.
2. What were your total sales of all your products in 1981 from your business operations?

3.. Please list your major products and/or services and what percentage each was of total sales in 1981.
Product or Service Percentage of Total Sales
I . %
2. %
3.
4.

4. What was your total average monthly employment during 1981 ? Please estimate in terms of "full-time equivalents", e.g., two
half-time employees would equal one full-time employee. employees.
5. What percentage of your total sales would you attribute to anglers' purchases? _%

6. What were your purchases and expenditures from the industry groups listed below?
Please write your answers as a percentage of total sales from your business operations. If your purchases are from wholesal-
ers or retailers who bought the products from others, please write the percentages of total sales under the industry group that
acutally made the product. Please put an "X" next to purchases which passed through a wholesaler or retailer. Purchases
from a wholesaler or retailer which cannot be traced to an Industry of origin should be placed under group 21, Wholesale and
-----Retail-TradtF.-Iri'b@dditidriTit-is@-irriobittCrit'td-id6ntif@-theFobrtiod'of Ydut purchases trom industry groups in your county. If you do
not provide an estimate, we will assume all your purchases from that group are imported into the county. The only purchases
we would have you exclude are capital expenditures, therefore, the percentages need not add up to 100.

EXAMPLE

Purchases as a Percent from
Industry Group Percent of County
Total Sales Industries
1. Food and Kindred Products X54% 76%
2. Transportation and Communication 10% 90%

In this example, your business spends 54% of its total sales on Food and Kindred Products, of which 76% is from pro-
ducers within the county. The "X" Indicates these products are mainly bought from a wholesaler. Ten percent of your total sales
went for transportation and communication purchases, of which 90% were supplied by Industries in your county.

Purchases as a Percent from
Group Percentage of County
Total $also Industries
1. Agricultural Products and Services
2. Construction
3. Food and Kindred Products
4. Textiles and Apparel
5. Veneer and Plywood
6. Other Lumber and Wood Products
7. Paperboard Containers and Products
8. Converted Paper and Paper Products
9. Other Paper Products
10. Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries
11. Chemicals and Allied Products (Plastics, Synthetics, Drugs, Organics) %
12. Petroleum Refined Products
13. Rubber and Leather Products
14. Stone, Clay, Glass & Concrete
%
15. Fabricated Metal Products
16. Primary Raw Metal Products
17. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Products
18. Transportation and Communication
19. Electrical and Gas Utilities
20. Water and Sanitary Service
21. Wholesale and Retail Trade ------ %
22. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate ------ %
23. Other Services (Please Specify:

24. Local Government, including taxes
25. Households (labor costs, including fringe benefits) ------ %
26. Other Payments (Rent and Profit) ------ %
We wish to thank you for completing this questionnaire. Your cooperation has significantly helped in providing a reliable data bass for
the analysis of the economic Impacts of sport fishing in Muskegon and Ottawa counties. Please fold and staple the questionnaire so the return
address Is showing and mail It at your earliest convenience.

21-296

If IIJULED
IN Tug
tINITED VATU

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 941 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY

Attn: Scott W. Jordan - Sr. Research Assistant
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

4 @ ;%

11011111MAII
- - 3 6668 14 10 1 '755
F- -