CPFV Pilot Study

CPFV Cost-Earnings Pilot Survey - Hanan Final Rpt DRAFT .7.27.12.pdf

Economic Surveys for U.S. Commercial Fisheries

CPFV Pilot Study

OMB: 0648-0369

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 0648-0369 can be found here:

2013-02-19 - Revision of a currently approved collection

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

West Coast Charter Boat Cost-Earnings
Pilot Survey for FY 2011

Hanan & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 8914
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067

By
Doyle Hanan and Zachary Hanan

July 30, 2012

T
AF

Final Report Submitted to

James Hilger
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southwest Fisheries Science Center

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Because of a dearth in the current economic data for the California Passenger Fishing
Vessel (CPFV) fleet, a pilot study was performed in San Diego County to test appropriateness
and efficacy of a survey instrument and its administration. Results of this study are intended for
further utilization in a similar study among the whole CPFV fleet along the California coast.
Although only eight fishing firms (representing ten fishing vessels) were surveyed in this pilot
study, the study showed differential costs and earnings dependent on length of time at sea
(fishing trip type) and fish species targeted or fishery participation. The survey instrument and
techniques are reviewed with suggested changes for future surveys.

Table of Contents

T
AF

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3
METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 3
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Response Rates ........................................................................................................................... 4
Suggestions for Increased Response Rates ................................................................................. 5
Data Summary ............................................................................................................................ 6
Owner Data ............................................................................................................................. 6
Vessel Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 6
Species Importance Rankings ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 1. Species Importance Rankings.................................................................................. 8
Vessel Expenditures ................................................................................................................ 8
Vessel Revenue1...................................................................................................................... 9
Use of Pilot Study Survey Results .......................................................................................... 9
Implementing Survey Instrument for Future Projects .......................................................... 10
Comments on the State of the Fishery and Owner Outlook ................................................. 11
CONFIDENTIALITY ................................................................................................................ 12
Contact information for agency coordinator and principle investigator: ...................................... 12
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 13
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 13
APPENDIX I
SURVEY INSTRUMENT: .......................................................................... 14
APPENDIX II QUESTION CRITIQUE:............................................................................. 20
APPENDIX III INTRODUCTORY LETTER:.................................................................... 22
APPENDIX IV TRANSCRIBED COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS: .................... 23

INTRODUCTION
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must measure the economic performance
of the For-Hire Sectors (FHS) in west-coast recreational fisheries to meet legal and regulatory
requirements, support the Pacific Fisheries Management Council management processes, and
provide data for fundamental economic research. In California, a significant portion of the FHS
is comprised of the Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel (CPFV) fleet (also called partyboats
or charter boats). Very little recent/current cost earnings data is available for the California
CPFV industry, with the last major data collection occurring in 2000 (Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission, 2004) while Oregon collected data in 2010 (The Research Group, 2011)
and Washington in 2008 (TCW Economics and The Research Group, 2008).

To begin the process of gathering California CPFV economic data, NMFS, Southwest
Fisheries Science Center, contracted with Hanan&Associates, Inc. through Ocean Associates,

Inc. to conduct a pilot study for a cost earnings survey instrument and survey of selected San
Diego County CPFV owner/operators. This cost-earnings project was to be a pilot survey

T
AF

implemented as a first-step to obtaining accurate data regarding the economic status the CPFV
fisheries and is briefly described below. The survey instrument is accompanied by this report.
The resulting database had a very small sample size and was presented to NMFS, Southwest
Fisheries Center. The data are confidential and can only be released in aggregate form using the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (amended 2006) rule of three
boats for aggregation.

METHODS

The survey instrument (Appendix I) was developed to obtain basic detailed information
regarding cost and earnings data for each fishing business (some businesses own multiple CPFV)
by type of fishing trip or fishery pursued. The instrument was five pages in length with an
introductory letter (Appendix III) and an additional page for owner/operator comments (see
Appendix IV). The survey was intended to be administered as an in-person interview or to be
filled out in private by the owner/operator. Each survey was projected to take about one hour to
complete and we suggested that each potential participant have their 2011 profit and loss (P&L)
statement available to facilitate filling out the form.
3

To comply with the US Paperwork Reduction Act, the survey population targeted nine
businesses (CPFV owner/operators) identified after attending a local industry meeting
(Sportfishing Association of California) describing the study, and seeking volunteers. We
attempted to contact the volunteers by telephone and set up personal (in-person) interviews to
administer the survey. When volunteers could not be contacted by telephone or were unable to
complete the survey process, additional backup owner/operators were contacted as substitutes for
the original volunteers.

All data were entered into a preliminary database using Microsoft Excel© following the
interview or upon receiving the completed survey form. A key to the database was presented

with the database. Generally, the database is segregated in worksheets that correspond to
specific section of the survey and are titled: Owner Data, Vessel ID (a random number for all but

one vessel which chooses not to be anonymous), Species Importance Rankings, Vessel
Expenses/Revenue, Non-fishing Revenue, and Species Abbreviations. Where appropriate, each
worksheet is segregated by question, vessel ID, and question number.

T
AF

RESULTS

Response Rates

Initially, nine volunteer CPFV firms/businesses were obtained and contacted later by
telephone; three agreed to personal interviews and one emailed us their 2011 P&L statement.
Because that individual was unavailable to meet and answer survey questions not found in the
P&L statement, corresponding data from that P&L statement and some data from online public
sources were entered into the database. Of the remaining five owner/operators, two did not
answer nor return multiple phone calls including voice messages, two stated that their partners
did not wish them to participate, and the fifth was leaving town and in reconsideration,
apologetically did not have time to complete the survey. We contacted seven additional
volunteer CPFV owner/operators by telephone; five of the seven agreed to participate: two by
personal interview, two by telephone interview, and the fifth did not respond by time of this
writing probably because recreational fishing was getting very busy.

In total, we obtained survey data from eight CPFV businesses/firms representing ten
vessels (there was multiple boat ownership). The five personal survey interviews lasted one to
two hours including time spent socializing, and discussing improvements to the survey
instrument. Actually conducting the survey instrument took about one hour in the personal
interviews and about 45 minutes when done by telephone. We did not ask those that filled out
the survey in private how much time they spent on it; this might be a question to add for future
surveys.

Suggestions for Increased Response Rates
Timing of the Pilot Study was scheduled for early April near personal income tax

deadlines. Perhaps the survey should start even sooner as many businesses’ fiscal year ends at
the end of December and their business tax information would be readily available. We are

suggesting this because the recreational fisheries get busier in the spring and by the end of spring
are very busy and the owner/operators are less available or possibly willing to participate.

T
AF

More outreach may help. We attended one industry meeting with the idea that we only
wanted to target nine CPFV firms which could be obtained quickly from the volunteers. For
larger surveys we would recommend attending more meetings and having more personal contact
with owner/operators. Post card mailers and letters of introduction will also help especially for
larger surveys.

One question that we heard frequently was: why do you need this information, will it
result in more regulations? Perhaps the fishery council and state agencies need to reach out to
CPFV owner/operators to explain what will be done with the information and why it is needed.
Also, past surveys and similar surveys in other states need to be distributed to CPFV
owner/operators so they can see the utility and benefits of participating. They need to see, not
just hear from survey personnel, explanations of how the data are being used and what the
council and state agencies are doing for them with their data.

Data Summary
For this report, we are presenting selected data as simple averages or means and standard
deviations (in parentheses) of the eight owner/operator businesses and ten CPFV represented in
the database (keeping in mind that this was a very small sample size). Some of the data were not
available for certain vessels or businesses and treated as non-values for the statistics. We are
presenting aggregate summary data for selected questions in order provide qualitative summary
information to aid in improving the data collection instrument as examples of the types and
quality of data that can be obtained from this type of survey. Reported summary statistics must
be viewed in the context of the small sample size and untested data collection instrument with
which they were collected. The goal of this pilot study report is to report on the test of survey

techniques, ease of administering and evaluating the survey, and efficacy in a potential larger
west-coast survey.

Owner Data

T
AF

For the person providing the information, the length of time associated with or in the
CPFV industry was 33 (4.8) years and the amount of time owning a CPFV vessel was 14.7 (8)
years.

Vessel Characteristics

The year of purchase for the current CPFV owner was 2000 (7.5) at a cost of $553,333
(444,191) with an insured value of $933,889 (934,106). Total horse power of main engines was
843 (327) hp and all CPFV had two diesel engines, which were upgraded in 2008 (4). Cruising
speed was 9.3 (0.8) knots. CPFV had a capacity of 46.2 (14.5) people aboard including crew.
Total fishing trips were 11.7 (28.8) in 2011.

Species Importance Rankings
Respondents were asked to identify what species – trip type pairs were most important
from a business perspective for each vessel (Figure 1). The primary role of this question was to
aid the interviewer and respondent identify what species – trip type pairs would be addressed in

the following sections (Q 35 - 53). We are presenting this table to show the owner/operators
evaluation of fish or fishery importance to the type of fishing trip. Cells in the table are averaged
over the 10 boats when reported (for example tuna is the most important fish for the multi-day
and long distance trips). The goal or object of this question was difficult to communicate to the
owner/operator when administering the survey and probably took more time than what was
expected for the results which seem ambiguous, but it may have more utility with larger sample
sizes. The CPFV operators are opportunistic fishermen, they will usually fish where they think
customers can achieve the best catch by volume or by value; thus encouraging repeat customers.

Of the 10 vessels represented in this survey, a total of five ran half-day trips, six ran three
quarter day trips, four ran twilight trips, two ran overnight trips, four ran day and a half trips, five

ran multiday trips, and a single vessel ran long distance trips. Of the five vessels running halfday trips, two reported calico bass, three reported groundfish, three reported barracuda, three

reported sand bass, and three reported bonito as their most important species for this type of trip.
When examining three-quarter day trips yellowtail was reported by four of the vessels as one of
the most important species, calico bass was reported by two, groundfish was reported by three,

T
AF

and halibut was reported by one. For twilight trips groundfish was reported three times,
barracuda was reported three times, sand bass was reported three times, bonito was reported
three times, and calico bass was reported one time as the most important species for these trips.
Overnight trips were targeting yellowtail and tuna, where tuna was reported by two vessels and
yellowtail by one as their most important species. When looking at the day and a half, multiday,
and long distance trips, it was very evident that tuna and yellowtail are the targeted and most
important species for these trip types. Tuna was rated by all four of the day and a half boats, all
five of the multiday boats, and the single long distance boat as the most important species.
Yellowtail was reported by one of the day and half boats and two of the multiday boats as
another very important species and recommended that it be listed on the table.

2
3
1.6
2.3

2.25
3
1.7
2.2
3
3
3
3
1.4
3
2
1

3
3
3
2.3
1.8
1.3
1
1

2
3
1.25
2
3
3
3
2.3
1.5
1
1
1

Long Distance

Multiday

Day & 1/2

Day

Overnight

Twilight

3/4 Day

1/2 Day

Species
Seabass (SB)
Billfish (BF)
Groundfish (GF)
Halibut (H)
Salmon (SL)
Shark (SH)
Squid (SQ)
Tunas (T)
Yellowtail (YT)
Barracuda (BR)
Sand Bass (SnB)
Calico Bass (CB)
Bonita (BN)
Dolphins (D)

3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1.5

3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1.7

3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1.5

Ranked 1-3
with 1 being
most
important

Figure 1. Species Importance Rankings.
Numbers represent mean of ranked values for vessels reporting that category.

Vessel Expenditures1

For vessels with mortgages, monthly principle cost was $3,746 (2,509) and interest

$1,998 (2,133). For those with mooring fees, they were $22,239 (15,774) per year; some fees
were included as part of a combined booking, landing, and parking fee. Booking fees if separate

T
AF

were $68,499 (34,357). Haul out costs were $9,500 (4,848) at two-year intervals. Engine
overhaul costs were $12,333 (11,846); electronic maintenance was $3,400 (6,542); and all other
maintenance $24,117 (16,595). Purchase of new gear was $23,658 (34,800); taxes, fees, and
permits were $22,721 (27,273). Vessel expenses not listed in the instrument were an additional
$45,576 (29,913).

Trip based expenses for the fleet consist of fuel, fishing supplies, foreign licenses, galley
supplies, live bait, other bait, ice, wages (captain, second skipper, deck hands, and cook) and
crew meals (not reported by all vessels). An average half day trip required 25 (0.5) gallons of
gas costing an average of $102 (4) and $14,450 (1,7249) annually; cost of goods sold in the
galley were $42 (2.5) per trip and $5,998 (7126) annually; live bait expenses were $153 (31.67)
per trip and $23,843 (29483) annually; wages were $178 (34.5) per trip and $23,615 (27,459). A
three-quarter day trip required 67 (23) gallons of gas approximately $220 (35) and annually
$17,040 (1,663); cost of goods sold in the galley were $46 (8) per trip and $3,615 (888) annually;
1

Please note reported summary statistics must be viewed in the context of the small sample size and untested data
collection instrument with which they were collected.

live bait expenses were $182 (24) per trip and $14,296 (2896) annually; wages were $298 (6.9)
per trip and $23,220 (987.3) annually. As the multiday trips considered in this study, range from
overnight to five days for accuracy data rather than averages should be viewed in the submitted
database.

Vessel Revenue1
Again average annual revenues are reported for the fleet and are mostly derived from
fishing based trips; however, some CPFV reported earnings from non-fishing operations (such as
whale watching, educational trips, burials at sea, science based trips, and parties). A few
reported earnings from galley and souvenir sales, although these numbers were very small.
Fishing trips including: half-day, three-quarter day, overnight, day and a half, and multiday trips

raised an annual total of $210,728 (210,449) per boat, which broken down by trip were $6,793
(9,505). Half-day trips earned $146,000 (170,374) annually and $1,011 (619) per trip. Three-

quarter day trips earned $93,100 (53,169) annually and $1,193 (703) per trip. Multiday fishing
trips, ranging from overnight to five days, were $287,204 (245,605) annually and $11,785
(10,926) per trip. Galley sales were included in the price of many of the fishing trips; however,

T
AF

when reported separately were $10,931(10,085) annual and $113 (75) per trip. For those that
reported non-fishing revenue, annual total was $55,600 (72,247); however, if we include those
not reporting as zero earnings in the calculation, this average declines to $22,240 (50,638). Fish
filleting charges are not reported or recorded by the vessels, because this is usually paid directly
to the deck hands. A single vessel reported earnings of $50 per trip through sale of souvenirs.

Use of Pilot Study Survey Results

This pilot study of California CPFV cost and earnings and the data collection instrument
administered on the San Diego CPFV feet could aid NMFS in the design and administration of a
larger scale data collection. NMFS needs to measure the economic performance of west coast
recreational fisheries in order to meet legal and regulatory requirements, support fisheries
management decision making, and undertake economic research. Currently available cost
earnings data is not adequate for the CPFV fishery and does not meet these needs. This pilot
survey begins to meet those needs and shows utility in achieving those needs. Much has
happened in the CPFV industry since the year 2000 cost-earning survey: marine protected areas

have been put in place, area and bag limits have changed, Mexico is requiring visas, and some
exploited fish stocks that were depleted have recovered or are well on their way to recovery.
Further expansion of this survey is likely a beneficial endeavor and is recommended for the
whole CPFV fleet in California.

Implementing Survey Instrument for Future Projects
A number of important data points, as well as, information regarding administering the
survey instrument came from this pilot study. Initially it was developed to interview
owner/operators in person to gain an understanding of the status of their business. It was evident
during and after the first interview that, as expected, some modifications were required. We
reorganized the order to have the interview flow more smoothly, allow for discussion, and data

gathering. Several of questions required more discussion and explanation than we expected, so
we rephrased and modified them somewhat for the final instrument used in the rest of the

surveys. Also, after administering the first survey we recognized the importance of providing the
survey instrument to the owner/captain ahead of time in order to facilitate understanding of the
questions we were going to ask. Many of the owners/captains keep very good logs, have detailed

T
AF

P&L statements or both; having these during the interview proved to be very helpful when
looking at financial numbers. Identifying the number and type of trips completed during the year
was not always an easy question and in some situations required reaching out to the landing and
obtaining a printed report. As many of the vessels have agreements with the landings for
mooring, parking, and trip sales, these reports were readily available and were very useful.
Further, some of the vessels have websites listing the trip types and results from each trip. We
would recommend identifying and or obtaining the reports and websites, when/if available, for
additional detailed information.

When administering the survey, it was very important to stress that we were only
gathering data from 2011 and we did not want numbers from other years. Second, the addition
of total fuel usage or cost for the year was an important addition to the final instrument as
suggested by the first interviewee. Third, the addition of a “home office” write offs section in
the survey will add more depth to the final instrument, as the numbers can affect the bottom line
of the business. Total payroll, although a simple number to obtain, continually required further

discussion and calculation in order to obtain all: wages, bonuses, benefits, payroll taxes,
retirement payments and insurance numbers. As mooring fees, booking fees and, on occasion,
parking fees are often combined into a single number or percentage of gross income, a good
understanding of the process for each vessel/business needs to be obtained in order to have
accurate figures. When interviewing the different owner/operators, it became evident that the
“Trip Types for 2011” section of the survey instrument was a point of confusion. As
sportfishing is an opportunistic endeavor, owner/operators had difficulty assessing the
importance of each species for the different type of trip. Many captains target a single species;
however, when they do not find this species or have negative reports of fish availability,
depending on season a different species is selected and becomes more important. As such,
assigning a single number to the noted species was difficult and may not truly represent the

importance of each. Lastly, a single section for total revenue, total expense, total depreciation,
and total taxes may be a useful addition for comparative studies between the vessels and

businesses. Overall, the survey instrument proved to be a powerful and effective means for
obtaining the information targeted for this pilot study. We would recommend that the questions
be developed so that no or little calculations are necessary during the interview. This could be

T
AF

done by just asking for the data necessary to make the calculation, then those that use the
database can make that calculation if they need it. This would save considerable time in filling
out the survey instrument (please see Appendix II for further details on survey instrument
question and technique critiques).

Comments on the State of the Fishery and Owner Outlook

Several aspects regarding the San Diego CPFV fishery are immediately evident based
upon initial evaluation of the pilot study data. However; due to the small sample size of 8 firms,
the results should be viewed as anecdotal and qualitative. First, fishery participation is
apparently an “aging” one. Most owner/operators have been involved in the CPFV fishery for
more than thirty years. Many have owned and operated their current vessel for more than 10
years with one owning and operating for 30 years. Of the owner/operators interviewed,
percentages of household income generated from the CPFV operations ranged from 21% to
100%. Second, increases in foreign fishing permits, visa requirements, as well as, fuel cost
leading to surcharges have caused the respondents to see “ a bit fewer” to “many fewer” clients

being serviced each year. Further, they feel that the outlook over the next five years is looking
“somewhat unfavorable” for the industry.

Regarding regulations, many feel that rules and restrictions being put in place are having
impacts on their personal businesses and the industry as a whole. Their businesses are further
impacted by not allowing enough time for previous regulations to take affect before new
regulations are put in place. Therefore, they are continually attempting to keep up with the new
changes instead of being allowed to evolve their business models to respond to existing
regulations. Many of the new closures have caused them to make fishing location decisions
based more on fuel costs than fishing conditions.

CONFIDENTIALITY

All but one CPFV business requested their information to remain anonymous which we

respected and did not include those boat names nor owner/operator names in the database.

T
AF

It is anticipated that the information collected will be disseminated in aggregate statistical
form to the public or used to support publicly disseminated information according to the rule of
three firms or businesses for aggregation of the data. As explained in the previous paragraphs,
the information gathered has utility. NMFS will retain control over the information and
safeguard it from improper access, modification, and destruction, consistent with NOAA
standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information. In particular, although the data
are voluntary, it will be kept confidential as with section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens and
NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Confidentiality of Fisheries Statistics, and will not be
released for public use except in aggregate statistical form without identification as to its source.

Contact information for agency coordinator and principle investigator:
Agency Coordinator:
Dr. James Hilger
NMFS SWFSC
8604 La Jolla Shores Drive
La Jolla, CA 92037-1508
james.hilger@noaa.gov
858.546.140

Principal Investigator:
Dr. Doyle Hanan
Hanan & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 8914
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
drhanan@cox.net
858.832.1159

CONCLUSIONS
This study was beneficial as a pilot study because we were able to perform the survey and
develop the survey instrument, working with industry to improve our survey techniques and
survey instrument, while gaining important preliminary information about the CPFV fleet in
Southern California. We suspect that administering the pilot study instrument in northern
California would have revealed additional information pertinent to that region as fisheries and
fishing techniques differ by region. However, the data gathered should have immediate utility
for fisheries management at both the state and federal fishery council management levels.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We sincerely thank the CPFV owners and operators who were willing to work with us on
this pilot study. As mentioned earlier, nearly all requested to remain anonymous, so their names

and vessel names are not being presented. It is not easy to open your books and give out
information that is this sensitive to one’s business. We commend the participants because they
recognize that the data are necessary for adequate and successful management of our ocean

T
AF

resources and that management is best that is informed management.

Funding for the project was provided from National Marine Fisheries Service through a
NOAA contract with Ocean Associates, Incorporated.

LITERATURE CITED

The Research Group. 2011. Oregon marine recreational fisheries economic contributions in 2009
and 2010. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Coastal Zone
Management Association. September 2011. 44 Pages.
TCW Economics and the Research Group. Economic Analysis of the Non-Treaty Commercial
and Recreational Fisheries in Washington State. Prepared for Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife. December 2008.

APPENDIX I

SURVEY INSTRUMENT:

San Diego Charter and Party
Boat Economic Pilot Study
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries

All questions pertain to the 2011 calendar year
All answers are strictly confidential
Background Questions:
#
1.

Question
(years)

How long have you owned a CPFV operation?

(years)

How many CPFV vessels do you own?

Do you serve as the primary vessel captain for a
CPFV vessel?

Yes

How long have you been involved in the CPFV
industry in any capacity?

Name of the vessel(s) you own?

T
AF

BUSINESS BASED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
-Expenses that are split between all vessels.
#
2011 Business Expenses

2011 Business Expenditures

Professional Services (legal, accounting, etc.)

Office labor and other labor expense

Telephone and other communications

Advertising services or charges

10.

Industry Association fees/memberships

11.

Insurance (Vessel, Property, Liability, etc)

12.

Total Payroll (include wages, bonuses, benefits,
payroll taxes, retirement payments and life,
health, and unemployment insurance)

13.

Other Business related expenses
(specify)

14.

Other Business related expenses
(specify)

VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS
#
Vessel

15.

Year purchased?

16.

Vessel purchase cost for present owner?

17.

Insured vessel replacement value?

18.

Horsepower of the main engine(s)?

19.

Year of engine upgrade/replacement?

20.

Cruising speed (knots)?

21.

Type of fuel?

22.

Operating capacity of the vessel while fishing
(including captain and crew)?

23.

Total number of non-fishing revenue
generating trips taken in 2011?

knots

# people:

VESSEL BASED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
#

2011 Vessel Expenditures

Annual/Monthly Principal Payment on note

$/mnth

25.

Annual/Monthly Interest Payment on note

$/mnth

26.

Mooring

27.

T
AF

24.

Booking fees for your vessel

28.

Haul out costs/Frequency (yrs)?

29.

Engine overhaul

30.

Electronics maintenance

31.

All other vessel maintenance

32.

Purchase of new gear or equipment
(electronics, deck gear, engines, angling
equipment, etc.)

33.

Taxes, government fees and vessel permits
(U.S.: local, state, and federal)

34.

Taxes, government fees and vessel permits
(foreign)

yrs

Vessel:________________________________
TRIP TYPES FOR 2011
For 2011, please indicate on a scale of 1-3 the business importance of each species/length trip type for
the above vessel.
½ day
Seabass
Billfish
Groundfish
Halibut
Salmon
Shark
Squid
Tunas
Other

¾ day

Twilight

Overnight

Day & 1/2

Multiday

Long Distance

(SB)
(BF)
(GF)
(H)
(SL)
(SH)
(SQ)
(T)
(O)

TRIP BASED EXPENDITURES

Report trip based expenditures for the following category of trip.

(Circle type to right)
(use additional pages as needed)

1/2, 3/4, twilight,
overnight,
day and a half,
multiday___day

Primary Target Species

Sp:___________

Average EXPENSES per Trip

35. Fuel

T
AF

________gallons

%Rev

39. Other Bait expenses

40. Ice machine ______or Ice______

$/%__________

36. Fishing supplies

37. Food and drink for galley sales
38. Live Bait expenses

41. Captain wages/payment
(Circle $ or %)
42. Second skipper wages/payment
(Circle $ or %)

(Circle type to right)
(use additional pages as needed)

1/2, 3/4, twilight,
overnight,
day and a half,
multiday___day

Primary Target Species

Sp:___________

#_____

$/%__________

#_____

$/%__________

1/2, 3/4, twilight,
overnight,
day and a half,
multiday___day

Average EXPENSES per Trip
#

43. Deck Hand(s wages/payment
(Circle $ or %)
44. Cook wages/payment
(Circle $ or %)
45. Other crew: wages/payment
(Circle $ or %)________________
46. Other trip
related
expenses____________________

47. Other trip
related
expenses____________________

REVENUES – FISHING OPERATIONS

(Per Trip / Annual Total )

Primary Target Species
48. Total Number of Trips

1/2, 3/4, twilight,
overnight,
day and a half,
multiday___day

T
AF

REVENUE

Sp:___________

49. Average Number of Passengers
per Trip

Sp:___________

Trips

Pass/Trip

50. Ticket Sales & Trip Fees
(Per Trip / Annual Total )

51. Food/Beverage sales (not included
in ticket sales)
(Per Trip / Annual Total )
52. Souvenirs
(Per Trip / Annual Total )
53. Filet Charges (to vessel operator)
(Per Trip / Annual Total )

2011 Additional Revenue – NON-FISHING OPERATIONS

The following questions pertain to sources of other revenue generated by the charter boat operation.
Please indicate revenues collected from sales not directly linked to fishing operations.
Number of Trips
by Type

NON-FISHING

Average #
Passengers per
Trip

2011 Total
Annual
Revenue

54. Nature/whale watching

Trips

Pass/Trip

55. SCUBA or Free diving

Trips

Pass/Trip

56. Burial at sea

Trips

Pass/Trip

57. Commercial, specify__________

Trips

Pass/Trip

58. Renting of vessel

59. Hotel that is owned by charter boat
owner

60. Equipment Rental

61. Other (specify):

The following questions are designed to help us further characterize and analyze the charter boat fleet.
#

Question

Response

T
AF

62. Compared to 5 years ago, how many clients are you servicing in a
year?

Many Fewer
A Bit Fewer
About the Same

A Bit More
Many More

63. How do you see the economic outlook for the charter boat industry
over the next 5 years?

Very Unfavorable
Somewhat Unfavorable
About the Same
Somewhat Favorable
Very Favorable

64. Approximately what percent of your 2011 total household income is
generated from the charter boat operations? (Please check
appropriate box)

1% - 20%
21% - 40%
41% - 60%
61% - 80%
81% - 99%
100%

If you have any additional comments please feel free to include them here:

T
AF

D
OMB Control #XXXX-XXXX expires X/XX/XX. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law; no person is required to respond to,
nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirement of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Public reporting
burden for this survey is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to James Hilger, SWFSC FRD, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, San Diego, CA 92037

APPENDIX II
Question Number:

QUESTION CRITIQUE:
Comments

T
AF

1-5: These questions were very simple with responses easily obtained. No need for
modification.
6: This question continually required discussion and explanation as not all participants
understood what was classified as “professional services” but with a small amount of
discussion data for this question was easily obtained. No need for modification.
7: As not all owner/operators utilize an office or have and office based labor expense, this
question has room for improvement. We would recommend adding a portion to this
question regarding rent paid, if any, on office space. This may also be the right area to
add a question about any business based write-offs for home office space.
8: Communication expenses were easily provided by owner/operators, common discussions
around this question were: whether satellite communications and internet/networking should
be included. For future use, we would recommend clarifying further that all types of
communications, including satellite and any internet/network based expenses should be
included here.
9: As noted by a number of owners/ operators, many businesses are beginning to use
“Groupon” type advertising campaigns, although we did not have any users in our sample,
we believe any costs associated with this type of advertising should be included here. No
need for modification.
10: No need for modification.
11: No need for modification.
12: Total payroll, although a simple number to obtain, continually required further discussion
and calculation in order to obtain all: wages, bonuses, benefits, payroll taxes, retirement
payments and insurance numbers. Perhaps ask for more, inclusive responses and do the
calculations later.
13-14: These two spaces provided adequate room to add any business related expenses that
had not been addressed prior. No need for modification.
15: No need for modification.
16: No need for modification.
17: No need for modification.
18: Obtaining the horsepower of the main engines is an easy answer, however; further
questioning was needed to validate 1 or 2 main engines and the total power of both. No need
for modification.
19: No need for modification.
20: No need for modification.
21: No need for modification.
22: No need for modification.
23: Most of the owner/operators in this sample had not taken many, if any, non-fishing trips.
We expect this to be different when applied on a larger scale. We would recommend that
this question be removed from the survey as it is redundant to the table “2011
Additional Revenue – Non-Fishing Operations.”
24: No need for modification.
25: No need for modification.
26-27: As mooring fees, booking fees and, on occasion, parking fees combine into a single
number or percentage of gross income, a good understanding of the process for each
vessel/business needs to be obtained in order to have accurate figures. We would
20

T
AF

recommend that these questions be modified to also include identifying the percentages
paid to the landing and any other bodies.
28: No need for modification.
29: No need for modification.
30: No need for modification.
31: No need for modification.
32: As maintenance may or may not require the purchase of new gear, it was important to
validate with owner/operators that this section include only the purchase of new gear and
equipment and was not to include any items purchased for the maintenance of existing gear.
No need for modification.
33-34: Needed to confirm that the owner/operators did not provide us with Industry or
Association fees. We would recommend that this question be modified or another
question be added to include foreign fishing licenses.
35: No need for modification.
36: As fishing supplies are usually not purchased on a trip based basis, but an annual basis,
we feel that this question is redundant of question 32. We would recommend adding
“fishing supplies” to question 32.
37: No need for modification.
38: No need for modification.
39: This number continued to be very small and insignificant when compared to the overall
costs for the year, however; on a larger scale and in different regions with different
techniques this question may prove to be very useful. No need for modification.
40: We felt that this question was not very direct and allowed for different interpretations of
this the response we were soliciting. We would recommend this question to be re-written
as “what type of fish cooling system do you use?”
41-45: No need for modification.
46-47: Although these questions are a useful catch all space and should not be modified. We
would recommend adding a question regarding crew meals on a per trip basis.
48: Identifying the number and type of trips completed during the year was not always an
easy question and in some situations required reaching out to the landing and obtaining a
printed report. As many of the vessels have agreements with the landings for mooring,
parking and trip sales these reports were readily available and were very useful. No need for
modification.
49: No need for modification.
50: This question provided some difficulties, in the fact that some calculations were required
to obtain trip type data. We would recommend a single section for total revenue, total
expense, total depreciation, and total taxes; with this data, calculations can be
completed by the survey administrator ensuring accuracy over ticket sales and trip fees.
51-53: Very few owners/operators reported any revenue from Food/Beverage sales,
souvenirs, or filet charges, however; we would expect this may differ on a larger scale. No
need for modification.
54-61: No need for modification.
62-64: No need for modification.
Additional Comment section: This proved to be a very useful area of the survey where
owners/operators were able to make any comments that the felt would be useful to the
analyst of the data. No need for modification.

APPENDIX III

INTRODUCTORY LETTER:

«FIRSTNAME» «LASTNAME» «SUFFIX»
«COMPANY»
«ADDRESS»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
«GREETING» «FIRSTNAME»«COMPANY»,
You have been selected to participate in a confidential pilot study of the recreational commercial
passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) industry in San Diego, California. This important assessment will
provide data necessary to gauge:
• The contribution of the fishery on the San Diego economy, and
• The impact that changes in economic, regulatory, and fishery conditions may have on the
industry.
By participating, you will provide information that is vital to understanding the fishery.

This pilot study will also help in designing a planned 2013 study for all of California, Oregon, and
Washington, which will provide information required to understand the CPFV fishery across the entire
Pacific Coast.

T
AF

To preserve the confidentiality of your information, Hanan & Associates, a firm with experience
conducting similar studies with several California commercial fisheries fleets, will conduct study
interviews and strip all identifying information in the generation of the study database. Dr. James Hilger
of the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in La Jolla, California will run study design
and analysis.
To insure the accuracy of the information collected, all questionnaire interviews will be completed
through in person interviews during the month of April, 2012. You will be receiving a phone call or email
in the next several weeks to schedule your interview. Upon scheduling your interview, a detailed list of
the type of records to have on hand for your interview will be provided. The interview should take
approximately {XX – XX} minutes to complete.
Participation in the study is voluntary and all responses are completely confidential. Information from
the questionnaire will only be released as summaries in which no individual's or business's answers can be
identified. For additional information about the study, please see the list of Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ) included in this letter.
Please feel free to contact Doyle Hanan at (858) 832-1159 or James Hilger at (858) 546-7140 with any
additional questions. Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Doyle Hanan, PhD.
Hanan & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 8914
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067
858-832-1159
drhanan@cox.net

James Hilger, Ph.D.
Southwest Fisheries Science Center
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
La Jolla, California, 92037
858-546-7140
James.hilger@noaa.gov

APPENDIX IV

TRANSCRIBED COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS:

Vessel 1 – April 2012
Stocks seem to be in good shape, however; we are seeing a down cycle which will take
time to return, as it has many times in the past. Entertainment and overall quality of the trip
becomes more important during these down cycles. Need to ensure a quality of service in the
industry, which starts with the politeness of the crew.
Vessel 3 – May 2012
Mexican visas are comparatively an enormous cost and are very detrimental to the shorter
trips. We need to work with Mexico, in order to decrease costs and increase fish stocks.
Groupon has been discussed and observed in use by other vessels; however, the boats are not
making any money on the Groupon passengers and we have not seen an increase in clients.
Vessel 4 – May 2012

Vessel 5 – May 2012

T
AF

Price of fuel is a major deterrent to passenger numbers. When fuel surcharges are made
known ahead of time, we see a higher number of cancellations due to the already high cost for
passengers to travel to the docks. New MPA’s being put in place will have the ability to increase
or decrease the cost of trips, captains will need to make the decisions on how to fish around the
MPA’s, and the business owner will need to modify the pricing. All owner/operators need to
diversify their companies in order to remain in business, without educational and spreading ashes
at sea, this captain would need a part time job. Technology can play a large part in the changes
being made in the fishing industry, however; the initial monetary outlay and time requirements
are very difficult for small businesses.

Times are getting tougher and the hidden costs are making it more and more difficult to
survive in an already small industry. Because this is a small industry, it may have a higher
propensity for overall failure. The small voices of each individual boat owner need to be heard
in the overall decisions being made and implemented in the industry.
Vessel 6 – June 2012
Too many changes are being put in place. Policy makers are not giving each individual
change/policy time to resonate and allow business owners to digest and change their structures to
fit these new policies. The pendulum is swinging towards over protection, causing “environment
extremists” to emerge. It has become more difficult to differentiate between conservationist and
“environment extremists.”
Vessel 10 – June 2012
Need to utilize the new and existing scientific abilities in Southern California, in order to
re-open some areas of the ocean. Without the re-opening of some areas, the fishing industry in
Southern California will continue to struggle.

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	West Coast Drift Gillnet and Harpoon Fishery Annual Cost and Earnings Survey
Author	Doyle
File Modified	2012-08-28
File Created	2012-07-27