F-81-R-15, Michigan
Study 230499
Renewed: 2013-14
New Study: 2006-07
Name of Study: Michigan statewide angler survey program
A. Problem/Need: The most fundamental requirements for sound management of recreational
fisheries are knowledge of the response of fish stocks to fishing and of the contributions of
various fish stocks to the fisheries. This knowledge can be obtained only if there is a long-term
record of fishing effort, catch, and catch composition available for analysis.
It is essential that management decisions be based on a sound empirical knowledge of the history,
current status, and dynamics of fish communities and fisheries. Recreational catch and effort data
have been used in mathematical models which depict fishery dynamics; these models form the
basis for development of Great Lakes and inland fishery management plans.
While critical to the appropriate management of recreational fisheries, creel surveys are
frequently initiated with little assurance of survey comparability between years or survey
locations. There is an ongoing need for a formal program to coordinate recreational fishery
surveys across the state; to initiate and oversee statistically appropriate designs of creel surveys;
to provide ongoing training to creel clerks; to provide appropriate database and sample
management; to promptly and consistently calculate survey estimates of harvest, catch, and
effort; to develop new creel survey tools and methodologies; and to provide strong and consistent
support to state fisheries managers.
B. Purpose and Objectives: 1) To obtain a continuous record of sportfishing effort, catch, and
harvest, catch and harvest rates, and catch composition for important Great Lakes, tributary, and
inland fisheries of the State of Michigan. 2) To provide consistent protocols and data collection
methods, program oversight, and timely data analysis of recreational fisheries statistics to MDNR
Fisheries Division managers and research biologists.
C. Expected Results and Benefits: The principal expected results and benefits of the Statewide
Angler Survey Program (SASP) are (1) to provide a consistent series of guidelines for survey
design, data collection, and estimation of parameters from Michigan creel surveys; (2) to create
and manage a high quality, updated creel database containing: a) interview data on angler catch
(harvest and release), angling trip information by angler or angler party, and angler demographic
information, and b) angler count data by sampled day on the number of anglers or parties that
fished; (3) to estimate angler-hours and total number of fish harvested and released by year,
water body, and other important spatial and temporal units; and (4) to ensure the angling effort
and harvest data provide information for better management of related fisheries, to evaluate the
effectiveness of stocking programs, and to evaluate other management decisions. Estimates will
be summarized in result tables, online, searchable databases and other appropriate formats that
will be distributed to user groups or made available to them on the MDNR web-site. Reported
results will be tailored to management needs based on ongoing interaction between Management
Unit and Research Section staff to identify critical information and reporting needs.
MDNR Statewide Angler Survey Program personnel continue to refine survey design, survey
schedule, data collection methods, and quality control. These evaluations will identify areas in
which study methods can be improved, and new protocols and technologies implemented. As
methods are refined, data accuracy will improve (Su and Clapp 2013).
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 2
Recreational effort, catch, and harvest estimates are used by fisheries managers and researchers to
monitor angler trends, identify potential management issues, supplement data on population trends,
and help manage sport fisheries (e.g. evaluate the effects of regulation changes, stocking, etc.).
Furthermore, sport fish effort and harvest data are used to monitor harvest and model fish populations
in waters where harvest quotas are set or where other interagency management issues exist (e.g.,
Consent Decree waters, Lake Erie). Program biologists will, in collaboration with other research and
management personnel and through interagency cooperation, begin to formulate conceptual models
that describe fishery dynamics. Conceptual models can be used to investigate and identify mechanisms
that influence sportfishing effort, catch, and harvest. These models will help identify the magnitude of
these effects so trends in effort and catch can be accurately interpreted.
D. Procedure: Data will be collected on fishing effort, harvest and catch along with pertinent
biological data for each fishery (Great Lakes, tributary, inland). SASP biologists will be
responsible for survey design, scheduling, and clerk training. Each Fisheries Division
Management Unit (MU) will be responsible for data collection and direct supervision of the creel
personnel in the sample areas over which they have jurisdiction. Data will be collected according
to procedures outlined in the Statewide Angler Survey Program manual and in Fisheries Division
standard sampling procedures. SASP biologists will estimate total effort, harvest and catch from
these samples. At the end of each year, progress will be summarized in a status report, as well as
other reports tailored to specific management needs.
Job 1. Survey design and coordination.–Examine waters to be surveyed; determine total survey
area, and existing or possible angler access sites available; determine sampling intensity
and techniques based on purpose of survey, proposed level of statistical significance, and
the physical parameters of the survey areas. Coordinate with Management Unit personnel
through the Basin Team process and use defined SASP selection procedures and
prioritization schemes to identify priority survey areas and develop a list of areas to be
surveyed for the upcoming survey year. Prepare stratified-random schedules incorporating
information gathered in Job 1. Schedules will be prepared for clerks and for aerial boateffort count contractors (where appropriate). Provide clerks with creel survey training. This
training program will include a generalized introduction to creel surveys and the various
techniques used in creel surveys as well as training specific to the survey the clerks will be
involved in. Investigate and implement new technologies to improve the quality and
quantity of data collected as well as cost-effectiveness of data collection efforts.
Job 2. Conduct surveys / process samples.–Conduct angler surveys of the identified survey
waters. Supervise count and interview data processing and perform quality control
checks on data during various phases of data processing. Process bio-data samples (e.g.,
press and read scale samples).
Job 3. Manage data / maintain database.–Count and effort data, and bio-data samples and data
will be transferred electronically or by U.S. Mail to SASP personnel at the Institute for
Fisheries Research and Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station. SASP personnel will
conduct quality control checks and maintain standardized databases of count, effort,
harvest estimates, and bio-data (e.g., fish total length, weight, age, sex, maturity).
Job 4. Analyze data, modeling.–Calculate final catch and angling pressure estimates for fisheries
surveyed during the calendar year. Prepare and distribute data summaries according to
formats agreed to in consultation with Division managers and other end-users. SASP staff
will use creel data to develop advanced models of recreational fishery dynamics, and
provide data to Division staff for model development associated with implementation of the
2000 Consent Decree. Additionally, data will also be shared for research and management
collaboration with more specific analyses conducted as appropriate.
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 3
Job 5. Write annual performance report.–Annual progress reports will be prepared according to
the established Federal Aid timeline and format.
Job 6. Write other reports.–Results of research will be presented in summaries to various
MDNR and external committees, annual progress reports, and peer-reviewed journals.
Data and results from this study will be used in reports to Lake Committees (e.g., annual
lake committee reports, state-of-the-lake five year assessments), MDNR Fisheries
Research Reports, and manuscripts for publication in scientific journals.
Job 7. Evaluate surveys.–Survey designs and data management procedures will be evaluated to
insure that study objectives are met and data are collected efficiently and are reliable.
Procedures will be evaluated periodically in terms of adequacy, necessity, reliability, and
improved efficiency. Before applying to renew this proposal we will formally assess whether
the data collected under this project are achieving goals and objectives, and whether the data
are necessary and used to make management decisions. In addition, we will assess the validity
of our methodologies, and the cost effectiveness of the overall project.
E. Geographical Location: Statewide.
F. Schedule/Budget1:
Proposed work
Job 1
Job 2
Job 3
Job 4
Job 5
Job 6
Job 7
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
Survey design and coordination
27,453
28,277
29,126
30,001
30,901
Conduct surveys/process samples 1,169,191 1,204,266 1,240,495 1,277,542 1,315,744
Manage data/maintain database
40,697
41,919
43,179
44,476
45,810
Analyze data, modeling
27,222
28,039
28,882
29,749
30,642
Write annual performance report
4,343
4,474
4,608
4,746
4,889
Write other reports
7,319
7,540
7,766
7,999
8,239
Evaluate surveys
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,186
Air flights
Associated travel/other expenses
Totals
1
2013-14
140,137
34,628
140,137
34,628
140,137
34,628
140,137
34,628
140,137
34,628
1,450,992 1,489,279 1,528,820 1,569,278 1,612,176
NA = not scheduled
G. Personnel: Principal Investigators: Tracy Kolb and Zhenming Su. Statewide Angler Survey
Program staff (Institute for Fisheries Research – Ann Arbor, Lansing Central Office, Lansing);
Management Unit and Research Section Fisheries Biologists, Technician Supervisors, and
Fisheries Assistants, statewide.
H. Relationship with other federal grants: This project provides information to fishery managers
to consider in their regulation and management planning (F-94) and in making stocking decisions
(F-62).
I. Potential for interaction with federally listed threatened and endangered species: The project
will not have direct interactions with federally listed threatened and endangered species.
Literature Cited:
Lester, N., A.Bingham, B. Clark, K. Pollock, and P. Sullivan. 2005. Report of the blue ribbon panel
for review of procedures used to estimate percid harvest in Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 4
Su, Z., and D. F. Clapp. 2013. Evaluation of sample design and estimation methods for Michigan’s
Great Lakes angler surveys. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142(1): 234–246.
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 5
Evaluation and Review
I.
STUDY HISTORY
Areas of evaluation
Associated information
A. Length of study: Number of years survey has
been conducted? Any related or previous
studies that the current study followed from?
Study 230499 has been conducted for 7 years from 2007.
It followed from the Great Lakes creel survey study (F-81,
230427: Measurement of sportfishing harvest in the
Michigan waters of lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and
Superior) and inland creel survey (F-81, 646: Inland creel
surveys) study. These previous studies were ongoing for
more than 20 years.
B. Prior review: Has study been reviewed
previously? What was the nature / extent of
review?
1.
2.
C. Modifications / revisions: What were the
results of any previous review of the study?
Was the study modified to incorporate
suggestions and improve outputs?
1.
The current study design and estimation methods have
been evaluated internally by the state-wide angler survey
program staff and the results were published in a peerreviewed article (Su and Clapp 2013).
Also relevant is the following blue-ribbon expert
evaluation of the creel survey techniques: during the
winter of 2004-2005, at the request of the Lake Erie
Committee (LEC), the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission (GLFC) assembled a panel of experts
charged with evaluation of the efficacy, precision and
accuracy of current techniques used to estimate total
percid harvest and harvest at age by sport and
commercial fisheries in Lake Erie, and to recommend
improvements. Each Lake Erie jurisdiction (Ohio,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ontario)
documented details of their harvest assessment
program and provided this to the panel members. The
panel members then met to discuss issues, develop
recommendations, and assemble a report of their
findings for release to the LEC in March, 2005
(Lester et al. 2005).
Lester et al. (2005) found that the procedures used by all
jurisdictions to estimate percid harvest were basically
sound. All jurisdictions employed creel survey
techniques based on probability sampling to estimate
sport fishery harvests. Jurisdictions with substantial
commercial fisheries (Ontario and Ohio) relied on
mandatory reporting of landings to estimate commercial
harvest. Lester et al. (2005) found creel surveys in Lake
Erie typically focused on major segments of the fishery
(e.g., open-water, daytime boat fishing) and were
generally well-designed to protect against major sources
of bias in estimating harvest from the targeted segment.
Some problems in implementing “random sampling”
protocols for interviews and biological sampling were
noted and current solutions (i.e., instructions to creel
clerks) result in “haphazard sampling” that may
introduce a bias.
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 6
Areas of evaluation
Associated information
C. Modifications / revisions: continued.
2.
D. Legacy considerations: Were there any gear
changes or site selection changes that might
render comparisons with past data difficult?
Any other historical changes or
considerations?
No changes in sites were made. However, fewer low effort
sites were surveyed in recent years due to budget
constraints that may affect the quality of the data.
Based partially on the suggestion of Lester et al.
(2005), Su and Clapp (2013) evaluated the effects of
two potential sources of bias (disproportional
sampling of angler trips and subsampling of the
fishing day) on two catch estimators: (a) a multipleday estimator that ignores day effects and pools the
angler trip data over a multiple-day period, and (b) a
daily estimator that treats the trip data in each day
separately. Su and Clapp (2013) suggested that for
critical fisheries, surveying should be conducted for
the entire fishing period of each sampled fishing day
and using the daily estimator to make catch estimates.
Fixed proportional sampling of angler trips coupled
with the multiple-day estimator may be used as an
alternative survey approach to obtain less biased
catch estimates for one-access-site fisheries.
Additionally, to obtain sound catch estimates, a
certain number of sampled days should be guaranteed
(e.g., >5 d a month). Furthermore, both estimators
can be used to make catch estimates for a survey, and
any large discrepancies in their results would be
indicative of issues in survey design or underlying
fisheries characteristics, which should be examined.
We will modify our surveys according these suggestions.
II. ADEQUACY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Data end users: Who are the end users (e.g.,
state biologists, other agencies, universities,
public)?
Angler survey data from this study have been used by
State biologists and managers, other agencies (e.g.,
GLFC, Wisconsin DNR, Ohio DNR, Indiana DNR, Sea
Grant, USFWS / USGS), universities (e.g.: fisheries
scientists, sociologists, economists, graduate students),
public and stakeholders (e.g., anglers, angling
organizations, charter operators, media).
B. Decision makers: Are resource
management decisions being made using
information collected in this project?
Resource management decisions have been made based
on angling surveys results regarding stocking evaluation,
regulation evaluation, quota / total allowable catch
development, status and trends evaluation, sport-forage
fish dynamics, etc.
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 7
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
C. Management / decision makers’ questions:
What are the specific management
questions being addressed? Are needs of
decision makers addressed?
Stocking evaluation, regulation evaluation, quota / total
allowable catch development, status and trends evaluation,
diet evaluations, angler demography evaluations, extraction
evaluation, fish condition assessments.
D. Stated purpose of study:
What is the stated purpose / goal of the
survey? Does the survey project, as
designed, meet that purpose? Were any
data gaps identified during the previous
study period?
Study Objective: 1) To obtain a continuous record of
sportfishing effort, catch, and harvest, catch and harvest
rates, and catch composition for important Great Lakes,
tributary, and inland fisheries of the State of Michigan.
2) To provide consistent protocols and data collection
methods, program oversight, and timely data analysis of
recreational fisheries statistics to Michigan DNR
Fisheries Division managers and research biologists.
E. Timeliness:
Is the information collected through the
survey project time sensitive? What are the
relevant timelines? Are they being met?
Creel surveys are conducted on each month for both
open-water and winter season. Angling effort and catch
estimates are produced and distributed generally on an
annual cycle as scheduled. However, in-season creel
estimates were often made based on the requests of
managers.
F.
Data are available online at
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/chartercreel/ and by request.
Availability (database storage, etc.):
How are results and data made available to
end users? Is availability of data adequate
to user needs?
III. NECESSITY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Data use in management: Are data used in
management decisions?
SASP data are used by fisheries managers and
researchers to monitor angling trends, identify potential
management issues, supplement data on fish population
trends, and help manage sport fisheries (e.g., evaluate
the effects of regulation changes or stocking). For
example, SASP data were used in reports to lake
committees; for calculation and monitoring of the total
allowable catch (TAC) of lake trout in various zones of
1836 Treaty waters of the Great Lakes; and in setting
harvest quotas for commercial and sport fisheries.
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 8
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
B. Relationship of study to division and
department priorities: Do data meet priority
needs? Are data required for partner
agreements, agency collaboration, consent
decrees?
SASP data are used to meet strategies outlined in the
Fisheries Division Strategic Plan, "Charting the Course:
Fisheries Division's Framework for Managing Aquatic
Resources” (e.g.: Develop and disseminate education
and outreach materials on aquatic invasive species;
promote diverse fishing opportunities; identify and
catalog areas where fishing access is needed; increase
angler recruitment and retention; track the public’s
opinions, attitudes and participation related to angling
and aquatic resources; contribute information needed to
determine levels of natural reproduction and stocking
success for Great Lakes salmonids; and collect
information needed to evaluate cost effectiveness of
each stocking).
IV. RELIABILITY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Confidence in data provided: Do users have
confidence in data provided?
End users have confidence in data provided.
Confidence estimators are provided with data.
B. Validity of survey design: Is survey design
valid / adequate / appropriate? Are there
better ways to collect data?
As indicated in I-B. Prior review, the survey design is
appropriate and sound. On-site angler (creel) surveys
are the principle technique to obtain valid and quality
estimates of angling activities, and especially harvest
and catch data.
C. Statistical reliability: Are data provided
statistically reliable? Are sample sizes and
precision adequate?
The estimates provided by the creel surveys at the
current level of sampling effort are statistically reliable
for most Great Lake sites. However, reduction in the
sampling of Great Lake creel sites will affect the total
effort and catch estimates at the lake level for each
Great Lake. Also, inland creel surveys have been
reduced to almost zero in recent years, which will affect
inland fisheries management.
D. Appropriateness of survey methods and
techniques: Are sampling methods current?
Does study use state-of-the-art techniques?
Sampling methods follow current techniques found in
the literature and use state-of-the-art techniques (Su and
Clapp 2013).
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 9
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
E. Assumptions: Are assumptions identified
and met?
Creel surveys depend on some strong assumptions. In
an access-access survey, it is assumed that all landing
sites are surveyed. If not, it is essential to make some
estimate of the proportion of landings elsewhere (e.g.,
at private docks) and apply an appropriate expansion
factor. In aerial-access surveys, it is assumed that the
catch rates of anglers who land at surveyed landing sites
(large public access sites) are the same as those of
anglers who land elsewhere (e.g., private docks). It may
also be necessary, as in the Michigan survey, to assume
(and periodically validate) that the ratio of fishing boats
to other pleasure craft in aerial counts is the same as
that observed at the surveyed landing sites.
V. EFFICIENCY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Cost of data collection: How much is spent
annually to complete this survey?
Approximately $1,200,000 is spent annually to collect,
process, analyze and report data for SASP Program.
B. Efficiency / Cost:Benefit of survey: How do
costs compare to applicability of survey and
benefits accrued?
The cost of the program represents about 1% of the
Fisheries Division’s budget and 2% of the total budget
that is dedicated to resource management. Data from the
program are used 99% of the time when the Division
evaluates any stocking, regulation, Great Lakes, inland,
angler demography or outreach and education issue.
C. Survey effort: Can intensity of sampling be
reduced while still delivering necessary
information to managers?
In recent years, creel survey sites have been reduced to
a level that can barely provide the necessary
information to managers.
VI. FUTURE OF STUDY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Modifications to study: What modifications
are suggested as a result of this review?
How will modifications be implemented in
the next study period?
Surveys (sites and coverage) are modified annually to
ensure program functionality at different levels of
funding. Modifications should be made to the program
to ensure it is operating efficiently at current fiscal
levels.
B. Suggested future analyses: Are there
analyses that could come from the data
currently collected that weren’t included in
documentation provided?
Analyses can be done to determine how frequently sites
need to be sampled.
C. Next steps: What are the next steps (e.g.,
renewal, new study “spin off”, delivery of
information / summaries to managers)?
This study should be renewed.
F-81-R-15, Study 230499 - 10
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
D. Evaluation summary:
Data collected from study 230499 are used to evaluate
fishing regulations, meet legal mandates, explain
fisheries dynamics, track fish heath and condition,
evaluate hatchery practices, and understand the state’s
angling population.
Study 230499 has been evaluated internally by the
state-wide angler survey program staff and
independently by a blue-ribbon expert panel and found
to be of sound experimental design and protected
against major sources of bias.
In the future, study 230499 will continue to refine
survey design, survey schedule, data collection
methods, and quality control. These evaluations will
identify areas in which study methods can be improved,
and new protocols and technologies implemented. As
methods are refined, data accuracy will improve.
Study 230499 is an essential component of Michigan
Fisheries Division and should be renewed.
Prepared by: Zhenming Su and Tracy Kolb
Date: 4/30/2012