MFR PAPER 1318

ROBERT B. DITTON, RICHARD N. JARMAN,and STEVE A. WOODS

An Analysis of the Charter BoatFishing Industry on theTexas Gulf Coast

ABSTRACT-This paper examines the nature, extent, and characteristics of theTexas Gulf Coast charter boat fishing industry and its implications for fisheriesmanagement. Personal interviews were completed with 41 of the 88 Texas GulfCoast charter operators in business during 1975. Data were obtained regardingcharter operators: Characteristics, business structure, charter fishing activities,and economic returns. This study revealed that the Texas charter industry lacks aformal industry organization, is composea of small independent businesses whichyield insufficient incomes to keep operators in business full time, involves operatorswho are primarily concered with the life-style afforded by charter fishing, and is anintegral part of the State's tourism industry.

Aside from national and regionaltrends and averages of sport fishing ac­tivity and expenditures, however,decision-makers often lack sufficientinformation, particularly in state andlocal situations, for considering the im­pacts of recreational fishing in the de­velopment of marine fisheries man­agement policies and regulations.

Popular arguments contrasting rec­reational and commercial fishing oftenportray both fisheries as big business.Recreational fishing is characterized asa social luxury associated with fisheriesconservation, while commercial fishingis characterized as an economic neces­sity associated with fisheries exploita­tion (Carlton, 1975). Generalizedstatements concerning either' recre­ational or commercial fishing, how­ever, provide a weak base for makingfisheries resource allocation and man­agement decisions. If fisheries man­agement is to reflect economic, social,and resource concerns as directed bythe U.S. Fisheries Conservation andManagement Act of 1976 (Public Law94-265), research is needed to developa comprehensive data base for evaluat­ing both commercial and recreationaldemands.

Although recreational fishing is oftenviewed as a homogeneous activity, anumber of distinct components orfishing sectors can be identified. Alongthe Texas Gulf Coast recreationalfishing can be grouped into three broadtypes: Onshore' or nearshore fishing,bay fishing, and offshore or Gulffishing. This paper is concerned with anindustry which provides a means forbay and Gulf fishing: the Texas charterfishing industry.

In 1970, an estimated 15 percent ofthe sport fishermen in the entire GulfRegion used a charter or party boat atleast once, spending over $20 million incharter fees alone (Bureau of SportFisheries and Wildlife, 1972). Severalarea-specific studies indicated charteroperations can have substantialeconomic impact on local communitiesand contribute substantially to the totalrecreational economy in an area. In astudy of the Wisconsin charter fishingindustry, Ditton et al. (1975) found

'Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. 1977.Economic activity associated with marine recre­ational fishing. Draft repon. Centaur Manage­ment Consultants, Inc., Washington, D.C.

reational catch, marine recreationalfishing can no longer be considered aninconsequential use of the nation'sfisheries resources.

The economic impact of marine rec­reational fishing has also reached sub­stantial proportions. The total retailsales of goods and services associatedwith marine recreational fishing wereestimated to be $1 ,333 million in 1972.These sales generated an estimated$510 million of value added and $285million in wages and salaries in busi­ness sectors where direct spending tookplace. In 1975 sport fishing consumerspurchased an estimated $1,840 millionworth of goods and services at the retaillevel. These sales generated approxi­mately $699 million of value added and$343 million in related wages andsalaries (Centaur Management Consul­tants,Inc. I

).

INTRODUCTION

Robert B. Ditton, Richard N. Jarman,and Steve A. Woods are with theRecreation and Parks Department,Texas A&M University, College Sta­tion, TX 77843. This research wassupported by the Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station and the TexasA&M Sea Grant Program.

Assessing the varied demandson marine fisheries resources is oneof the most difficult tasks confront­ing fisheries managers. Historically,emphasis has been placed on the com­mercial use of fisheries resources. As aresult, much of the available data con­cerning the biological, economic, andsocial impacts of fisheries utilizationpertain to commercial fishing indus­tries. In recent years, however, in­creased recognition has been given tothe impacts of marine recreationalfishing. Deuel (1973) has pointed outthat in terms of the number of saltwatersport fishermen and the size of the rec-

Augusl /978

Figure I.-Regional dislribution of Texas Gulf coast charter businesses operaling in 1975:Sample and size population.

An inventory of Texas charter boatfishing businesses was compiled fromU.S. Coast Guard vessel documenta­tion records, consultation with areamarine extension agents, local cham­bers of commerce, marina operators,telephone books, newspapers, andpromotional literature obtained fromcoastal communities. Owners of Texascoastal charter fishing businesses in op­eration during all of 1975 were con­tacted. Operators who had retired fromcharter fishing before 1975 or hadbegun charter fishing during 1975 wereexcluded. A study population of 88businesses was identified.

Based on the geographic distributionof the 88 businesses, the Texas coastwas divided into five regions. A 50 per­cent random sample of the businesses ineach region was drawn. During the datacollection period from March throughMay 1976, efforts were made to contactthe charter boat owners to schedule aninterview. If an interview could not bescheduled after four attempts, the op­erator's name was removed from thesample and another one was randomlyselected. Using a structured interviewschedule adapted from that used by Dit­ton et al. (1975),41 personal interviewswere completed. Figure I shows thedistribution of the 88 business operat­ing during 1975 and the number of in­terviews (in parentheses) completed ineach region. Data were collected to de­scribe charter operators, their ac­tivities, resources, business structure,business revenue, and expenditures.

and discusses possible managementimplications.

METHODS

Responses to questions concerningmembership in state or local chapterfishing organizations revealed that theTexas charter fishing industry is notformally structured. No respondentsreported membership in or awarenessofa statewide charter fishing associa­tion. Only one local charter organiza-

Industry Organization

FINDINGS

'Dillon, R. B., and R. Jarman. 1974. Develop­ment of a sport fishing focus in the TAMU SeaGrant Program - a program slatement. Proposalprepared for the Texas A&M Sea Granl Program,College Slation, 46 p.

fishing in Texas revealed an absence ofinformation concerning the Texas GulfCoast charter industry (Ditton and Jar­man2

). Even the basic parameters of theTexas charter fishing industry, such asthe number and location of charter op­erations, had not been identified. Thispaper presents the findings of a studyconducted to identify and to understandthe Texas charter boat fishing industry

South Padre (7) 10

LOCATION t.eA;>

charter businesses had a sizableeconomic impact on shoreline .com­munities with a total statewideeconomic impact of approximately $4million. In Choctawatchee Bay, Fla.,and its adjacent Gulf of Mexico waters,charter and party boat fishing accountedfor 69 percent of the sport fishing effortand 75 percent of the sport fishi ng catchduring approximately a I-year period(Irby, 1974).

During the summer of 1974, an ex­tensive literature review and interviewswith representatives from various gov­ernment agencies and private organiza­tions familiar with saltwater sport

2 Marine Fisheres Review

tion, the Port Aransas Boatman's As­sociation, was identified. Eighty-twopercent of the operators interviewed inthe Port Aransas area belonged to theassociation. Several of its members in­dicated a decline in recent years in theeffectiveness of the association as astandard setting and enforcing entity.

Only 27 percent of the operators be­longed to local chambers of commerce.When asked what services were pro­vided, 64 percent of the operators be­longing to a chamber of commerce saidthey were mentioned in brochures and36 percent said they received referrals.Eighteen percent of those operators be­longing to a chamber of commerce re­ported they received no support.

Although little formal organizationwas found, there appears to be a sub­stantial degree of informal inter- andintra-industry organization. Sixty-eightpercent of the operators reported otherlocal charter operators and businessesreferred customers to them, and 66 per­cent said they referred customers toother local operators and businesses.Twenty-five percent reported payingcommissions for booking, but none re­ported receiving commissions for refer­rals.

The Texas CharterBoat Operator

The majority of charter operators in­terviewed engaged in charter fishing ona part-time basis. Twenty-seven of the41 fishermen were employed in otheroccupations either concurrently or dur­ing part of the year. Fourteen fishermensaid charter fishing was currently theironly occupation. Of the 14, II wereretired from other occupations, one hadmade a career of charter fishing and twowere unemployed and looking forwork. Present and past occupations ofthe charter operators included: Civilservant, auto mechanic, police officer,dentist, oil executive, motel owner,musician, military officer, and com­mercial fisherman. Only one said hehad been involved with charter fishingduring his entire working career.

Thirty-nine charter operators re­sponded to the question, "What per­cent of your income is derived from

Augusl /978

charter fishing?" Charter fishing in­come averaged 41 .3 percent of the totalincome of the responding operatorswhile charter fishing accounted for anaverage of 61 .5 percent of the workingtime of the 41 operators interviewed.Although there appears to be a substan­tial difference between the percentageof total income derived from charterfishing compared to the percentage oftotal working time devoted to charterfishing, the difference is due primarilyto the number of operators who wereretired from other occupations. Adjust­ing for the operators who were retiredfrom other occupations results in an av­erage of 39.8 percent of the operators'total income attributable to charterfishing and an average of 41.9 percentof working time.

Although the discrepancy betweenthe amount of income and the amountof working time may suggest the re­spondents are not following soundbusiness procedures, the majority saidthey had not entered the charter fishingbusiness for economic reasons. Whenrespondents were asked what led themto become charter operators, only IOpercent said money was the mainreason. Thirty-seven percent of the re­spondents referred to their enjoymentof fishing; 24 percent said their charterfishing business began as a hobby; andthe remaining 29 percent referred to theopportunity to live in a particular com­munity, the enjoyment of boating, andthe involvement of friends or relativeswith charter fishing. Most of thereasons given were noneconomic.Many respondents volunteered thatmonetary returns of operating a charterboat were often a discouraging ratherthan an encouraging aspect of the busi­ness.

Respondents reported operating acharter fishing business on the Texascoast for an average of 11.5 years. Thiscontrasts sharply with studies of othercharter fishing industries. Wisconsin(Lake Michigan) charter operators hadbeen in business an average of only 3.8years (Ditton et aI., 1975) and morethan half of the Georgia (Atlantic) char­ter operators had been in business lessthan 3 years (Brown and Holemo,

1975). The relatively long history of therespondents' charter fishing involve­ment suggests charter fishing is awell-established industry on the Texascoast. Also the length of time the re­spondents operated a charter businessindicates they are experienced charteroperators and have apparently receivedsufficient economic and noneconomicbenefits to remain in business.

The charter operators have operatedfrom their current home port for an av­erage of 10.5 years. The respondentssaid they do not shift ports in responseto fish migrations or seasonal weatherchanges. Only one operator reportedregularly changing ports during theyear in response to customer demand.

Business Characteristics

Of the 41 businesses surveyed, 34were single proprietorships, 4 werepartnerships, and 3 were corporations.Thirty-five of the businesses had onlyone vessel, three businesses had twovessels, and three businesses had threevessels-making a 50-boat charterfishing fleet.

The average length of the vessels is30.6 feet with an average gross weightof 8.6 tons. Respondents estimated thecurrent market value of their vessels atan average (single vessel) value of$16,826. The majority of the vesselswere equipped with a fathometer (78percent) and a VHF or CB radio (96percent). Twenty-eight percent of thevessels were equipped with a fish finderand 28 percent with loran. Only fourpercent had no electronic equipment.Even though many of the vessels hadsome electronic equipment for select­ing a fishing site, the majority of theoperators said the equipment was usedinfrequently. Experience was reportedas the key factor in selected fishingsites.

There are numerous differences invessel length, boat market value, andparty size when charter operations areviewed on the basis of where they usu­ally take people fishing: bay only, Gulfonly, and a bay/Gulf combination. Bayboats averaged 24 feet in length, had anet boat value of $9,265, and generally

3

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Figure 2.-DiSITibution of respondents by reponed "best" CUStomer demand months.

carried 3-4 customers. Gulf boats aver­aged 34 feet in length, had a net boatvalue of $22,232, and generally carried4-6 customers. Boats used for fishingboth bay and Gulf were more like bayboats with an average length of 27 feetand a net boat value of $10,331. Thirtyof the vessels were each operated by acaptain and one crew member (gener­ally Gulf boats), and 20 vessels wereeach operated with only a captain (gen­erally bay boats).

Charter Fishing Activities

The price of a charter fishing tripvaried considerably among the 41businesses represented in the study.The factors influencing the price struc­ture were: Number of fishermen in aparty, type of vessel, length (in hours)of a trip, and the type of trip (either bayor Gulf fishing). Assuming a four per­son party, the charter fee ranged fromapproximately $25 to $75 per personwith Gulf charters the most costly. Theprice of a charter trip is intended to

Table 1.-"Primary speciessought" as reported byoperators.

784439322715121212

777752

Operatorsreporting

('Yo)

KingfishSpotted seatroutRed drumLingRed snapperDolphinWarsawBonitoSailfishGrouperFlounderJackfishTarponTunaMarlin

Species

equally, the average number of fisher­men carried during 1975 would be 333per boat. However, three of the ownersof multiple boat businesses did not havea captain for each vessel. At anyonetime, only 46 charter vessels could beused. Based on the total of 46 vesselscapable of being used, the averagenumber of fishermen carried during1975 increases to 362 per boat. Al­though many of the charter vessels werelicensed to carry a maximum of six pas­sengers plus the captain and crew­member, operators indicated an aver­age of four fishermen were carried oneach charter.

As discussed, the respondents pro­vided charter service to both bay andGulf waters. To obtain informationwhich may aid in the siting of artificialreefs, operators were asked to indicatethe average one-way distances traveledduring a bay and Gulf charter. Theone-way distance traveled to a fishingsite in bay waters ranged from 4 to 26miles with over 50 percent of theoperators traveling less than 10 miles.For Gulf fishing, the one-way distancetraveled ranged from 5 to 50 miles withover 50 percent of the operators travel­ing less than 20 miles. Based on thenumber of charters in bay and Gulf wa­ters, 24 percent of the operators char­tered primarily to bay waters, 56 per­cent chartered primarily to Gulf waters,and 20 percent chartered approximatelyequally to bay and Gulf waters.

Respondents were asked to identifythe principal target species of their char­ter fishing efforts (Table I). Few

cover the use of the charter vessel andthe experience of the vessel's captain.For the majority of the businesses, theowner was also the captain. The feealso included fishing instructions. Sixtypercent of the respondents reported thebase rate included the provision of bait,and 56 percent reported the provision oftackle.

Sixty-three percent of the respon­dents said their vessels were availablefor charter all year. However, Maythrough September were the months ofhighest demand with July the bestmonth (Fig. 2). The charter operators'season or period of greatest activity cor­responds roughly with the ending andbeginning of the school year.

Surprisingly few operators used theirvessels for activities such as scuba char­ters, carrying oil rig crews, or privateuse to increase their earnings.

The 41 respondents reported provid­ing charter services to 16,648 fisher­men in 1975. If each of the 50 vesselsowned by the respondents was used

-93% ,.---

89%

..--79%

r--- ..--32% 32%

4% I 4% I

~ 1000

::E"'Cl:

90III

EQ)

C~

80Q)

E01;;:s

70c..>

~F 60III..III

i5 50l:0::El:Q)

40>(3

'"l:.;:;30III

"'ii.:~ 20g~Q)a. 100'0

*'

4 Marine Fisheries Review

'Column A is the sum of all responses lor each item.2Column B is the total amount tor a given item (Column A) divided by the number of boats incurring that expense(numeralor 01 Column C).'Column C is Ihe number of boals incurring an expense divided by the lolal number of boals. For example, the totalinsurance expense incurred by all operators was 525.387. Twenty-nine of Ihe forty·six boats. 65.2 percent. incurredan insurance expense. The average premium lor Ihe twenly-nine boats was 525.387129 or $875.41.'Multipiying Column B by Column C gives Column D, Ihe TOlal Expenditure Iigure divided by Ihe lotal number ofboats. SUbtracting the expenses from the income in Column 0 gives the average net pretax and interest profit perboat.5Co!umn E shows the percentage an expense item is to the tOlal expenses. This column should be viewed cautiouslybecause charter operators simply approach their business differently. Several operalors paid their dockage lees on acommission basis. Others paid higher dock 'ees but received free bookings, bait. and/or ice. Some value judgmentswere necessary 10 delermine which category best fil the expense figure given by the operalor.

Table 2.-Pretax profitability per boaI (n 46) in dollars.

A' B2 C' D' ES

No. ofTOlal respondents Total '% of expo

Tolal re- divided by divided by divided by 10 tolalported by no. of total no. total no. expo In

Tolal operators respondents of boats of boats col. 0

Income $621.169.00 $13.503.67 46/46 $13.503.67

ExpensesFixed

Insurance $ 25.387.00 $ 875.41 29/46 $ 551.89 7.2Advertising 5.791.00 20682 28/46 125.89 16Dock lees 24.740.00 634.36 39/46 537.83 70Office rent 2.800.00 56000 5,46 60.87 0.8Local taxes 1.515.00 25250 6/46 32.93 0.4Depreciation 44.364.00 2.464.67 18/46 964.44 12.5-Total $ 4.993.76 $ 2,273.85 29.5

VariableCommissions

paid $ 1,527.00 $ 30540 5/46 $ 33.20 0.4Repairs 53.277.00 1,566.97 34/46 1.158.20 15.0Fuel 78.370.00 1.703.70 46/46 1.703.70 22.1Wages 66,958.00 2.911.22 23/46 1.455.61 18.9Bait 20,476.00 819.04 25/46 445.13 5.8Tackle 16.328.00 510.25 32/46 35496 4.6Ice 4,795.00 22833 21/46 104.24 14Olher 7,835.00 1.30583 6/46 170.33 22

-Tolal $ 9.35074 $ 5,425.37 70.4

Total expenses $14,344.50 $ 7.699.22Nel profit (loss) beforeinterest and taxes (840.83) $ 5.804.45

operators reported only one targetspecies. Freeport, Tex., operatorsfished primarily for king mackerel,Scomheromorus caval/a, from May toSeptember and red snapper, Lutjanuscampec'hanus, during the remainingmonths. The Rockport and PortO'Connor, Tex., operators fishedprimarily for spotted seat rout , Cy­noscion nebulosus, and red drum,Sciaenops ocel/ata. Port Aransas oper­ators fishered for king mackerel, Scom­beromorus caval/a, with some spottedseatrout and red snapper, Lutjanuscampec'hanus, fishing in the spring,fall, and winter months. Charter opera­tors in the South Padre region fished fora variety of species including red drum,spotted seatrout, tarpon, Megalops at­lantica, sailfish, lstiophorus platyp­terus, red snapper, and grouper,Epinephelus spp., and Mycteropercaspp.

Charter FishingFinancial Information

Data were obtained on the fixed andvariable expenses associated with theoperation of charter vessels during1975. For multiple businesses, expensedata was obtained for each vessel. Acomprehensive cost accounting formwas used to insure the identification ofthe expenses incurred during 1975 withthe exception of interest payments andincome taxes. A revenue total for eachvessel was calculated based on thenumber and type of fishing trips takenduring 1975 and the cost of these tripsbased on the average number of cus­tomers each operator took fishing.

For the purposes of the financialanalysis, three multiple-boat busines­ses which involved the use of only oneboat at a time were considered singlevessel operations. In these three cases,all revenue and expenditures associatedwith each vessel were attributed to asingle hypothetical vessel. In essence,the revenues and costs incurred by thesebusinesses were simi lar to the revenuesand costs incurred by a single boatbusiness. The per boat economicanalysis was therefore based on 46rather than 50 boats.

Based on these 46 vessels, the aver-

Augusl /978

age profit in 1975 was $5,804 per boat(Column D, Table 2). This representsthe average net profit before any in­terest payments and income taxes. Var­iable expenses (repairs, fuel, wages,bait, and tackle) accounted for approx­imately 70 percent of the total expensesassociated with the operation of a TexasGu If Coast charter boat in 1975. If theowner of a hypothetical average chartervessel had incurred the average of eachof the expenses reported, he wouldhave lost $840.84 in 1975 (Column B,Table 2).

More detail on the profitability ofoperating a charter fishing vessel isshown in Table 3 where the net profitsassociated with vessels used for bayfishing, Gulf fishing, and a combinationof bay/Gulf fishing are compared. In1975, the 10 vessels used primarily forbay fishing returned an average net

profit of $5,137 per boat; the 28 Gulfvessels average a net profit of $4,265per boat: and the eight vessels used forboth bay and Gulf fishing averaged anet profit of $12.3 17 per boat. Usingthe reported value of the charter vesselsas a measure of the initial investmentneeded to begin a gi ven type of charteroperation. the initial investment isgreatest for Gulf-only operations fol­lowed by combination bay/Gulf opera­tions and bay-only operations.

DISCUSSION

This paper provides a perspective onthe dynamics' of the Texas charterfishing industry which should be usefulto fisheries managers. If the Gulf Re­gional Fishery Management Councilidentifies charter fishing as a manage­rially important fishery, an understand­ing of the nature and characteristics of

5

the charter industry throughout the Gulfregion will be necessary to determine ifand how particular fisheries resourceswill be allocated to this fishing sector.

Regional differences in charterfishing catch and effort may require thatmeasures like catch quotas or seasonlimits (if considered at all) be specif­ically designed for particular areas orStates within the region. Different solu­tions may be needed because Texasand Florida charter industries, forexample, may be different in terms ofthe scale of the businesses involved,operating season, and the magnitudeand composition of catch.

Practically no information is avail­able on the size and composition of theTexas charter fishing catch. Although acreel survey has been conducted in sev­eral Texas bay systems (Heffernan etal., 1976), data specific to charter boatshave been collected at only one loca­tion, and no catch data have been col­lected for offshore Gulf charter fishing.Identification of the charter fishingcatch, however, is important to deter­mine if catch limits are necessary. Be­sides harvest concerns, the FisheryConservation and Management Act di­rects the Regional Councils to considereconomic and social matters.

This study indicates that the Texascharter fishing industry is made up ofsmall independent businesses whichoperate at moderate to high profit mar­gins but which do not yield sufficientcash to keep a large number ofoperators in business full time. Thismay be due in part to the relatively shortcharter fishing season, as determinedby customer demand for charter fishingon the Texas coast. Although the indus­try lacks formal organization at theState and local level, there is a substan­tial degree of informal organization inlocal communities as evidenced by cus­tomer referrals among operators and re­lated businesses. It appears that theTexas charter industry has developedmore as a result of the life style whichcharter fishing affords than solely out ofany monetary benefits which may ac­crue to its members.

Although the exact relationship of

6

Table 3.-Comparative financial data by type of charterfishing operator.

Bay/GulfBay Gulf combina-

item only only tion

No. of boats 10 28 8

Income $8.454.60 $14.251.46 $17.198.13

E)(pensesFixed

Insurance 130.20 757.32 210.00Advenising 41.50 148.21 153.31Dock fees 270.40 574.21 661.25Ottice rent 5.00 98.21 000Local taxes 102.50 14.82 6.25Depreciation 66200 1.240.86 375.00

Total $1.211.60 $ 2.83363 $ 1.405.81

VariableCommis-sions (pd.) 89.70 000 78.75Repairs 602.30 1.439.43 868.75Fuel 1.089.10 2.055.32 1,241.25Wages 71.00 2,366.00 000Bait 109.50 515.39 60625Tackle 116.80 384.64 506.25Ice 2390 113.39 173.88Olher 3.50 278.57 0.00

Total $2,105.80 $ 7.152.74 $ 3.475.13Total (all ex-penses) $3,317.40 $ 9,98637 $ 4,880.94

Net profitbefore inter-est and taxes $5.137.20 $ 4.265.09 $12.317.19

Totalboat value $9,555.00 $25,554.00 $11.112.00

Trips 115.70 68.00 134.12Pretax pro-

fit' marginper trip 54.87 104.39 102.32

Trips requir-ed to' breakeven per year 22 28 14

Cash flowper year:) $5,799.20 $ 5,505.95 $12,692.19

, Income-tolal vanable expenses

trips

Fixed expenses

Pretax profit margin per triP

JNet profit before interest and taxes plus depreciation.

charter fishing and coastal tourism wasnot specifically determined in thisstudy, the degree of informal coopera­tion between the charter industry andother tourism elements like hotels, res­taurants, and sport shops suggests thecharter industry is an integral part ofcoastal tourism, particularly in smallcommunities.

Study findings suggest several pointswhich will require consideration in theformulation of any management regula­tions for the Texas charter fishing in­dustry. There is the basic question of

how the charter fishing industry shouldbe viewed in the context of fisheriesmanagemenl. Should charter fishing bemanaged as a commercial or recre­ational fishing industry? Since theTexas charter boat operators receiveeconomic benefits from the utilizationof common property fisheries re­sources, the industry may be, and oftenis in many areas, viewed as a form ofcommercial fishing, However, themethods and techniques of charterfishing are indistinguishable from thoseof the recreational fisherman who isable to purchase and use his own vessel.The Texas charter fishing industry cantherefore be viewed as a recreationalservice industry which providesfishermen with a means of access (for afee) to fisheries resources.

How the charter fishing industry isregulated may have a direct influenceon the industry's viability. It is difficultto determine what the impact of catchquotas and other regulations would beon the industry. Since the economicviability of the industry is partially re­lated to customer demand, the imposi­tion of quotas on the number, size, orspecies of fish which may be taken mayor may not act to discourage this de­mand. Other management measuressuch as designating a charter fishingseason or controlling the number ofcharters an operator can take are moreeasily related to the industry's viability.For example, the Texas charter fishingseason was found to be essentially 5months when charter businesses re­cei ved the bul k of their revenue. Reduc­ing the season or the number of chartersan operator could take by regulationcould be critical to some operators. Themarginal operators would be unable tocompete and would be forced out of theindustry. Although charter operatorsindicated monetary benefits were not aprimary motive for their involvement inthe industry, it is unlikely that mostwould continue to operate if confrontedwith no chance of economic gain orcertain economic loss.

Another important factor is the mag­nitude of the variable operating ex­penses. As noted, approximately 70

Marine Fisheries Review

percent of the operating expenses incur­red by respondents during 1975 werevariable costs. Rising fuel costs com­bined with a limited season again willsurely force some operators out of busi­ness. This will reduce the economicbenefits which accrue to local com­munities as a result of charter opera­tions.

This study also points to the need fora mechanism for monitoring changes inthe size and distribution of the Texascharter boat fishing industry. Due to theabsence of a continuous licensing orregistration system to identify membersof the Texas charter fishing industry,this study was limited to a single studyyear. To consider the continuing im­pacts of the charter industry, it is i mpor­tant that managers be able to identify

whether the industry is growing or de­clining by location. This could be easilyachieved by altering the current Texasguide license so that charter fishingoperators could be differentiated fromthe variety of activities presently cov­ered by the gu ide license.

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS

This research was supported by theTexas Agriculture Experiment Stationand the Texas A&M Sea Grant Pro­gram.

LITERATURE CITEDBrown. E. E .. and F. J. Holemo. 1975. An

economic analysis of Georgia's marine charterboat lishing industry. Mar. Fish. Rev.37(4): 11-12.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wiltllifc. 1972.

The 1970 nalional survey of tishing and hunl­ing. L.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Resour Publ. 95.108 p.

Carllon. F. E. 1975. Reere.llional tishinginten:sls·-conflicls antl l·ooperation. To stemthe tide effective Slate marine tisheries man­agement. Coune. State Gov .. Lexington. Ky..p. 72-81

Deuel. D. G. 1971. The 1970 salt-water anglingsurvey. U.S. Dep. Commer.. NOAA. Natl.Mar. Fish. Serv .. Curl'. Fish. Slat. 6200. 54 p.

Dillon. R. B.. W. A. Strang. and M. T. Dillrich.1975. Wisconsin's Lake Michigan charterfishing industry. Advis. Rep. #11 ~Univ. Wis.Sea Grant Rep. WIS-SG-75-41 I. Univ. Wis ..Madison. 21 p.

Heffernan, T. L .. A. W. Green. L. W. MeEaeh­ron. :vi. G. Weixelman. P. C. Hammer­schmidt. and R. A. Harrington. 1976. Surveyof tin fish han'est in selected Texas bays. CoastalFish. Div .. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep .. 116 p.

Irby. A. W .. Jr. 1974. A tishing survey ofChoetawhalchee Bay and adjacent Gulf of\-lexico walers. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. No.2.Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour.. St. Petersburg. 26 p.

MFR Paper 1318. From Marine Fisheries Review. Vol. 40, No.8, August 1978.Copies of this paper, in limited numbers, are available from D822, User Ser­vices Branch, Environmental Science Information Center, NOAA, Rockville,MD 20852. Copies of Marine Fisheries Review are available from the Superin­tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC20402 for $1. 10 each

Augusl /978