The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Technical Report: The Economic Impact of Game and Coarse Fishing in Scotland

Section 1 Introduction and Literature Review

1.0 Introduction

In August 2001, the Green Paper, Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries: Securing Their Future, was published. It identified a lack of useful data on the economic position of freshwater angling, whether on a national or regional basis. Against this background, the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Division (SEERAD) commissioned this study.

The principal aim was to provide SEERAD with new and more up to date estimates of the contribution made by angling to employment and income in Scotland as a whole and regionally within Scotland. Originally, four Mainland regions (Dumfries and Galloway, Borders, Central Scotland, Northern Scotland) plus the Northern Isles and Western Isles were specified. The original remit also identified that separate estimates be produced for three types of freshwater angling (salmon and sea trout, trout and coarse) and that the study should cover a representative sample from rod fisheries for salmon, trout, char, rainbow trout, grayling plus coarse fish in rivers, lochs, reservoirs, ponds, canals, and man-made put and take fisheries. The remit also required a distinction to be made between wild, stocked, or partially stocked brown trout waters and commercially stocked rainbow fisheries. Finally, the economic impact was also to include the induced and indirect impacts of angler expenditure as reflected in appropriately derived multipliers.

Following some preliminary work and discussions with SEERAD, the aims of the study were further defined and delimited as follows. Separate estimates would be produced of the impact of angler activity and associated expenditure on income and employment in seven geographical constituencies; Orkney and Shetland, Dumfries and Galloway, Borders, Central Scotland, North East Scotland, Highlands, Western Isles ², as well as Scotland as a whole. Separate estimates would be produced for four types of freshwater angling; salmon & sea trout, brown trout, rainbow trout and coarse fisheries. In effect, the agreed aim was to assess the economic impact of freshwater angling across a possible 32 region and fishery combinations), including the multiplier effects ³. The extensive primary data collection process also presented an opportunity to generate for SEERAD data on catches, particularly of brown trout and coarse fish. Therefore, in addition, to economic impact assessment, the study produced information on angler catch rates across various regions and species type. It was also agreed that, where practicable, the study team should employ a research design that not only enables the estimates produced to be updated over time, but which can be applied to other regions or time periods.

1.1 Structure of the Technical Report

Section 1 of this report reviews the existing body of relevant UK applied work, and pays particular attention to those Scottish based studies that have informed the basic strategic approach.

Section 2 presents a detailed discussion of the research method.

Section 3 presents the analysis of angler activity and expenditure by region and species.

Section 4 discusses the estimated fish catch.

Section 5 analyses the economic impact of freshwater angling on output, income and employment.

Section 6 reviews and comments on the principal results.

1.2 Economic Impact Studies

1.2.0 Introduction

The general remit of the project makes it clear that this study should focus on the contribution that freshwater fisheries can make to the Scottish economy and specific regions within Scotland. The study therefore eschews the effect of participation in freshwater angling on the well being of the anglers themselves. These social welfare effects have been extensively addressed in both the UK and the US. Indeed, recreational fishing has been very much a test bed for the development of techniques for assessing the value of natural amenity assets and the sensitivity of values to changes in environmental quality. Given the stated objectives of this study, the very extensive literature on the economic valuation of recreational fisheries is not addressed.

In the public domain, the magnitude of angler expenditure and its impact on income and employment is often used for advocacy purposes. Unfortunately, since many of those involved in public debate are not necessarily familiar with some of the finer points of economic analysis, the findings of an impact studies can be cited and used inappropriately. This inappropriate use might be deliberate but may also be simply misguided. Both culpable and innocent misuse is best tackled by ensuring that the scope and limitations of impact studies are made explicit. It is therefore important initially to consider some of the important issues that underpin economic impact assessment. There are four key issues:

• Angler spending and national/regional income

• Displacement

• Multipliers

• Use of results

1.2.1 Angler spending and national/regional income

The expenditure of anglers has an undoubted potential impact on incomes and employment both at the level of the Scottish economy as well as defined regions within Scotland. However, the link between angler expenditure and national/regional income, is not always as straightforward as some applied studies would suggest. In fact, it is theoretically possible that anglers' expenditure may have zero or negligible impact on national income. In the hypothetical case of a country that did not engage in international trade and did not receive anglers from overseas, the demise of angling would only mean a shift in the pattern of expenditure and incomes within the national economy. In such a 'closed' economy, losses in incomes to tackle suppliers, hoteliers and others would largely be counterbalanced by increased incomes in other sectors to which expenditure was diverted. In this extreme case, the overall level of income in the economy is not affected on the expenditure of domestic anglers ⁴. For any given country (or region within it), it is therefore clearly necessary to quantify the proportion of total spending that originates from outside the defined boundaries.

1.2.2 Displacement

From the above discussion, it would seem that we should ignore domestic angler expenditure and focus only on the spending by visiting anglers. There are two complications, however. First, we should only consider that proportion of visiting angler expenditure that would be diverted to other economies. If, in the absence of angling, some individuals would still visit a region, but would now participate in, say, deer stalking it would not be appropriate to include their expenditure, since it would not be lost to the region. This complication is often ignored and the assumption is made that all visitor expenditure is diverted to other countries/regions and none is displaced within the country/region. The second complication is that if we have an open country/regional economy there is the possibility that with the demise of angling, some domestic anglers' spending would be diverted to products from outside the country/region. This issue is also often ignored and the assumption made that all domestic expenditure is completely displaced to other products within the country/region.

In effect by ignoring these two complications the implicit assumptions are being made that visitors do not have good substitution possibilities within the region, whereas, residents have almost perfect substitutes within the region. Whilst this is an obvious point, the substitution possibilities are not always evident and may only be apparent if practitioners explicitly address the question of displacement by asking all anglers to reveal the alternatives open to them.

1.2.3 Multipliers

The full effect on regional income of expenditure by visiting anglers is typically greater than the magnitude of that expenditure. Visiting anglers' expenditure increases the incomes of the local businesses who sell goods and services to anglers (e.g. hotels, fishing right owners, tackle shops etc). Following Martin (1987), this is the direct impact which increases the value added of local firms (value added is defined as gross revenue less inputs purchased from other firms). If these local firms purchase some of their inputs locally they then create an indirect impact on the value added of other local firms. Additional indirect impacts may also result. The direct and indirect impacts together result in an overall increase in the total of local value added. Since value added represents the sum of wages, rents and profits, an increase suggests that local household income is enhanced. To the extent that local households spend some of this extra income on local goods and services an induced effect is then impacted on local firms. Taken together, all the indirect and induced effects are referred to as secondary impacts.

Regional multipliers summarise the overall effects of both direct and secondary impacts. The actual value of a regional multiplier will depend on such things as inter-firm linkages within the regional economy, taxation policy, and the proportion of local income normally spent within the region.

1.2.4 Use of results

There is no clear link between total anglers' expenditure (i.e. expenditure on fishing rents and permits, accommodation, travel, meals etc) and the well being of the anglers themselves. If, because of, say, road closures a fishery became more inaccessible then anglers would be worse off through increased travel expenditure. Anglers' well-being has decreased but their spending has increased. Indeed, from society's perspective, more of our resources (such as fuel) are now being used to produce the same angling experience. It is of course possible that increases in anglers' expenditure might be a response to more anglers participating because of better catches. However, caution would need to be exercised, since any increased expenditure might simply reflect a change in prices (of fuel, for example, or the price for fishing of a given quality). Quite simply, there is no necessary link between angler spending and the importance of angling to the participants, or indeed society as a whole.

The other feature of most impact studies is that, by themselves, they can only inform us about the change in value that would result from the complete demise of the activity (e.g. complete destruction of a fishery). However, resource managers and policy makers are generally more interested in the smaller changes in value that would follow marginal changes in the quantity or quality of a fishery. The fact that something is economically large does not, of itself, mean that more resources should be devoted to it. A strong argument for the development or preservation of an activity would focus on the sensitivity of spending patterns to specific changes in physical parameters. For example, a doubling or halving of an exploitable fish stock may not necessarily translate into a doubling or halving of angler numbers or expenditure; if a river is fully booked improved catches may simply result in an increase in permit charges. Estimation of the sensitivity of regional income to changes in the status of fisheries would require the identification of functional relationships between the quality of a region's angling opportunities and the visitation rates and expenditure patterns for both 'home' and 'visiting' anglers. Even if expenditure did double, one cannot infer that employment would also double. If there was significant excess capacity many local firms may be able to satisfy much of the additional demand by utilising existing labour more effectively.

1.3 Literature Review

1.3.0 Purpose of Review

The purpose of this section is to highlight the insights from previous work that have informed the conceptual and practical aspects of this study. In addition, we sought where possible to minimise the burden of data generation by re-working or updating appropriate data available from previous studies. This review therefore focuses more attention on work that has influenced research design or has been used in estimation procedures.

1.3.1 Economic Impact Studies in England and Wales

In the UK, there have been a number of applied studies that have sought to assess the economic impact of angler expenditure. Some of these have had a national focus; others have concentrated on individual river systems or other surface water space. Until very recently, salmon and sea trout have probably received most of the attention. The prevailing perception is that salmon angling can make a highly significant contribution to local income and employment whereas coarse and trout fishing might be generally restricted to anglers who are more locally based.

The first attempt to estimate angler spending in the UK was a desk study on salmon angling by Lund (1978). He estimated the impact of salmon anglers' expenditure on the total UK income accruing to suppliers to be 56.3 ⁵ million. This income was estimated by subtracting the value of purchased inputs from the gross revenue received from anglers (gross revenue minus purchased inputs is a measure of value added). Lund commented that the hypothetical demise of salmon angling would simply result in a different pattern of expenditure and income, and that the net loss in total UK income might be fairly small. It was concluded that the long run impact of salmon anglers' expenditure at the national level was not very significant. This study is interesting because Lund is making the classic implicit 'displacement assumptions' discussed above.

In a study for the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Radford et al (1991) estimated expenditure by salmon and sea trout anglers in England and Wales. Data were collected from a random sample of 6,290 anglers fishing in each of the relevant NRA regions in 1988. The survey instrument was a postal questionnaire with anglers' names and addresses being provided by the Water Authorities who operated a compulsory licensing scheme for salmon and sea trout fishing. The existence of lists of anglers' names and addresses means that anglers can easily be sampled using a postal or telephone questionnaire. Moreover, the size of the angler population is known and sample statistics such as angler expenditure per day can be scaled to generate regional or national estimates.

With respect to displacement issues, Radford et al made similar assumptions to Lund. The expenditure made by visiting anglers in each regional constituency is given below:

Table 1.3.1.1 Visitor Angler Expenditure (Radford, et al 1991)

Radford et al, using the same displacement assumptions, also estimated an injection of 138,000 into the constituency of England and Wales as a whole from visitor anglers. It is revealing to compare this somewhat modest injection with an estimated expenditure of 28.4m ⁶ by all salmon and sea trout anglers in England and Wales; or to compare with the estimate for Welsh region (above). Such comparisons highlight the fact that these impact estimates are not additive and that magnitudes are highly sensitive to the selected constituency, as well as the displacement assumptions.

Mawle (1983) also had the convenience of angler names and addresses being available from the Water Authorities In a study of angling in South Wales (Usk and Glamorgan River Divisions); he estimated expenditure by residents of the region to be 476,241, 10% of which was on salmon angling. Anglers from outside Wales were estimated to spend 216,473 and it was considered that the majority of this expenditure would have been associated with salmon angling.

Dunn et al (1989) in a study for the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food estimated the annual expenditure of sea bass anglers in England and Wales to be 28.6m. This study is of interest because there is no licensing of sea anglers, which effectively precludes the use of postal questionnaires (other than through sea angling clubs providing names and addresses). They did however have an estimate of the total number of bass anglers from a survey of households in England and Wales conducted by National Opinion Polls. The NOP survey sought to estimate the number of anglers in England and Wales and to provide a description of their fishing activity; in doing so NOP provided Dunn et al with an independent scaling factor (the total number of bass anglers). Their preferred sample statistics were therefore collected on a per angler season basis; i.e. annual expenditure per angler rather than, say, angler expenditure per trip. The survey instrument was an on-site survey of anglers. In an effort to minimise sampling bias, interviews were conducted over a substantial range of the season at different coastal locations at different times of the day and week. One further problem they had to contend with was a length of stay bias. This arises because those anglers who fish most often will be over represented in any on-site sample, generating an upward bias to mean annual expenditure per angler. Fortunately, this bias can be corrected if sample statistics on the frequency of visits are collected.

More recently, Moon and Souter (1995) generated expenditure data in a study for the NRA into the number and demographic characteristics of anglers in England and Wales. They employed a two-stage approach. The first stage was the screening of a random sample of households to establish the size of the angling population. The second stage was a national survey of anglers. The angler population estimates were used to scale up the sample statistics. Defining an angler as someone who had been fishing in the previous two years, they estimated a population of 2,904,000 anglers in England and Wales. This population included 2,296,100 who had participated in coarse angling and 842,900 who had participated in game angling. The 1.928,700m English and Welsh coarse anglers who fished in the previous year spent a total of 2.85billion. The 708,000 Salmon/Trout (Game) anglers in England and Wales spent on average 1,490 ⁷ per annum, generating a total spend of 1,054m, of which 261m was spent on permits.

In an extensive study for the Environment Agency in England and Wales, Spurgeon et al (2001) estimated, among other things, angler expenditure, anglers' WTP and the capital value of all inland fisheries in England and Wales. Budget constraints and potential sampling biases had precluded the use of face-to-face angling questionnaires and a pilot study had demonstrated the value of undertaking telephone questionnaires using CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews). The selection process of respondents was made on a stratified basis, with telephone interviewees being drawn from Environment Agency's database of angling licence holders. In total, 806 anglers completed a questionnaire. Expenditure by anglers on angling related goods and services on an annual and per trip basis is substantial. The average annual expenditure for coarse angling is 906, although the median is 331. The median provides a more conservative estimate. Given that there are approximately 2.3 million coarse anglers (from Moon and Souter, 1994); total expenditure relating to coarse angling in England and Wales may be in the order of almost 2.11 billion. The average expenditure per trip for coarse angling is 18, although the median is 10.54.

The average annual expenditure for game anglers was 720 and the median is 291. Likewise, given that there are approximately 0.8 million game anglers total expenditure relating to game angling in England and Wales may be in the order of 575 million. The average expenditure per trip for game anglers was a surprisingly low 28.5 and the median an even more surprising 10.55. It must be assumed that these figures predominantly represent club anglers using stocked reservoirs. No effort was made to specify a particular constituency with a view to determining visitor impacts.

In all the studies above there was a readily available scaling factor; usually the number of anglers as revealed either by omnibus surveys of households or totals available from a licensing system. The existence of a scaling factor is crucial in determining the sample statistics that should be collected. Unfortunately, there is no readily available scaling factor for freshwater fishing in Scotland. Consequently, studies of Scottish angling have had to generate not only angler expenditure data but also the scaling factor. The most commonly used scaler is the number of rod days, rather than the number of anglers. The latter remains an unknown for Scotland as a whole.

1.3.2 Scottish Impact Studies

It is appropriate that we pay more attention to Scottish studies of the economic impact of angling. There are four particular studies that to a greater or lesser extent have influenced the design and execution of this study.

• Tourism and Recreation Research Unit of Edinburgh University study of salmon and sea trout angling in Scotland

• Mackay Consultants study of salmon angling in Scotland

• Deloitte and Touché study of freshwater fishing in the Tweed catchment

• Fisheries Resource Management of freshwater fisheries in the Western Isles

The latter two are of particular importance since some of their results have been directly used in estimating the economic impact for some fishery/region combinations.

1.3.2.1 Tourism and Recreation Research Unit (1982).

The survey instruments were a combination of face to face interviews and self completion questionnaires. These two instruments produced a modest 147 observations across three areas (Kyle of Sutherland, the Tay and the Spey). The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAFS) provided estimates of rod days obtained via a form sent out by DAFS to proprietors of fishing's along with the salmon and sea trout catch return form. Combining the mean expenditure with the rod days estimates produced the following expenditure figures for the three study areas.

Table 1.3.2.1.1 Expenditure Estimates TRRU 1982 (2003 prices)

The rod day estimates were also used to produce a figure for expenditure across the whole of Scotland. The regional rod days recorded and extrapolated from the returns is given below.

Table 1.3.2.1.2 Regional Rod Days TRRU (1981)

The total expenditure on salmon angling in Scotland in 1982 was estimated to be between 50m and 105m with the best estimate being 79m.

1.3.2.2 Mackay Consultants (1989)

In the Scottish context, the study by Mackay Consultants (1989) has been singularly important as a benchmark measure of angler expenditure. This was a wide ranging study that not only sought to establish the pattern and impact of salmon and sea trout angler expenditure, but also the economic importance of netting and the organisation and promotion of salmon and sea trout angling as a tourism asset. Sample data on angler expenditure were obtained through a mixture of on site surveys, a postal survey (names and addresses provided by hotels and fishery owners) and questionnaires left with tackle shops, hotels proprietors etc. A total of 2,364 responses were received and the calculated average daily expenditure was 124.34 ⁸. This was combined with an estimate of 435000 Scottish rod days for 1988. Regionally, the estimated rod days were distributed as follows ⁹:

Table 1.3.2.2.1 Regional Rod Days (Mackay Consultants, 1989)

These figures are higher than those made by DAFS in 1982, but from the survey work they have done they believe their estimates are reasonably accurate. On this basis, Mackay estimated the direct expenditure of all salmon anglers in Scotland to be 54.086 million. As far as displacement is concerned, no distinction was made between the impact of visiting anglers' expenditure and that of resident Scottish anglers' expenditure on the Scottish economy. This is a bit unusual and implies that if salmon angling did not exist all domestic (and visitor) expenditure is assumed to be diverted out with Scotland. Radford et al employing the displacement assumptions used to calculate visitor angler spending in England and Wales, re-estimated visitor angler expenditure to be 31m. Mackay assumes a multiplier value of 1.5, the total expenditure in Scotland derived from salmon angling (the sum of direct, indirect and induced expenditure) was estimated to be 81.12 million.

The Mackay study also generated descriptive sample statistics for the ten case study areas Lewis and Harris, Thurso, Conon, Orchy, Spey, Dee, Tay, Lomond, Nith and the Tweed. These are presented here to enable subsequent comparison with the study's sample statistics.

The information on rod days for the case study areas was believed to be better than the regional rod days (see above), though the Tweed figure seems relatively low

Table 1.3.2.2.2 River Rod Days (Mackay Consultants, 1989)

The corresponding daily and total expenditures are given below:

Table 1.3.2.2.3 Angler Expenditure (Mackay Consultants, 1989) (2003 prices)

The range of per capita daily expenditure is unexpected. The Tweed is by reputation one of the most expensive fisheries in terms of permit charges and the Western Isles generally cheaper, though there are a few very expensive fisheries on the Isles. Generally, daily spending figures seem relatively low given the level of permit charges and accommodation costs. The daily expenditure figures are less than in the TRRU study, and our own survey work generated larger estimates of daily spending. The Mackay estimates are however based on quite large samples.

The local expenditure adjustment percentage in Table 1.3.2.2.3 above simply reflects that some recorded expenditure was not spent in the case study area (principally transport). The multipliers are expenditure multipliers that include indirect and induced effects, and are estimated from primary data from the owner survey and other information on the local economy. There is no detailed explanation of how they were derived. Using the ratio of 24,150 of final expenditure to each full time equivalent job (F.T.E.), it was estimated that 3,360 jobs in Scotland depended on the 81.12m expenditure generated through salmon and sea trout angling. This ratio is based on the relationship between fishery proprietors' revenue and their observed number of employees, with a 20% increase to reflect higher wages outside fishing. The Mackay study does not estimate local income effects.

1.3.2.3 Deloitte and Touché (1996)

Deloitte and Touché (1996) adopted a similar approach to Mackay in their assessment of the economic impact of freshwater fishing on the River Tweed main stem and tributaries. In addition to elite interviews and specially commissioned cross tabulations of the United Kingdom Tourism Survey data (UKTS), they also used a range of survey instruments:

• Interviews with local businesses (to establish multipliers)

• Interviews with proprietors or others to establish permit sale

• Postal survey of anglers to establish angler spending

They established the number of angler days for four groups of anglers

• salmon visitors staying in the area

• salmon fishers on day trips,

• other non-salmon visitors

• other day trippers

Salmon visitors were initially estimated through a top down analysis of UKTS. Of the 300,000 domestic tourist trips to the Borders region 3% to 3.5% had coarse/game fishing as the main purpose. After various adjustments this group were estimated to account for 36,036 angler days. This was consistent with an analysis of the room stock in the area. Interviews with proprietors indicated that a further 5,400 salmon rod days would be taken by day fishers (4,500 of which are non-local day trips). This suggests a total of around 41,500. A bottom up analysis of beats and occupancy levels conducted in cooperation with James Leeming, the main Tweed letting agent suggested 39,500 salmon and sea trout rod days. It is reassuring that these figures are so similar and the figure of 40,000 salmon and sea trout angler days seems an appropriate and reasonable estimate of the number of days at the river bank. When non-fishing companions are included and allowance made for non-fishing days by visitors the number of 'angler days' increases to 56,300. Various means are used to estimate coarse and trout angler days. The following table summarises angler days on the Tweed.

Table 1.3.2.3.1 Angler Days (Deloitte and Touche 1996)

The average daily spending and total spending is presented below. With respect to daily expenditure, Deloitte and Touche estimate 187 for visitors and 81 for day trips. Both these estimates are substantially larger than the 34 estimated by the Mackay study

Table 1.3.2.3.2 Angler Expenditure (Deloitte and Touche 1996)

Total expenditure is estimated to be 11.36m. Deloitte and Touche estimated that 8.4m of this (73%) is retained in the first round of expenditure. Most of this will be value added (wages to ghillies, hotel and restaurant workers), but some will be locally purchased inputs. 5.5m (65%) is retained in the next round. This is quite a high retention rate, given prevailing tax rates, and the small proportion of goods and services that will originate within the Borders area. Subsequent rounds are assumed to retain 25%, producing further total retention of 1.4m. The sum of retained expenditure is thus 15.3m. Given the original direct expenditure of 11.36m this implies an (expenditure) multiplier of 1.35. The authors suggest that this implies an output multiplier of 0.34, but do not explain the logic of this.

The total 'economic impact' is stated as 15.3m. This is simply total expenditure on all goods (final and intermediate) and is not synonymous with local output or local income (i.e. value added). Employment is estimated by assuming full costs of employment of 29,025 and dividing the 15.3m turnover/expenditure by this figure. Thus, 520 jobs are estimated to be dependent on salmon and sea trout angling. If employment estimates are to be based on the wage costs per FTE, then arguably one should divide the wage bill, by 29,025.

In Section 2, we describe how the Deloitte and Touché salmon and sea trout angler days were updated and how a database maintained by the letting agent James Leeming was used to provide data on the origins of anglers.

1.3.2.4 Fisheries Resources Management (2000)

In a study for the Western Isles Fisheries Trust, estimated the economic contribution of recreational freshwater fisheries to the Western Isles. This is an extensive and very detailed study which examines many dimensions of freshwater fisheries in the Western Isles and crucially has direct observations on angler origins and implicit estimates of angler days. Our initial intention was to use this study's estimates of angler days and origins. However, as discussed below we found it difficult to reconcile the angler day's estimates of this study with other factors.

FRM used a variety of survey instruments:

• McPherson Research conducted a survey of 2004 face to face interviews with visitors between May and October 1999. This survey included a specific subset of questions related to angling.

• 2,000 self completion questionnaires were distributed to anglers at designated points of exit. 320 were returned. In addition 35 face to face interviews were conducted using a scripted version of the self completion questionnaire.

• A stratified telephone survey of 782 household on the Western Isles

• A survey of all known clubs and proprietors on the Western Isles. Of the 32 known 21 responded

• Additional survey work on three case study areas (Kildonan catchment, the River Creed and Valtos peninsula

It is instructive to consider resident and visitor angler separately.

The Visitor Angler Rod Days

This study is interesting because it used the number of visiting anglers as the scaling factor, since this control total was available from the McPherson study. Specifically the McPherson study estimated there were 130,588 visitors to the Western Isles between May and October and that 7,438 participated in game anglers in 1999 (p.18). Sample data from the self completion survey estimated a mean game angler spend of 551(p.54). For 7,438 visiting game anglers total spending was 4.195m (comprising 1.89m on salmon and sea trout and 1.16m who fished only for trout). The majority of this spending was by individuals declaring that game angling was the main reason for their visit to the Western Isles (3693 anglers with an expenditure of 3.312m (p61)). This is very much more than the Mackay estimate of 0.53m for domestic and visitor salmon and sea trout angling in Lewis and Harris

On page 67, it is reported that 317 visiting anglers used 635 rod days for salmon and sea trout and 905 rod days for trout. Scaling up to the sample total this implies visiting anglers alone accounted for 14,800 salmon and sea trout visitor rod days and 21,000 visitor trout rod days, producing total of 35,800 visitor game angler days.

Below we have used other data from the angler surveys to calculate the total number of visitor game angler days at 28,200 days. Visiting brown trout anglers spent an average of 3.55 days fishing whereas salmon and sea trout anglers spent 3.96 days (page 48). On the other hand, there were more brown trout anglers than salmon and sea trout anglers ¹⁰. We are informed that of 334 visiting anglers 76 (23%) fished for salmon and sea trout and brown trout, 170 (51%) fished only for trout, 88 (26%) fished only for salmon (page 50).

Total game angler days can then be calculated:

Trout Only Anglers 51% * 7,500 * 3.55 days = 13578 visitor trout days
Salmon Only Anglers 26% * 7,500 * 3.96 trips = 7,722 visitor salmon/days

Assuming that the 23% angler who make both salmon and sea trout and brown trout fish for 4 days (2 days for each type) then we obtain:

Table 1.3.2.4.1 Visitor Game Angler Days (calculated from FRM 2000)

Summing the trout (17,000) and salmon and sea trout (11,200) angler days, it would appear that visitor game angler days were about 28,000. We have to add the resident angler days to this total.

The Resident Angler Days

The telephone survey established that there were 5,705 anglers resident in the Western Isles. Indeed one in five of the entire population would appear currently to take part in some recreational angling. 1420 (25%) were sea anglers, 1980 (35%) were sea and game anglers, 2305 (40%) were game anglers. This implies that 4285 individuals were participating in game angling during 1999.

The estimated average annual expenditure was 70, and the average number of trips per day of 25 implies an average trip expenditure of 2.79. The authors preferred to use the expenditure of the last fishing trip of 14.77 and multiplied this by the average of 25 trips per year, producing an average annual spend of 369. This is then multiplied by the number of game anglers. In this respect, the authors use the number of game only anglers (2305) rather than the total number of game anglers (4285)! This generates a resident game angler spend of 0.84m. This is intuitively felt to be high and further adjustments are made. They use 7.4 per trip and 18.6 trips per year across 2305 game only anglers. It was necessary for the SEERAD study to calculate the number of resident angler days implied by these data.

If 2305 game only anglers make 25 trips this generates 57,625 game angler days. The ratio of salmon and sea trout angler to trout anglers is 0.85 ( see footnote 10) implying 31,148 trout angler days and 26,475 salmon angler days. In addition there are 1980 anglers who engage in salmon and sea trout and sea angling. For illustrative purposes if we assume, they make 12 game angling trips in the ratio 0.85 salmon and sea trout trips to trout trips, this would generate a further 10916 salmon and sea trout and trout trips. Combining these data we derive the following estimate of resident angler days.

Table 1.3.2.4.2 Resident Game Anglers Angler Days (calculated from FRM 2000)

Total Angler Days

When we combine the resident angler days with visitor angler days we obtain the following totals

Table 1.3.2.4.3 Total Game Anglers Angler Days (calculated from FRM 2000)

Summing the 61,000 trout angler days and the 48,600 salmon and sea trout angler days produces an estimated total game angling effort of 109,600 days. The above estimate of 48,600 salmon and sea trout angler days seems very large, as do many of the totals. Indeed, we have problems in reconciling the implied angler day's totals with:

• Estimates of angler days from other sources ( DAFS and Mackay)

• The number of angler days revealed by the study's own survey of clubs and proprietors in the Western Isles

• The official catch statistics for the Western Isles

• The catch statistics from the study's own survey of clubs and proprietors in the Western Isles.

Perhaps it is worth noting here that the only area of agreement was on expenditure per day. Although there was no intention of using the expenditure figures from the FRM study, our results are very similar and substantially lower than the 250 per angler day estimated by Mackay et al.

The 48,600 differs substantially from the comparable DAFS Western Isles estimate of 3200 angler days and the Mackay estimate of 2400 salmon and sea trout angler days for Lewis and Harris. The study's own survey of owners estimates that there are 22,000 salmon and sea trout rod days but that only 22% are taken up. This implies a total of 4,620 rod days; much closer to the DAFS and MacKay estimates. As soon as we stop relying on the study's angler surveys to generate angler day totals, we obtain completely different orders of magnitude.

The official salmon and sea trout catch for the Western Isles for 1998 was 2,797 fish. The study reports a catch of 0.56 salmon and sea trout per day. This implies total salmon and sea trout angler days (residents and visitors) of only 5,000 days. The study's survey of owners suggests a total catch of 3,563 salmon and sea trout. Combining this with the catch per day of 0.56 would produce 6,400 days.

These are completely different orders of magnitude from the 48,000 implied by the angler surveys. Indeed if we combine the estimated total salmon and sea trout angler days (48,600) with the catch rate of 0.56, anglers in the Western Isles would be catching 26,900 salmon and sea trout. This is much more than the Spey or the Tweed and is not credible.

The Scaling Issue

As far as resident anglers are concerned, it is perfectly possible that 25% of the entire population have engaged in angling. It is unlikely however that this proportion fished during 1999. There will be a substantial difference between the total number of anglers and the number of currently active anglers. Perhaps the resident the resident survey did not explore this distinction and scaled using an inappropriate total. The text of the telephone survey is not available in the report.

Multipliers and Employment

In estimating multiplier effects and employment dependency, the FRM study adopted a slightly different approach from both Mackay Consultants and Deloitte and Touch. Their expenditure multiplier was a Type I multiplier (induced effects ignored) derived by other research workers from input output analysis of the Western Isles. Their expenditure multiplier was 1.14. Employment was derived from known relationships between the value of output and the amount of labour required to produce it across various sectors in the Western Isles. These employment coefficients were applied only to the first round expenditure, and not the total expenditure

Overall the FRM study produced some significant insights into angling in the Western isles. Of particular importance for this study is the data on the origins of anglers. It has been necessary to recalculate the total number of angler days in the Western Isles and this is described in Section 2.

1.4 Specific Project Remit

Given the above discussion of background issues and review of the existing body of knowledge, it is appropriate here explicitly to state the specific remit of this study.

1. To estimate for seven identified regions (Dumfries and Galloway, The Borders, The Highlands, North East Scotland, Central Scotland, The Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland) the number of days anglers had fished for four types of fish (Salmon and Sea Trout, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout and Coarse Fish).

2. To establish the expenditure and expenditure pattern associated with these 28 combinations.

3. To estimate the number of each type of fish caught (and retained) in each region

4. To estimate the economic impact on the local region and on Scotland if fishing for a specific type of fish in a specific region ceased. This impact to make appropriate allowance for displacement and multiplier effects.

« Previous | Contents | Next »