MFR PAPER 1175

ALAN R. GRAEFE and ROBERT B. DITTON

New light is shed onshark anglers and thesport of shark fishing.

Recreational Shark Fishing on the TexasGulf Coast: An Exploratory Study ofBehavior and Attitudes

Alan R. Graefe is Research Assis­tant, Department of Recreationand Parks, Texas Agricultural Ex­periment Station, Texas A&M Uni­versity, College Station, TX 77843.Robert B. Ditton is Associate Pro­fessor, Department of Recreationand Parks, Texas Agricultural Ex­periment Station, Texas A&M Uni­versity, College Station, TX 77843.

While it is probably true that mostpeople fear sharks, this paper exploresan aspect of the man-shark relationshipthat has received little attention previ­ously in the technical literature: sharkfishing. Man has long fished for sharksbut only recently has the everydaysportsman turned to shark fishing.Today shark fishing is often referred toas "poor man's big game fishing," andsurf fishing for sharks is becoming oneof the fastest growing forms of fishingalong the coast (Sand, 1972). However,there is little literature on shark fishingparticipation, less on its participants,and none to explain the motivations forshark fishing.

It can be reasoned that when sharksare viewed as game, the often discussedemotions of fear and hatred directedtoward them are replaced by emotionslike respect, challenge, and enjoymentof danger and beauty. Coran (1974), forexample, views the shark as one of thefew creatures whose consummate skillas a killer transports him beyond therange of evil into a special beauty. Theirunpredictable nature is a part of theirmystique. Benchley (1967) suggests thatthe shark fisherman is motivated by thedangers involved. Slaughter (Stephensand Slaughter, 1962) believes sharks arekings of the undersea jungle, and helikes to put them on the defensive and tooutwit and defeat them. Hunting sharksin scuba gear and with explosive de­vices, Slaughter kills every shark possi­ble. He considers shark hunting akin tobig game hunting.

In addition to meeting informationalneeds about shark fishing and why manfishes for sharks, this research providesgreater insight into the relationship be­tween the fisherman and the fish in theenvironmental system. Counter topopular literature, it is hypothesized inthis paper that fishermen pursue sharksfor sport, rather than out of hatred, andthat they enjoy the shark fishing experi­ence whether they harvest a shark ornot. The implications of these notions

the most diabolical inhabitants of thesea. Mackerodt (1974) seeks to reasonwhy man fears sharks. He notes that theshark is unique in its desire to hunt manand that man is helpless in the shark'senvironment. The shark is perceived asan unseen threat and this triggers fear.Sugar (1974) feeb there is more fascina­tion than fear. Sharks are unknownquantities in that no one knows theirpopulation size and distribution, howlong they live, nor how they die.

10

INTRODUCTION

Many authors in the popular litera­ture have written about man's feelingsabout sharks in posing the ultimatequestion of why we can't rid our watersof the shark menace. Most concludethat men fear and hate sharks. Benedict(1962) asserts that most fishermen con­sider the shark a predaceous brute.Wiles (1962) labels the shark as one of

ABSTRACT-Today there is little literature on shark fishing participation,less on its participants, and none to explain shark fishing motivations. Mem­bers of the Corpus Christi (Texas) Shark Association were interviewed inOctober 1974 to collect data regarding their socioeconomic characteristics,fishing participation patterns, harvest records, attitudes, and motivations. Theshark fishermen studied were found to be avid fishermen who participated inmany other forms of fishing besides shark fishing. Most fished from shorewhere catching a "keeper" (shark over 6 feet) was rare. A few individuals,however, were very successful fishing for sharks off shore. Anglers studiedwere found to perceive sharks with a sense of respect and admiration or inrelation to the challenge of the shark fishing experience. Few shark fishermenexpressed a fear or hatred of sharks. The aspect of shark fishing cited mostoften as the most important motivator was the challenge or sport of fishing.Other important aspects of the fishing experience cited were "being out­doors," "being with friends," "getting away from the regular routine," and"relaxation." The number and size of fish caught were reported as being lessimportant than the other reasons cited. Shark fishermen therefore cannot becharacterized as being highly motivated by harvest-related factors. Instead,they appear to derive satisfaction from the entire shark fishing experience.When shark fishermen were compared to two other samples of fishermen(Wyoming trout fishermen and New York lake and stream fishermen), all threegroups showed similar motivations for fishing. This suggests that sharkfishermen are not a specialty group of predator or "meat" fishermen as mightbe hypothesized, but rather fish for many of the same reasons as other fisher­men. Implications of this exploratory effort for further research are discussed.

A lemon shark, 7' 8" long, Photo courtesy 01 the Corpus Christi Shark Association.

for fishery resource management aloneare enormous. This paper furtherprobes the hypothesis that the numberoffish caught actually represents a smallpart of the fishing satisfaction derived(Field, 1974).

Traditionally, fishery managementhas focused on harvest, based largely onthe assumption that harvest is the prin­ciple source of satisfaction to thesportsman. A rival hypothesis would bethat fishermen are not pal1icularly con­cerned with harvest but instead fishprimarily for other reasons, There isconsiderable evidence in the literatureto support this hypothesis.

Historically, fishing has been por­trayed as primarily contemplative andsolitary. An early article on angling(1739) placed great emphasis on its di­version capabilities (U .S. Outdoor Rec­reation Resources Review Commis­sion, 1962). Also, from a limitednationwide sample of fishermen(Anonymous, 1967), Field and Streamconcluded that the representative an­gier believes there is more to fishing

than catching fish. Frequently men­tioned attributes of fishing were likingthe fresh air, getting out of the city,using homemade lures, being on theopen seas, and change in routine. In astudy of Ohio fishermen, 57 percentindicated their satisfaction with theirfishing experiences even if they caughtno fish (Addis and Erickson, 1969).Similarly, a majority of a sample ofIdaho anglers indicated their preferencefor fewer, but larger, trout (Gordon,Chapman, and Bjornn, 1969). Moellerand Engelken (1972) suggest that ele­ments of the natural environment­water quality, natural beauty, privacywhile fishing-are more important(than harvest) to the overall enjoymentof fishing. Knopf, Driver, and Bassett(1973) suggest that fishermen arestrongly motivated by four unmetneeds: temporary escape, achievement,exploration, and experiencing naturalsettings.

This paper likewise probes fishingmotivation and enjoyment and does sowith what might be hypothesized as an

II

extremely harvest-oriented group offishermen-shark fishermen. Two par­ticular aspects of fishermen's attitudeswill be emphasized. First, how do sharkfishermen perceive sharks as animalsand as resources? And second, how im­portant are the consumptive aspects offishing, such as size and number of fishharvested in relation to the enjoymentof the fishing experience?

This study aims to provide basic datato further understanding of the sport ofshark fishing. In addition to being thefirst systematic study of shark fishingand its devotees, the findings will enablecomparisons with other types offishermen.

OBJECTIVES

I) To identify socio-economic char­acteristics and attitudes of members ofthe Corpus Christi (Texas) Shark As­sociation.

2) To gain insight into shark fishing onthe Texas coast and to identify types ofshark fishing that take place.

3) To serve as a preliminary study to

Tiger sharks, 11' 3", 10' 4", and n' 3" In length. Photo courtesy 01 the Corpus Christi Shark Association.

test and generate new hypotheses aboutshark fishermen as well as to lay thefoundation for a more generalizablestudy of shark fishermen.

4) To compare findings with existingdata on other fishermen to determinewhether shark fishermen differ substan­tially from other types of fishermen intheir behavior, attitudes, and motiva­tions.

HYPOTHESESI) Members of the Corpus Christi

Shark Association view sharks as biggame, Thus, they fish for them primarilyfor the challenge or sport involved. Inspite of this, though, they are not ob­sessed with catching sharks, and enjoythe fishing experience whether theycatch a shark or not.

2) Members of the Corpus ChristiShark Association do not indicate thatthey hate sharks and are afraid of them,as most popular literature concerningsharks indicates. Rather, they respectsharks as magnificent creatures and.sport fish.

STUDY POPULATIONThe population studied was the entire

membership of the Corpus ChristiShark Association (n = 35). a clubwhose members are shark fishermen.Because of the small membership size,it was determined that all associationmembers would be interviewed if possi­ble.

The lack of wide generalizability ofstudy findings is recognized but itshould be remembered that this was anexploratory study. This group of sharkfishermen was selected primarily be­cause it was accessible and cooperative.Neither the group nor study findings areintended to represent all sharkfishermen.

METHODSData for this study were obtained

through personal interviews in October1974. After the structured interviewschedule was prepared and pretested,interviews were conducted on two con­secutive 4-day weekends with all club

12

members available. Since the studytook place after the shark fishing season(April-September) interviews wereconducted individually at a time andplace convenient to the respondent,generally at home. The leadership oftheShark Fishing Association was familiarwith the study and encouraged themembership to cooperate fully with theinterviewer.

The interview schedule includedstructured questions in the followinggeneral categories: basic personal in­formation; socioeconomic characteris­tics, participation and catch record;techniques, equipment, and expenses;and motivations and attitudes. A fewopen-ended questions were put tocross-validate structured questioncategories.

Twenty-nine of the 35 active associa­tion members were interviewed. Theremainder were unavailable on the twosurvey weekends. At least three callbacks were attempted for each memberwho was not interviewed. No one re­fused to be interviewed .

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Fishermen Characteristics

The socioeconomic characteristics ofthe shark fishermen summarized inTable I allow comparison with twoother studies of fishermen. Sharkfishermen are generally younger andless experienced than the otherfishermen. They are typically male, and

Table 1.-Comparlson 01 socioeconomic charac·terlstlcs of 29shark IIshermen, a random sample 01licensed fishermen In six northeastern states, anda sample 01100 New York Iishermen.

Shark Six N.E. Newfishermen states! York 2

Table 2.-Shark IIshermen IIshlng participation records for the past 12 monthsfrom 29 shark fishermen.

Percent Mean no. ofArea participating experiences Range

FreshwaterStreams. brooks. creeks 6.9 0.6 0-12Rivers 31.0 1.9 0-15Lakes 44.8 4.9 0-35Reservoirs 20.7 0.6 0-10

Total 8.0

SaltwaterSurf. bank. jetty 72.4 10.2 0-85Pier 72.4 13.0 0-125Bay (party boat) 10.3 0.2 0-3Bay (private boaI) 75.9 7.0 0-50Gulf (charter boat) 24.1 0.6 0-7Gulf (private boat) 51.7 2.0 0-15

Total 33.0

Shark fishing total 14.6

Total fishing participation 55.6Average age 27 40 40

Years experience 19 26 24

Male (%) 89.7 90 87

Married (Yo) 65.5 79 87

High schoolgraduates (%) 83 63

'Data from Bevins et al. (1968).'Data from Moeller and Engelken (1972).

about 65 percent are married. The sharkfishermen studied were better educatedthan the northeastern U.S. sample (83percent high school graduates as com­pared with 63 percent). This. as well asthe fact that fewer are married, may berelated to the younger average age of theshark fishermen. All shark fishermen inthe study group became interested infishing for sharks after they had beenactive in other forms of angling.

Shark Fishing Patterns

The shark fishermen studied can bedivided into two groups based on thelocation of their activity, onshore andoffshore. Approximately 75 percent ofthe study group fished most often fromshore (beach, 45 percent; pier, 10 per­cent; and jetties, 20 percent). The re­maining quarterofthe population fishedmost often from boats offshore.

Shark fishermen indicated that theyalmost always fished with friends, al­though 14 percent of the study grouphad gone fishing alone. Thirty-eightpercent had gone fishing with theirspouse and 24 percent with members oftheir family, but in all instances, friendswere also included in the fishing party.The average number of fishing occa­sions during the past 12 months for clubmembers was 14.6 times. Since sharkfishing trips sometimes involve entireweekends, and at other times take place

in a day, 14.6 times probably under­estimates the actual number of daysspent shark fishing.

Table 2 summarizes the study group'stotal fishing participation record for thepast 12 months. It is clear that, in addi­tion to shark fishing, club members par­ticipate in a variety of fishing activities.They averaged 8 times at freshwater lo­cations and 33 at saltwater locations,excluding shark fishing. Thus, the aver­age total fishing participation is 55.6times during the past 12 months.

It is useful to compare this participa­tion data with information concerningthe fishing behavior of the nationalpopulation. In 1970. for example, 29.4percent of the total population wentfishing an average of 11.4 days (U .S.Department of the Interior, 1972).Therefore, it appears that the presentstudy group is composed of extremelyavid fishermen.

Table 3 reports the shark catch recordfor club members. It is immediatelystriking that slightly over one-half of the

Tsble 3.-Shark harvest record for thepast 12 months from 29 shark fisher­men.

Sharks caughtNumber ofshark fishermen No. Tolal

15 0 02 1 21 2 24 3 121 4 41 5 50 6 02 7 141 13 131 18 181 19 19

Total 29 89

13

study group harvested no sharks lastseason and also that three individualscaught more than half of the totalnumber of sharks harvested. A fewwords of explanation are in order con­cerning the recording of harvest. First,only sharks over 6 feet in length areconsidered "keepers" and are re­corded. This explains why so fewsharks are indicated. When sharksunder 6 feet are caught they are eitherkilled or released, depending on theircondition after the fight and the anglerinvolved. These sharks are not re­corded and, thus, not included in theharvest tabulation in Table 3. Second,onshore and offshore shark fishing varyconsiderably with respect to fishingsuccess. It is well established thatoffshore fishing yields a greater rate ofharvest. In this study. the three indi­viduals who caught the large number ofsharks (13, 18. and 19, respectively) areall offshore fishermen. while those whocaught few or no sharks are generallyonshore anglers.

Attitudes And Motivationsof Shark Fishermen

To assess shark species preferencesof shark fishermen, each was asked theopen-ended question, "What type ofshark do you hope to catch?" The re­sponses "big" or "any" were giventwice as often as any particular specieswas named (Table 4). It appears fromthis that these fishermen in general areinterested in catching sharks and are notparticularly concerned with whatspecies they catch.

Three sport-caught aharks: Top, bull ahark, 9' 2" long; middle, tiger shark, 8' long: bottom, hammerhead,8' 6" long. Photo courtesy of the Corpus Christi Shark Association,

'Column not totalled as respondents wereable to indicate more than one response.

Table 4.-Responses from 29 sharkfishermen to. "What type of shark do youhope to catch?"

which they had not yet harvested orwhich they had caught least frequently.It is interesting to note that four anglersspontaneously indicated that theirfishing aspiration was to catch a greatwhite shark (or maneater). None realis­tically expected to ever catch a memberof this relatively rare species (especiallyin the Gulf), but all expressed a greatsense of fascination. Perhaps thispreoccupation is a function of severalrecent popular works devoted to thegreat white.

How the study group perceivessharks was probed in two ways. First,an open-ended question asked, "In asfew words as possible, how would youdescribe the way you feel aboutsharks'?" Deliberately vague, the ques­tion was intended to ellicit initial reac­tions of perceptions of sharks. It wasasked at the beginning of the interview.Responses have been grouped intocategories based on similarity of ideasexpressed and are presented in Table 5.

The first group of 36 responses (a ma­jority of all responses) form a categorywhich can be best described as feelingsof respect and admiration for the crea­tures. Many related descriptive terms,from colloquial (neat) to technical (welladapted) to philosophical (compare toself), were offered. They all have incommon a sense of praise and thus sup­port our s<:cond hypothesis, that sharkfishermen respect sharks as magnificentcreatures and sport fish.

The second group of 15 responsesimply feelings associated with the shark

Responses shown in Table 4 corre­spond roughly to the more commonshark species found in Gulf coastal wa­tel's. The bull shark, perhaps the mostabundant close to shore. is probably theleast highly prized. Tiger and ham­merhead sharks grow to larger sizes andare harvested less frequently. Respon­dents who mentioned a particularspecies usually indicated the species

10996432

Frequency'Response

AnyTigerHammerheadBigAspiration: Great whiteDepends on time of yearBull

Table 5.-Responses from 29 shark fishermen to the following question: "In as few words as possible, how would you describe the way you feel about sharks?"

Response Frequency Response Frequency Response Frequency

Category: Feelings 01Respect and Admiration

Caregory: Feelings Associat­ed with Fishing Experience

Category: Feelings 01No Fear

RespectCompare to selfStrengthPowerlulIntelligenceElusiveNeatAll rightBeautifulGreat creatu reFascinatingUnknownPrettyStreamlinedHere to stayWell adaptedPerfectLove forIntriguingInterestingMisinterpretedEqual competitor

9121111111311111113112

ChallengeGame fishCompare to sellSportLove to fish forEqual competitor

Total

Category: Feelings atFear and Danger

Afraid ofViciousDangerousThey will attack

Total

531132

, 15

5121

'9

Not dangerousNo lear

Total

Category: MiscellaneousFeelings

There to catchScavengerPoor man's marlinMisinterpreted

Total

'2

2221

'7

Total '36

'Totals indicate the number 01 times each response was offered, Since respondents allen gave more than one descriptIve term, totals are not addable.

14

Table 6.-Responses to, "Which of the following bestcharacterizes the way you feel about sharks?"

fishing experience. These respondentsimmediately thought of sharks as prey,even though fishing was not mentionedin putting the question. Responses herecomplement those in the first category(some overlap enough to be appropriatefor both groups) in supporting ourhypothesis.

The remaining responses expressfear, lack of fear, and some miscella­neous ideas. Combined they representapproximately 25 percent of all re­sponses, a surprisingly low percentagein view of the open-ended nature of thequestion.

Secondly, respondents were asked atthe close of the interview to identify thecharacteristic which best describes theway they feel about sharks. Six forced­choice alternatives were provided. Re­sults are presented in Table 6.

The three alternatives which wereselected in Table 6 correspond roughlyto the three major categories formed inTable 5. However, the emphasis is re­versed for the two tables. The majorityof spontaneous responses in Table 5imply respect for sharks, while the sec­ond category involves the challenge tocatch. In Table 6, on the other hand, astrong majority selected "a challenge tocatch" over "lords of the sea, theyshould be respected." Apparently,providing the "challenge to catch" al­ternative induced more people to re­spond accordingly than would have re­sponded spontaneously. In addition,this question was asked after severalfishing participation and motivationquestions which may have influencedthe respondents to think in terms of thefishing experience. At any rate, it isreasonable to conclude that a vast ma-

96908379624528242110

PercentAlternative

Table 7.-Responses' from 29 shark fishermen tothe following question: "What are the most im­portant reasons you fish for shark? Please checkonly those Items that are most Important to you."

For the challenge or sportTo be outdoorsTo be with my friendsTo get away from the regular routineFor relaxationTo obtain a trophyTo obtai n fish for eali ngFor physical exerciseFor family recreationOther

lRespondents were instructed to indicate thoseitems most important to them. Multiple responsesprevent percentages from being addable.

being with friends, getting away fromthe regular routine, and relaxation.None of these factors are harvest re­lated or dependent.

A 10' 9- dusky shark. Photo courtesy of the Corpus Christi Shark Association.

jority of the study group perceivessharks either with a sense of respect forthe creature or in relation to the fishingexperience. Few of them indicated fearand none indicated hatred for sharks.

Several questions in the interviewdealt with fishing motivation. Oneprobed the most important reasons therespondents fished for shark and pro­vided 10 response categories. Table 7reports the percentages of fishermenwhich selected each aspect of fishingmotivation.

The most popular responsecategories describe the fishing experi­ence, not the catching of fish. Sharkfishermen appear to enjoy most the chal­lenge of fishing and being outdoors.Slightly less important are the aspects of

00

0.0

0.0

10.3

17.2

3

29

21 72.4

Number Percent

Dangerous opponents

Total

A challenge to catch

Menace to people. they shouldbe eliminated

Other. please specify

Good food to eat. a productof the sea

Lords of the sea. they shouldbe respected

n 29 shark fishermen.

Response

15

3

Factor Mean Importance Value 1

'Scale = -------

Table B.-Responses from 29 shark 'ishermen tothe following request: "Please Indicate Ihe relativeImportance of each of Ihe following faclors whichInfluence your enjoymenl of a typical shark fishingtrip."

No. fishing Percent Importance Importanceexperiences fishing of no. of sizein previous to get of fish of fish

12mo trophy caught caught

0-10 (n 13) 23 1.58 1.92

:-10 (n 16) 62 2.06 25

casual (0-10 fishing experiences duringthe previous 12 months) and the avid(greater than 10 fishing experiences dur­ing the previous 12 months) fishermenare substantial. The data suggest thatthe avid group is much more highlymotivated by catch-related aspects ofshark fishing.

Several general observations can bemade to summarize the fishing motiva­tions of the study group:

I) The challenge or sport of fishing isthe most important aspect of fishingmotivation for the shark fishermen.

2) Many other factors contribute tothe enjoyment of the total shark fishingexperience. These include being out­doors. being with friends. getting awayfrom the regular routine. relaxation, wa­ter quality. privacy, and weather condi­tions.

3) The consumptive aspects offishingare of relatively low importance to re­spondents. Shark fishermen are gener­ally more concerned with the size ofshark caught than with the numbercaught. Those who fished often are con­siderably more interested in the size andnumber offish caught and with catchinga trophy than are those who fished onlyoccasionally. Those who caught nosharks or many sharks are less con­cerned with the size and number offishcaught than those who caught a fewsharks, but those who caught the mostare also the most interested in catching atrophy shark. While these intra-group

Table 11.-Extent of participation by the consumptiveaspects 0' the fishing experience.

showed the lowest concern for thenumber and size of fish caught, but thegreatest concern for obtaining a trophy.Perhaps for these few very successfulshark fishermen, the real challenge liesin catching the trophy fish.

When these same consumptive fac­tors are cross tabulated with the extentof fishing participation (Table II), it isapparent that those who fished mostoften were the most interested in catch­ing a trophy and the most concernedwi th the number and size of the fishcaught. The differences between the

Table g.-Years of fishing experience by the consump-tive aspects of the fishing experience.

Percent Importance Importancefishing of no. of size

Years to get of fish of fishexperience trophy caught caught

0-5 (n = 15) 40 2.07 2.47

6--10 (n = 9) 44 1.44 1.88

>10 (n = 5) 60 2.0 22

any sharks were not very concernedabout catching them. Only one-third ofthem fished to obtain a trophy. and theirratings for the number and size of sharkcaught were relatively low.

Those in the middle group, whocaught from one to seven sharks, ratedthe number and size of fish caught thehighest of all three groups. It may bethat the few sharks they did catch gavethem enough of a taste of the battle tomake them anxiously want to catchmore.

Those who caught the most sharks

16

Table 1O.-Number 0' sharks caught lasl year bythe consumptive aspects of the fishing experience.

notion that, as the fishermen get older.they become less preoccupied with thefish they catch. The results do not bearthis out. They imply that the least ex­perienced and the most experiencedfishermen are more concerned with thenumber and size of fish caught than themiddle group. Surprisingly, the mostexperienced fishermen show the highestpropensity for obtaining a trophy fish. Itis also interesting to note that "size" isconsistently rated more important than"number" of fish caught. Since the sizeof shark is directly related to the chal­lenge or fight involved in the catch, thisdifference probably reflects the highvalue placed on the "challenge" aspectof the fishing experience.

When shark fishermen are groupedaccording to the number of sharks theyharvested and cross tabulated withsome of the consumptive aspects offishing (Table 10). several trends areevident. First, those who didn't catch

Percent Importance Importancefishing of no. of size

No. to get of fish of fishcaught trophy caught caught

o (n = 15) 33 1.71 2.07

1-7 (n = 11) 54 2.18 2.54

13.18,19 (n = 3) 67 1.67 20

highlow

Fight put up by fish 2.79Pleasant companions 2.69Ease of access to water 2.45Water quality 2.41Privacy while fishing 2.31Weather conditions 2.28Size of fish caught 2.24Natural beauty of the area 2.10Number of fish caught 1.86Facilities available 1.69

Responses here are consistent withreasons for fishing reported in Table 7.Those aspects of fishing motivationwhich are most important derive fromthe entire fishing experience-fight putup by fish. pleasant companions. easyaccess. water quality, privacy, andweather conditions. The consumptivefactors. size and number offish caught,both receive low values of importance.

To further analyze the importance offish harvest. the responses for "to ob­tain a trophy" (Table 7), "number offish caught" (Table 8), and "size offishcaught" (Table 8) were cross tabulatedwith several other fishing variables. Thefirst variable cross tabulated was thenumber of years of fishing experience.In Table 9. shark fishermen are dividedinto three groups based on their numberof years fishing experience to probe the

The selection rate drops below 50percent for the response categories' 'toobtain a trophy" and "to obtain fish foreating." The relatively low importanceof these two harvest related responseslends support to the notion that sharkfishing is a complex behavioralphenomenon in which harvest accountsfor only a small part of the total satisfac­tion derived.

In another effort to probe fishingmotivation each respondent was pro­vid<.::d with a list of factors and asked toindicate on a three point scale, the rela­tive importance of each factorinfluencing his enjoyment of a typicalshark fishing trip. While this artificialrating device does not provide precisemeasurement, it is useful in establishingoverall ranking of factors on an ordinalscale. Table 8 reports the rank order ofmean importance values for the factors.

A 9' 5" lemon shark. Photo courtesy 01 the Corpus Christi Shark Association.

comparisons are interesting. it is impor­tantto remember that the consumptivefactors, "size offish caught," "numberof fish caught," and "to obtain atrophy," are all rated lower in impor­tance by the entire group than all of theother aspects of fishing motivation dis­cussed in I) and 2) above. It is apparentthat shark fishing involves far more forits participants than catching sharks.

COMPARISON OFSHARK FISHERMENAND OTHER FISHERMEN

Two other fishing motivation studieswill be considered here. for they pro­vide the basis for comparisons betweenshark fishermen and other groups offishermen. A study of Wyoming troutanglers was selected to representanother specialized group of fishermen,and a study of New York lake andstream fishermen was selected to ac­count for less specialized anglers.

Ballas et al. (1974) surveyed troutfishermen in Gallatin Canyon, Wyo. Asin this study of shark fishermen, troutanglers were asked, "What are the mostimportant reasons you fish?" The samealternative responses were provided inboth studies.

There are several similarities infindings. First, "to be outdoors," "forthe challenge or sport," and "to getaway from the regular routine" arerated highly by fishermen in bothstudies. Likewise, "to obtain atrophy," "to obtain fish for eating,"and "for physical exercise" all receivelow rankings in both studies, It appearsthat in both studies consumptive as­pects of fishing are not predominantamong fishermen.

Some differences between the sharkfishermen and the trout fishermen arealso noteworthy. Shark fishermen indi­cated "to obtain a trophy" considerablymore than "to catch fish for eating,"while the reverse was true for the troutfishermen. This is due likely to a func­tional difference between trout andshark fishing. Trout are caught morefrequently and are generally prized asgood-eating fish. In comparison, catch­ing a large shark is a rare event, and onlysmall ones ofcertai n species are kept foreating. Another complicating factor isthat shark fishermen almost always fishfor other types of fish while they are

shark fishing. Those who checked, "toobtain fish for eating," as an importantfactor may well have been referring tothe fish they catch on their lighter rigs,rather than the sharks they catch.

The higher ranking of, "to obtain atrophy." by the shark fishermen is con­sistent with their higher ranking of, "forthe challenge or sport." These two al­ternatives are related in that they bothimply a sense of achievement. The dis­crepancy between the two study groupsmight suggest that shark fishermen aremore highly motivated by achievementwhile trout fishermen are most stronglymotivated by temporary escape and ex­periencing natural settings.

17

A significant difference between thetwo groups is their reaction to the fac­tor, "to be with my friends." Sharkfishermen rated this highly while troutfishermen generally did not. This againis probably due to differences betweenthe two angling activities. While troutfishing is often an individual, solitaryactivity, shark fishing almost invariablyinvolves a small group, and often dou­bles as a camping trip or social outingamong friends.

Moeller and Engelken (1972) probed"what fishermen look for in a fishingexperience" with a survey of onehundred New York lake and streamfishermen. Their study utilized the

A 9' 2" sand IIger shark. Photo courtesy of the Corpus Christi Shark Association.

artificial factor-ranking device dis­cussed earlier (Table 8),

Two factors were added to the ques­tion put to shark fishermen because oftheir direct applicability to sharkfishing. These two factors, "fight put upby the fish" and "pleasant compan­ions," received the highest overall rank­ings for shark fishermen. This is consis­tent with the responses to why they fish:"for the challenge or sport" and "to bewith my friends."

For both groups, "privacy while

fishing" and "water quality" receivedhigh rankings, Conversely, the"number" and "size" of fish caughtwere relatively low in importance inboth studies. "Ease of access to water"and "facilities available" are not reallyappropriate factors for Gulf sharkfishing because access is not a problemand facilities are unnecessary.

One notable difference is that"natural beauty of the area" wasranked highly by the New Yorkfishermen group and was relatively low

18

in importance for shark fishermen. Hereagain, a direct comparison is not ap­propriate, for it is possible that the dif­ference reflects different perceptions bythe two groups of what "naturalbeauty" is, rather than a true motiva­tional difference between the twogroups. The coastal environment ofTexas is very different from the lake andstream environment of New York State.As a result, it is likely that environmen­tal values and perceptions also vary forrecreationists in the two areas. For ex­ample, many shark fishermen respon­dents indicated that they did not feel theGulf coast is an area of "naturalbeauty" and gave this factor a low rank­ing. On the other hand, it would be use­ful to probe how New York fishermenperceive "natural beauty." Based ontheir strong attraction to this as a moti­vational factor, it can be hypothesizedthat New York anglers do indeed regardtheir lake and stream fishing environ­ment as "naturally beautiful."

In general, the observation that canbe made from this analysis is that, onceagain, non-consumptive aspects of thefishing experience are the most impor­tant factors affecting the enjoyment offishing for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS ANDIMPLICATIONS

Two general conclusions are possiblein this paper, and they are in support ofthe hypotheses stated earlier. First,shark fishermen do not indicate a hatredfor sharks. They do not indicate a fear ofthem. Shark fishermen tend, for themost part, to perceive sharks either asmagnificent animals to be respected orin relation to the fishing experience theyprovide.

An interesting sidelight here is thatshark fishermen in this study group arequite knowledgeable about sharks. Be­sides knowing how to fish for them,many understand a great deal aboutshark taxonomy, physiology, and be­havior. Perhaps the adage, "familiaritybreeds respect, unfamiliarity breedscontempt," is directly applicable. Re­sults of this study certainly demonstratethat shark fishermen have a differentrelationship with sharks than is popu­larly portrayed in the literature for therest of mankind. While the public is

•

A 12' 2Y4" IIger shark. Photo courtesy of the Corpus Chrlsll Shark Association.

often preoccupied with the sen­sationalism of sharks, shark fishermenappear to understand the shark speciesand enjoy a comfortable relationshipwith sharks based on respect and admi­ration.

Secondly, like other groups offishermen studied previously, sharkfishermen fish primarily for non­consumptive reasons. Their top interestis the challenge or sport of fishing; yetthe size and number offish caught are ofrelatively little importance to them.What is more important to thesefishermen is that they be outdoors, withthl:ir friends, and away from their regu­lar routine.

Comparison of fishing motivations ofshark fishermen and other fishermengroups previously studied demonstratesthat shark fishermen are not a group ofspecialty predator or meat fishermen,but rather have attitudes and motiva­tions similar to those ofother fishermen.

FURTHER RESEARCH

Following this exploratory effort, thenext logical research step should be tostudy a representative sample of sharkfishermen. A basic question to fisherymanagers is just how important is sharkfishing? Determination of this can sug­gest to fishery managers what type ofeffort should be devoted to a possiblysizeable and growing constituency. In­dications of preferences and motiva­tions of shark fishermen in this studygroup might be useful in helping to ue­sign further attitudinal inquiries. Itwould be interesting to see if the samefactors that contribute to a qualityfishing experience for this study groupwill also be important to a representa­tive sample of shark anglers elsewhere.What is learned can be used by fisherymanagers to identify specific expecta­tions and determine management alter­natives aimed at providing satisfactoryfishing experiences.

It would also be interesting to com­pare characteristics and attitudes ofshark fishermen to those of other biggame anglers, such as billfishermen.Because of the different nature of thetwo activities, a study of marlin andsailfish anglers might reveal that they docomprise a group of specialty predatorfishermen with attitudes and motiva-

tions very different from sharkfishermen and fishermen in general.

Perhaps the most important implica­tion of this study is that it is a beginningstep towards a better understanding ofthe sport of shark fishing and its par­ticipants. Currently, there are manyother surveys of fishermen's attitudes,preferences, and motivations underwayin different areas of the country. Thefindings of these user surveys will col­lectively provide more insight into whatfishermen do seek in their fishing ex­periences.

19

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by a re­search initiation grant from the TexasA&M Sea Grant Program and partiallysupported by the Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station.

The authors wish to express appreci­ation for the assistance of several indi­viduals whose efforts contributedgreatly to the completion of this project.Thanks are extended to Neil Cheek,Texas A&M University; BobMcMahon, Association Sponsor; Bill

Chapman, former President of theShark Association; as well as all mem­bers of the Association, who gave freelyof their time.

LITERATURE CITEDAddis. J. T .. and J. Erickson. 1969. The Ohio

fishermen. Ohio Dep. Nat. Resour. Div. Wildl.,Publ. 140. 31 p.

Anonymous. 1967. 28.340.000 fishermen can't bewrong. Field and Stream 71( 10):60-2.

Ballas. J. A.. K. K. Dick, C. J. Gilchrist. and A. S.Williams. 1974. Trout fishermen in the GallatinCanyon: motives and perspectives on quality.Ann. Meet. Am. Fish. Soc., Sept. 8-11, 1974,Honolulu.

Benchley, P. 1967. Shark! Holiday 42(5):68-9. 96.Benedict. N. 1962. Shark menace: Can science end

it? Field and Stream 67(4):32-5, 50-I.

Bevins, M. I., R. S. Bond, T. J. Corcora. K. D.Mcintosh, and R. J. McNeil. 1968. Characteris­tics of hunters and fishermen in six Northeasternstates. Univ. Vermont, Agric. Exp. Stn., Bull.656,76 p.

Coran, R. 1974. Shark fishing. Argosy 380(September):24-5,40-1.

Field, D. R. 1974. Patterns of participation,characteristics, and preferences of Puget Soundsaltwater sportfishermen. Research Proposal tothe State of Washington, Water Research Cen­ter. Seattle. Wash.

Gordon, C. D., D. W. Chapman, and T. C.Bjornn. 1969. The preferences, opinions, andbehavior of Idaho anglers as related to quality insalmonid fisheries. Proc. 49th Ann. Conf. West.Assoc. State Game Fish Comm., June 1969. p.98-114.

Knopf. R.C .. B. L. Driver.andJ. R. Bassett. 1973.Motivations for fishing. 38th North Am. Wildl.Nat. Resour. Conf., Wash .. D.C .. March 19,1973.

Mackerodt, F. 1974. Silent death. Argosy 380(Seplember):44A-44B.

Moeller, G. H., and J. H. Engelken. 1972. Whatfishermen look for in a fishing experience. J.Wildl. Manage. 36: 1253-1257.

Sand, G. X. 1972. Shark off the beach. Field andStream 77(3):52-3, 88-91.

Stephens. W. M., and S. G. Slaughter. 1962. Mywar with sharks. Saturday Evening Post235(26):20-1,56-7.

Sugar. B. 1974. The horror of sharks. Argosy 380(September):44C-44E.

Wiles. J. 1962. Wanted: Shark hunters. MotorBoating 110 (September):62-4.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Out­door Recreation. 1972. The 1970 survey of out­door recreation activities. U.S. Gov. Print. Off.,105 p.

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources ReviewCommission. 1962. Sport fishing - today and to­morrow. ORRRC Study Report 7, U.S. Gov.Print. Off., Wash., D.C., 127 p.

MFR Paper 1175. From Marine Fisheries Review, Vol. 38, No.2, February1976. Copies of this paper, in limited numbers, are available from 0825,Technical Information Division, Environmental Science InlormationCenter, NOAA, Washington, DC 20235. Copies of Marine Fisheries Revieware avaifable from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC 20402 lor $1.10 each.

20