shorefront fishing in new york city

American Geographical Society

Shorefront Fishing in New York CityAuthor(s): Charles Heatwole and Niels WestSource: Geographical Review, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 245-264Published by: American Geographical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/214485 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 10:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toGeographical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:51:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ags

http://www.jstor.org/stable/214485?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Geographical Review

VOLUME 75 July 1985 NUMBER 3

SHOREFRONT FISHING IN NEW YORK CITY*

CHARLES HEATWOLE and NIELS WEST

ABSTRACT. Fishing is a growing but little-studied recreational activity in urban areas. A survey in New York City indicated that fishermen came from all sections of the city and broadly reflected its diverse population. A pleasant outdoor experience was the main reason why local anglers fished, and ease of access largely determined where. Plans to expand participation in the activity should focus on access to facilities. Health risk associated with contaminated catch is a minor factor that can be mitigated by thoughtful planning.

FISHING is increasingly becoming a recreational activity in many Amer- ican cities. Plans to improve the quality of urban waterfronts and their recreational use occasionally promote this pastime. Optimal planning

for the activity is hampered by the general lack of information about urban fishermen and their recreational behavior. One consequence has been ill- conceived projects; another has been the failure to promote fishing as an important urban recreational activity. In this article we present a brief overview of the activity and a detailed study of it along the shorefront of New York City. The overview notes that fishing has been and may be incorpo- rated into urban waterfront planning and that geographers can contribute to the planning process. The New York City case study summarizes the results of one of the few surveys of urban fishermen and evaluates the implications for the promotion of fishing there and in other cities.

URBAN FISHING

Most recreational fishing in the United States occurs in places with low population densities. In contrast, approximately 38 percent of the anglers in the country inhabit urban centers with populations of up to a maximum of

* The research on which this article was based was sponsored jointly by the New York Sea Grant Institute and the Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, under a grant from the Office of Sea Grant, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce.

* DR. HEATWOLE is a professor of geography at Hunter College, CUNY, New York, New York 10021. DR. WEST is an associate professor of geography and marine affairs at the University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881.

Copyright ? 1985 by the American Geographical Society of New York



246 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

500,000; another 8 percent reside in still larger metropolitan centers.' Thus almost half of American fishermen are urbanites. Although many travel to fish in areas of low population densities, a large proportion uses sites immediately available. There are five reasons for the trend toward fishing at local urban sites.

Firstly, fishing consistently ranks among the two or three outdoor activ- ities that Americans enjoy most.2 Periodic surveys, conducted during the past thirty years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, show a sustained increase in the number of participants. In 1980 an estimated 53.9 million Americans age 6 or more went fishing.3 Secondly, there are more urban Americans than ever before. The number increased from 149.6 million to 167 million, a growth of 11.6 percent, between 1970 and 1980. By extension, it is safe to argue that there are more urban fishermen than ever before. Thirdly, since 1972 the federal Water Pollution Control Act and amendments have made available approximately $37 billion to improve the quality of waterways in the United States.4 Projects funded from this source have had a beneficial effect on aquatic habitats in many urban areas. Consequently several species, some of them important game fish like sturgeon and Atlantic salmon, have reappeared in a host of urban waterways with the decline of pollution. The return and improvement of these stocks have not gone un- noticed by the sportfishing community. Fourthly, the mobility of urban fishermen is often limited in comparison with their suburban and rural counterparts. As urban population densities increase, generally so does the percentage of households without automobiles. For example, the majority of households in New York City does not have them. Public transportation is available and makes many recreational facilities accessible within the city, but not to points beyond.

The fifth reason is also the most important one: governmental promotion of close-to-home recreation is now very much in vogue. The impetus probably stems from the work of the federal-sponsored Outdoor Recreation Re- sources Review Commission (ORRRC) that recommended more than twenty years ago efforts to enhance recreational opportunities where people live, particularly in cities.5 Unfortunately the recommendation generated little immediate response, probably because the Department of the Interior then concentrated its resources in lightly populated areas. Much has changed

' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982), p. 13. 2Gilbert C. Radonski, Opportunities for Urban Fishing, in Urban Fishing Symposium Proceedings (edited by Lochie Jo Allen; Bethesda, Md.: American Fisheries Society, 1984), p. 1. 3U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, footnote 1 above, pp. 2 and 10. 4William G. Gordon, Promoting Urban Fishing Programs, in Urban Fishing Symposium Proceed- ings, footnote 2 above, p. 9. 5Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, The Future of Outdoor Recreation in Met- ropolitan Regions of the United States, ORRRC Study Report 21 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1962); and R. I. Wolfe, Perspective on Outdoor Recreation: A Bibliographic Survey, Geographical Review, Vol. 54, 1964, pp. 203-238.



SHOREFRONT URBAN FISHING 247

because of subsequent Congressional mandates to promote ORRRC's urban recommendations. Representative results can be seen in federally sponsored efforts to establish a coherent urban recreational policy, to maximize public access to recreational facilities, to promote comprehensive coastal-zone planning, to enhance urban water resources, and to improve the quality and quantity of wildlife in urban areas.6 Because of the infusion of federal fund- ing and the enthusiastic involvement of state and municipal governments, numerous projects have been undertaken to promote, sometimes coinciden- tally, fishing in urban areas.

Despite the changes, fishing in urban areas can be less than an ideal experience; sometimes it can be downright dangerous. In New York City we have seen fishermen dash across divided expressways to reach a fishing spot. We have watched them tote tackle along electrified railroad tracks, cast from active railroad bridges, perch precariously on slippery ripraps, nego- tiate delapidated piers that have ominously undulating surfaces and gaping holes, scramble over sides of bridges and down to the concrete supports, ignore "no fishing" signs with impunity, go over, under, around, and through chain-link fences, and generally trespass on every category of waterfront property. Conversations with planners and researchers in other cities suggest that this behavior is not unique to New Yorkers.

Fishing in urban areas benefits from governmental programs, but the behavior just described suggests that the rising popularity has largely oc- curred in the absence of planning. The assumption is understandable in terms of the history of most metropolitan shorelines and potential problems inherent in fishing. Most urban waterfronts were originally zoned for commercial, industrial, or transportational use. Often the net effect was to make it difficult, if not impossible, for recreational fishermen to gain access to the water from the shore. Where zoning facilitated access to the water, conflict between fishermen and other users easily resulted. For example, beaches may provide good fishing opportunities, but fishing is incompatible with crowded urban strands. Even in less popular places the potential for conflict always looms because of items and actions fundamental to fishing. It requires tackle: hooks, lines, rods, sinkers, buckets, knives, and other equipment. It also involves occasional sudden movements to cast, to set a hook, or to free a snagged lure. Such movements are relatively harmless in isolated settings, but along urban shorefronts, paraphenalia and physical exertions of anglers can be a source of conflict with other recreationists and passersby.

Efforts to encourage local fishing are in the best interests of city dwellers. The therapeutic value of recreation is a basic tenet of virtually every text- book on the subject.7 Human enrichment is nowhere more welcome than

6 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Urban Recreation Study (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 86-137. 7Michael and Holly Chubb, One Third of Our Time? An Introduction to Recreation Behavior and Resources (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981).




in major metropolitan centers, where the stresses of daily life are great, but outdoor recreational means are limited. Development of facilities for fishing could make this form of recreation available and accessible to large numbers of persons. Equally important, enhancement of fishing has been proved to increase awareness and appreciation of environmental quality among urbanites.8

Waterfronts in many cities are deteriorated; fenced and boarded tracts offer mute testimony to changed economics and technology of water-related commerce. The real estate that was formerly a hub of activity is now un- derutilized, if not an eyesore as well. But such property may also have economic potential.9 Urban residents are seemingly attracted to waterfronts and will flock to them when the setting is pleasant.10

Both cities and people benefit from waterfront developments. Many forms of recreation can often be accommodated in conjunction with these projects. Fishing is a logical example, and trends suggest that developments designed to promote it will be well patronized. The lack of information about urban fishing and fishermen precludes optimal planning to accommodate the activity into the spectrum of waterfront uses. Application of geographical methodologies to this planning is appropriate because urban recreational fishing has inherent geographical qualities. The activity involves movement of people from one location to another by a chosen mode of transit. Before returning home, fishermen enjoy recreation at a place that is unique in both site and total environmental situation. Memories and impressions of the experience and the place linger. Together with recall of other outings, these become the basis for attitudes toward particular sites and modes of access that influence future spatial choices in a person's recreation.

Development of urban recreational fishing also has inherent geographical aspects. Planners must inevitably choose from among several prospective sites, each of which may offer unique characteristics of site and situation. A best-choice equation for decision makers should consist of several variables including characteristics, environmental perceptions, and spatial behavior of the fishing community. Ideally these are known; however, almost always they are not. To be sure, the literature on urban fishing includes works on general planning and development." Additionally there are pam-

8 Gordon, footnote 4 above, p. 10. 9 Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Urban Waterfront Revitalization: The Role of Recreation and Heritage-Vol. I: Key Factors, Needs and Goals (Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980). 10 Boston's Bartholomew Fair: Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Time, 4 September 1978, pp. 48-49; Balti- more's Exciting New Destinations, Southern Living, Vol. 17, June 1982, pp. 62-64; and David and Goliath in Gotham, Newsweek, 15 August 1983, p. 51. 11 D. L. Leedy, T. M. Franklin, and R. M. Maestro, Planning for Urban Fishing and Waterfront Recreation (Columbia, Md.: Urban Wildlife Research Center, 1981); and Richard W. Stoffle, Danny L. Rasch, and Florence V. Jensen, Urban Sports Anglers and Lake Michigan Fishery Policies, Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 10, 1983, pp. 407-427.




phlets that describe opportunities in several cities.'2 These works overwhelmingly stress fishery management, design and availability of specific sites, or desirability of urban fishing, while characteristics and behavior of the fishermen are largely ignored.

Types of needed information about the fishermen may vary from city to city. At the very least, planners should have a socioeconomic profile of anglers as well as data on where they live, how they travel to sites, their expectations for a fishing expedition, and their catch and how they dispose of it. The first two items serve to assess demand for fishing facilities, while the next two provide insight into basic fishing needs and how they should be met. The last two are important because pollution problems persist in many urban areas in spite of an overall trend toward improved water quality. It would make little sense to foster fishing in places where the catch is contaminated. The study of recreation by geographers has tended to be focused on sparsely populated areas, although there has been a pronounced concern for the recreational problems and challenges of urban areas in the recent literature.13 Some of it displays very clearly the locational, attitudinal, and environmental variables raised in this study, although a concern for fishing is curiously omitted.14 The void is fertile ground for geographical research.

NEW YORK CITY SURVEY

New York City is a good context for investigating urban fishing. The city has approximately 570 miles of waterfront, from which an estimated 81,000 residents fish each year.'5 The popularity of this mode of angling has not escaped the attention of local planners. Much of the waterfront is either undeveloped or marked by decay and deterioration. Improvement is a top priority, and planners have been instructed to include fishing and other recreational pursuits in designs. The planning effort, however, has been hampered by several problems, principal among which are a lack of information about anglers and their recreational behavior and an uncertainty

12 Ken Halko, Urban Fishing Programs in the Cleveland Metroparks System (Cleveland: Cleveland Metroparks System, n.d.); Fishin' Where The Folks Are (Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1979); and Public Water Access on Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Lakes (St. Paul: Met- ropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, 1982). 13 John Pigram, Outdoor Recreation and Resource Management (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), p. 99. 14 Charles Heatwole and Niels West, Beach Use and User Constraints in the New York City Coastal Region, New York Sea Grant Report Series, Albany, February 1980; Charles Heatwole and Niels West, Mass Transit and Beach Access in New York City, Geographical Review, Vol. 70, 1980, pp. 210-217; Charles Heatwole and Niels West, Recreational-Boating Patterns and Water-Surface Zoning, Geo- graphical Review, Vol. 72, 1982, pp. 304-314; and Charles Heatwole and Niels West, Urban Shore- based Fishing: A Health Hazard?, in Coastal Zone '83, Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Ocean and Coastal Management, San Diego, CA, 1-4 June 1983, Vol. III, pp. 2587-2598. 15 Charles Heatwole and Niels West, Shore-based Fishing in New York City (draft report of final project to New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, 1985).




about the extent of risks to public health associated with consumption of potentially contaminated catch.

To facilitate this planning effort, we were enlisted to investigate shorefront fishing. Among the issues that we were asked to investigate were the socioeconomic profile of urban fishermen, their residential locations, their fishing sites and modes of transportation to and from, their preferences for fishing sites, and the factors that make fishing a pleasant experience. We also examined their success with catch and the significance of its consumption as a health risk. Our survey dealt exclusively with individuals who fished from the shore. In other words, fishing from boats was excluded from the study, because that mode of angling was not central to the applied aspects of our research. Moreover, comparison of our results with those of other research suggests that the socioeconomics and the recreational behavior of shore-based and water-based fishermen may differ significantly.'6

Data were collected during interviews with fishermen when they were fishing along the city waterfront. This process commenced in early summer 1981 and continued through the fall 1983. A standard questionnaire was used. Preliminary field reconnaissance revealed that a substantial portion of the accessible shoreline was used by fishermen, but that the majority of them went to eight sites. They were the City Island bridge, Spuyten Duyvil inlet, the Upper West Side, Great Kills Park, the 69th Street pier, Sheepshead Bay, Canarsie Pier, and the North Channel bridge (Fig. 1). Although interviews for this study came from recurrent visits to all sections of the New York City waterfront, the majority was obtained at these eight sites. This procedure not only allowed us to make best use of our time but also generated a representative sample of interviews. The main sites had the added advantages of being spread throughout the five boroughs of the city and of offering a full spectrum of waterfront features that accommodate fishermen: piers, riprap, bulkheads, bridges, beaches, and unimproved shoreline (Figs. 2 and 3). We used a series of random, stratified procedures to determine which fishermen would be approached for an interview. In all, 732 usable interviews were collected. Relatively few persons refused to be interviewed, and we estimate our success rate between 75 and 85 percent. Most fishermen enjoyed talking about the activity.

SURVEY RESULTS

The average fisherman along the waterfront of New York City is a white male. The relevant proportional data are 93 percent male, 61 percent white, 20 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent other minorities, but these figures contrast with the overall ethnic composition of the city. Whites are proportionately overrepresented in the angling community, while mi-

16 Robert B. Ditton and Anthony J. Fedler, Towards an Understanding of Experience Preferences of Urban Anglers, in Urban Fishing Symposium Proceedings, footnote 2 above, pp. 55-63.




LOCATION OF vIL

MAJOR INTERVIEW BRONX TY ISLAN l

UPER SITES W ESTUSPIPDEI

Jt?1 2 >QUEENS

69th ST BROOKLYN

SATEN

ISLAND

Lower SHEEPSHEAD BAY Bay

GREAT KILLS I S

S S C~~~~~~~~~J S' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~K m.

Ata nflti Ocean

FIG. 1

norities are underrepresented. Two factors seem to explain the predomi- nance of whites. They tend to be more affluent than the minority-group fishermen. The implication is that whites have greater ability both to acquire basic equipment and to gain access to angling sites. The best and most heavily used fishing sites tend to be nearer neighborhoods that are predom- inantly white than to minority ones. The proximity thus favors greater awareness of the opportunities and access to them among whites. Where minority neighborhoods flank the shorefront as in Harlem and the South Bronx, access to the water is often difficult because of intervening divided highways and private commercial property. Moreover, the waterfront in these neighborhoods is often structurally and socially unsafe.

Almost one-half of the sample was between 21 and 40 years of age. Median household income was slightly less than $20,000, in contrast with $13,854 recorded for the entire city in the 1980 federal census. The economic




FIG. 2-Piers along Sheepshead Bay offer fishermen a pleasant environmental setting. (Photo- graph by authors)

status of the respondents was not unexpected because of the investment in equipment required for recreational fishing and of the large number of poor people in the total population. In terms of employment, respondents were overwhelmingly blue-collar: 48 percent. A distant second and third were retired with 14.4 percent and white-collar with 14.3 percent.

Sl ightly more than two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the respondents said that they occasionally fished outside the city, while almost the same number (68 percent) noted that they sometimes went fishing in a boat. The respondents, on average, went fishing fifty times during the previous year. But slightly more than one-half (51.4 percent) asserted that no more than five of those trips took them outside the city; three-quarters (75.8 percent) fished elsewhere no more than fifteen times. Likewise, a majority (53.9 percent) reported fishing from a boat on no more than five of the average fifty trips; again three-quarters (75.7 percent) stated that they had done so no more than twelve times during the previous year. These data lend strong support to the assertion that the spatial mobility and the recreational options of urban fishermen are typically limited. Another interpretation is that approximately one-third of the anglers had fished exclusively from the waterfront in the city during the previous year; the remainder had done otherwise on only relatively few occasions.

The trip between an angler's residence and a fishing site in the city,, on average, covered 3.2 miles, cost seventy cents,, and took twenty-one minutes




X - 4&

FIG. 3-Fishermen and motorists coexist on the North Channel bridge. (Photograph by authors and reproduced by permission of Field & Stream)

(Table I). However, there was significant variation in aggregate travel to different fishing sites. For example, the Upper West Side and the 69th Street pier had relatively local service areas. Users traveled to these sites an average of 1.4 and 1.5 miles respectively. At the other extreme were Great Kills Park on Staten Island and City Island bridge in the northeastern Bronx: travel distances averaged 5.6 and 5.1 miles. Average travel time and cost for all sites exhibited a fairly direct relationship with average travel distance.

An automobile was used for 68.5 percent of all trips in the sample (Table II). Walking accounted for 15.5 percent, public transit (bus and subway) for




TABLE I-TRAVEL TO INTERVIEW SITES

AVERAGE DISTANCE AVERAGE COST AVERAGE TIME

SITE (miles) (%) (minutes)

Canarsie Pier 3.3 0.97 27.7 City Island bridge 5.1 1.20 20.0 Great Kills Park 5.6 1.82 24.7 North Channel 4.9 0.42 20.0 Sheepshead Bay 3.6 0.44 16.3 69th Street pier 1.5 0.19 16.1 Spuyten Duyvil 3.1 0.99 20.3 Upper West Side 1.4 0.34 13.8 All sites 3.2 0.70 21.2

Source: Calculated by authors from interview data.

10.6 percent, and biking for 4.6 percent. The use of these modes varied substantially from site to site. Automobile travel dominated at the North Channel and Great Kills sites, while walking was the majority mode at the Upper West Side and also important at the 69th Street pier. Public transit was third overall, but it was the principal mode for the City Island bridge and had relative importance at Sheepshead Bay. At other sites public transit had a comparatively minor role in access.

These data portray an expected relationship between the predominant mode of access to a site and the breadth of its service area. Specifically where access was overwhelmingly dominated by automobiles or by a combination of automobile and public transit, service areas tended to be relatively large. Examples are Great Kills Park, North Channel, and City Island (Figs. 4 and 5). Where pedestrian traffic was a significant component of aggregate travel, service areas assumed a more compact character. An example was the 69th Street pier. The size of a service area for a site depended on its accessibility by automobile and the presence or absence of an adjacent residential area. Accessibility by automobile implies functional thoroughfares and ample, safe parking facilities at the fishing site or nearby (Fig. 6). Proximity to a residential zone largely determines the proportion of fishermen walking between fishing site and residence (Fig. 7). The pattern for 69th Street pier looks different from the other four mapped examples because it alone is juxtaposed with a large residential area.

The role of public transportation was conspicuously small in view of the magnitude of the city's bus and subway system. Only in few places do the network routes take passengers within a convenient walking distance of a fishing site. When that criterion is met, the system is used by fishermen for the journey to a site. The best example is the bridge from City Island to the mainland. A public bus makes a stop immediately on the island side of the bridge. In mainland Bronx this bus connects with a subway line and several other bus routes. The role of these linkages in producing a large service area is evident on the map.




TABLE II-MODES OF ACCESS TO INTERVIEW SITES

MODE BY %

Bus or SITE Auto Walk subway Bike Other Total

Canarsie Pier 66.7 20.8 10.5 0.0 2.0 100.0 City Island bridge 45.9 6.5 47.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Great Kills Park 94.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 100.0 North Channel 98.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sheepshead Bay 58.9 14.3 19.7 5.4 1.7 100.0 69th Street pier 50.0 30.4 7.8 11.8 0.0 100.0 Spuyten Duyvil 69.8 11.6 7.0 0.0 11.6 100.0 Upper West Side 13.8 63.9 6.8 1.7 13.8 100.0 All sites 68.5 15.5 10.6 4.6 0.8 100.0

Source: Calculated by authors from interview data.

The importance of accessibility as a factor in site utilization was rein- forced by preferences for fishing sites. Relative ease of access was the most often-cited reason why a respondent had traveled to a particular site. Rea- sons stressing enjoyment of the outdoors were second in importance, fol- lowed by the opportunity to socialize. The sites most liked by fishermen were favored for the same reasons in the same order. On the other hand, reasons why sites were disfavored focused on perceived poor environmental quality, particularly in regard to water, and limitations on accessibility. Re- spondents generally wanted to fish amid a pleasant physical and social environment that was easily accessible (Fig. 8). Few individuals thought any site matched their conceptions of the ideal; rather site popularity was usually a function of ease of access or lack of readily accessible alternatives.

Relatively few persons ascribed satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a site to the likelihood of catching fish. It might be assumed, after all, that the primary reason for site preference would be the catch and that success in regard to it would dominate attitudes toward different fishing sites. How- ever, persons go fishing for various reasons.'7 Much research remains to be done on this topic, but apparently urban fishermen, like the recreational- fishing community as a whole, attach more importance to the experience than merely to a successful catch. In other words, what the majority of urban fishermen seemingly wants most is a high-quality recreational experience. In this context, landing fish serves to make a pleasant outing even more rewarding. However, this assertion does not mean that a catch is unimpor- tant, because very little angling occurs where fish are known to be absent. The minimal necessity apparently is the perception that a reasonable chance

17 G. H. Moeller and J. H. Engelken, What Fishermen Look for in a Fishing Experience, Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 36, 1972, pp. 1253-1257; and R. C. Knopf, B. L. Driver, and J. R. Bassett, Motivations for Fishing, in Human Dimensions in Wildlife Programs: Reports on Recent Investi- gations (edited by J. C. Hendee and C. Schoenfeld; Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Insti- tute, 1973), pp. 28-41.




GREAT KILLS AND

NORTH CHANNEL:

ANGLER RESIDENCES

AND ACCESS LEGEND

o WALK

* SUBWAY \

o BICYCLE

o aT HER n a

Our research supports that contention. For all the shorefroCHANiEL i

GREAT KILLSt i i

New York City, most anglers seemed to go home empty-handed. Our respondents caught one fish for approximately every hour of effort. The fruits of that labor were not evenly distributed. On the day of their interview, almost 63 percent of the sample had not caught a fish after an average 2.5 hours of effort. There is an adage that 20 percent of the fishermen take 80 percent of the catch. Our data do not exactly match these proportions, but they strongly support the general thrust of the adage.

There are several reasons for the variations in catch. Aside from the

18 Ditton and Fedler, footnote 16 above.




CITY ISLAND AND

69TH ST. PIER: ANGLER RESIDENCES

CITY ISLAND

AND ACCESS LEGEND

o WALK

* SUBWAY

o BICYCLE

* BUS

* OTHER

PIER

tX~~~I

0 6

Km

FIG. 5-Anglers' residences and access to fishing sites: City Island bridge and 69th Street pier.

uneven distribution of fish and the number of hours spent fishing, extraor- dinary variety in equipment and technique is evident. Some fishermen use high-quality rods and reels in conjunction with fancy lures or live bait. At the other end of the spectrum are persons who use a twine-wrapped beer can in lieu of rod and reel, a spent spark plug for a sinker, and table scraps for bait. Some individuals expend a great deal of effort in fishing; others are content to put in a line and then sit back and relax (Figs. 9a and b). By and large, most fishermen use quality equipment, while the persons who expend a lot of effort are far outnumbered by those who do not. The better-equipped anglers are more successful at catching fish than persons using inferior tackle, and individuals who "fish hard" regardless of equipment quality seem to land the most fish. Most anglers by preference do not fish hard; some candidly did not want to be bothered with a catch. These observations




i- _ l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~At

PA- PO-

FIG. 6-Fishing at Great Kills Park. Convenient parking helps create a large service area. (Pho- tograph by authors)

again imply that a general outdoor experience, not a catch, is foremost in the minds of urban fishermen.

Significant differences between ethnic groups were observed in the number of fish caught and their proposed disposal. Whites tended to garner more of the catch than did blacks or Hispanics,, a contrast that we attribute to the whites' greater propensity to use above-average equipment and bait and to their greater ease of access to prime fishing sites. By contrast, minority fishermen reported getting more person-meals from their catch. WVhites tended to fillet the catch and to render each fish into a discrete entree. Minority anglers were more likely to include the catch as an ingredient in a soup, chowder, broth, or stew,, thus spreading the food value over a greater number of meals. Unfortunately the latter group of fishermen tended to keep bottom-dwelling scavengers and other species that are particularly prone to contamination through biological magnification of pollutants. The lingering health risks associated with a particular species or site are well documented and duly reported in the local press.i9 Nevertheless, a majority of the respondents associated little or no risk with consumption of their catch. Minority anglers, especially blacks, were much less inclined than whites to view eating a catch as a cause for caution.

19 Source of Dioxin in Hudson River Fish Investigated, New York Times, 9 May 1983; The Old Fishin' Hole Is a Chemistry Set, New York Times, 31 May 1983; and Hudson River Study Finds Fish Cancer, New York Times, 1 May 1984.




A-

FIG. 7-Brooklynites try their luck along the Lower Bay. Apartment buildings in the background provide a large pool of population that is accessible to this fishing site. (Photograph by authors)

IMPLICATIONS

Our research has numerous geographical implications for development of recreational fishing in New York City and,, we trust, other urban centers. Firstly,, fishermen come from all sections of the city,, not just from neighborhoods near the waterfront. There is no evidence that promotion of urban fishing would serve recreation needs of only a spatially finite clientele. Fish- ing is site-specific,, but fishermen are geographically general.

In socioeconomic terms,, fishermen come from the spectrum of society. There is no evidence that promotion of urban fishing would intrinsically favor one group over another. The benefits would be spread throughout society. Nevertheless,, four groups are underrepresented among shorefront fishermen in the city: the very poor,, the very affluent,, women, and minorities. The first is explained by the lack of disposable income for a nonessen- tial activity; the second prefer and have financial means to spend the time away from home. The relative absence of women is intriguing; they account for approximately 7 percent of the shorefront anglers in the city,, but some 31 percent of the fishermen in the country are,, in fact, fisherwomen.2 We have no explanation for the failure of the New York City sample to match nationwide averages. By contrast,, minorities constitute 39 percent of the fishing community in the city,, but only 8 percent nationwide.21 Nonetheless,

20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, footnote 1 above, p. 14. 21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, footnote 1 above, p. 56.




FIG. 8-Fishing near City Island bridge. This site is frequently used because it is accessible and provides an outdoor setting far superior to most parts of the Bronx. (Photograph by authors)

they are still underrepresented by standards of ethnic composition for New York City. In part the situation results from the overlapping of two groups: minority and very poor. The lag in participation thus is caused by financial reality and lack of access to sites. Development of sites near minority neigh-




Figs. 9a (top) and 9b (bottom)-Differing intensity of fishing effort at a site. Along one portion of Canarsie Pier (Fig. 9a) fishermen are intent on a catch, while elsewhere on the pier (Fig. 9b) they appear to be less serious about the activity. Water pollution is a problem here, but it evidently does not deter these fishermen. (Photograph by authors)

borhoods and strategies to improve accessibility to waterfronts could increase minority participation.

Accessibility may well be the most important planning consideration, especially if one assumes that a high degree of site utilization is the best




justification for expending public funds to promote urban fishing. The degree to which a facility is used is primarily a function of the ease of access. The likelihood of a catch and the quality of site and its immediate environment also contribute to the intensity of utilization, but they are of secondary or tertiary importance after accessibility. Accessibility may be enhanced by development of fishing sites that are within easy walking distances of residential neighborhoods. This option has limited feasibility, because only a small portion of the waterfront in the city is adjacent to high-density residential landuse. Moreover, the automobile is the preferred means of access. If a proposed site is intended to service a spatially broad clientele, easy access by automobile and ample, safe, convenient parking should have a top priority in site planning.

The needs of persons without automobile access deserve consideration, particularly in cities like New York where a significant portion of households are carless. Accommodation of pedestrian traffic requires examination. The public transportation system holds the potential to move the largest number of carless fishermen between home and waterfront. Few fishermen now use the mass-transit system of New York City for fishing trips, because the route networks generally fail to serve existent or prospective fishing sites with convenient movement patterns. Emphatically there is no evidence that the lack of use results from reluctance from the fishermen. The lesson from the City Island bridge is that fishermen will use the network when it conveniently serves a fishing site. Above all else, conveniently serves means that location of a bus or subway stop should minimize walking distance. Many fishermen carry a lot of gear, which becomes a problem when they use public transit. A bus or subway stop that is a ten-to-fifteen-minute walk from a site has little value to an urban fisherman. Also the transit network that serves a fishing site should have good connections to other components of the system. The broader the systemwide approach, the larger individual fishing-site service areas will be, and the greater will be actual participation in urban fishing. The minimum is that convenient public transportation should be provided to fishing sites wherever feasible. Generally this prop- osition implies use of bus routes, which are more flexible than subway lines.

As for a site, it is mandatory that planners give due consideration to design. The basic requirement is a facility that is structurally sound and juxtaposed with deep water. Some cities have gone substantially beyond the basic requirement by providing piers and passageways tailored, sometimes exclusively, to the use of fishermen. How elaborate a proposed site should be depends on the amount of available funds and the number and characteristics of sites to be developed. Our observations suggest that after struc- tural basics, the most important aspect of design is access rather than further facilitation of the actual fishing experience. Indeed, one could argue that the most crucial component of a proposed urban-fishing site is a parking lot, not the actual facility used to fish. Most fishermen travel to sites by auto-




-i1 - .T..

FIG. 10-Solitude on the Upper West Side, Manhattan, with the George Washington Bridge in the background. Anglers have been advised to limit consumption of fish taken from the Hudson River, but this fisherman was unconcerned. He came for the outdoor experience rather than to catch fish. (Photograph by authors)

mobile; to promote urban fishing planners must provide adequate and safe parking.

Fish populations in some urban waterways may be small in comparison with pristine environments. Accordingly occasional attempts have been made to increase their numbers artificially. Fish-stocking programs have been used in several cities, including New York, and have been successful both in terms of increased catch and participation in the activity.22Related research has even identified the most suitable species of fish for particular urban waters. However, such programs have questionable value for use in promoting urban fishing, because reported number of fish is relatively unim-

portant in attracting urban anglers. More important is their perception of reasonable odds for a catch. As long as prized species are available and

caught,, interest in a fishing site will be maintained. As the quality of urban waterfronts improves, the issue of small fish stocks may rectify itself through

22Robert E. Lange, Fishing in the Big Apple: A Demonstration Program for New York City, in Urban Fishing Symposium Proceedings, footnote 2 above, pp. 263-274; Robert L. Desjardine, Fish Stocking, An Aspect of Urban Fisheries Management, in Urban Fishing Symposium Proceedings, footnote 2 above, pp. 118-131; and Leedy, Franklin, and Maestro, footnote 11 above, pp. 30-31. 23 Michael W. Duttweiler, Urban Sport Fishing: A Review of Literature and Programs (Ithaca: New York Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Cornell University, 1975), pp. 34-36.




natural methods. For the interim, lack of abundance of fish is no reason to discourage urban fishing.

The quality of the fish is more significant than quantity until urban waters are clean. It may be argued that public officials are irresponsible if they promote a recreational activity known to be potentially hazardous to public health. The relationship of the health issue to promotion of urban fishing is probably best judged on a case-by-case basis. Our observations suggest that the psycho-social benefits of fishing outweigh the problems posed by potentially contaminated catch (Fig. 10). Most New York waterfront fishermen do not take home a catch. Those who do generally prepare it thoughtfully prior to eating it. Only in a small number of cases did we note a propensity to consume highly suspect fish.

These instances, regardless of their frequency, mandate thoughtful planning. Consumption-associated risks can and should be minimized by a combination of fieldwork, education, and site selection. Planners should determine what segments of the fishing community are most likely to retain potentially contaminated catch and where they fish. Identification of the high-risk group should be complemented by strategies to alert the fishing community as a whole to the problem. The direct, inexpensive approach is to post signs and displays at sites where contamination is greatest or that are frequented by persons most apt to consume tainted catch. When appropriate, warnings should be multilingual. Finally, considerations of both contamination and personal risk should be integral to site selection. The quality of urban water resources may have significant spatial variation related to sewage outfalls, industrial effluents, garbage disposal, and other aspects of waste management or mismanagement. Generally such locales are easily identified. It is more difficult to determine the geography of the least health- ful species and the recreational geography of the persons who are most likely to catch and consume them, but the task may be eminently worthwhile.



shorefront fishing in new york city

Documents