<%BANNER%>

Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida

HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Summary
 Introduction
 The region's economy, commercial...
 Conclusion
 Appendix
 Reference
 Additional information sources
FLAG IFAS University of Florida
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027569/00009

Material Information

Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida Dixie, Levy, and Taylor counties
Series Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida
Alternate title: Industry report - University of Florida. Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 78-4
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Mathis, Kary
Cato, James C.
Degner, Robert L.
Landrum, Paul D.
Prochaska, Fred J.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1978

Subjects

Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Florida -- Dixie
Florida -- Levy
Florida -- Taylor

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UF00027569:00009

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027569/00009

Material Information

Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida Dixie, Levy, and Taylor counties
Series Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida
Alternate title: Industry report - University of Florida. Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 78-4
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Mathis, Kary
Cato, James C.
Degner, Robert L.
Landrum, Paul D.
Prochaska, Fred J.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1978

Subjects

Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Florida -- Dixie
Florida -- Levy
Florida -- Taylor

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UF00027569:00009


This item has the following downloads:


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
    List of Figures
        Page iv
    Acknowledgement
        Page v
    Summary
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    The region's economy, commercial fishing and the seafood industry
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Conclusion
        Page 19
    Appendix
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Reference
        Page 25
    Additional information sources
        Page 26
        Page 27
Full Text







INDUSTRY REPORT 784


A
f4











6-
























', .
t-









L.


C COMMERCIAL FISHING


ACTIVITY AND FACILITY



NEEDS IN FLORIDA:



DIXIE, LEVY AND


TAYLOR COUNTIES


. ....
~' .rw
*' ^;
. ..
. .
. '::.:


JULY i978


: .II
~ Br~~

.i~ r.,.
-
-
:~
:~
"~i~ '~


'P
r: ~,.












ABSTRACT


Information on the economies and the commercial seafood industries
of the counties covered here was obtained from published reports and
from a mail survey of commercial fishermen and seafood dealers. Total
seafood landings in the three counties were valued at $502,000 in 1971.
By 1976, landings in all three counties were over $1.4 million. Over 200
people were engaged in commercial fishing in 1977. Seventeen firms were
registered as dealers. Fishermen noted several improvements they felt
were needed in facilities and services at the landing areas used.


Key words: commercial fishing, seafood port development, port
facilities and services.


This research was supported in part by a grant from
the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation, Inc., under contract 03-01-24000



















COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITY AND FACILITY NEEDS IN FLORIDA:

DIXIE, LEVY AND TAYLOR COUNTIES











A Report by
Kary Mathis, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner
Paul D. Landrum and Fred J. Prochaska













a research project conducted for the
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation, Inc.





July, 1978

The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611



















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................... ............ v

SUMMARY............................... ................................. vi

INTRODUCTION............................................................ 1

THE REGION'S ECONOMY, COMMERCIAL FISHING AND THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY........ 4

CONCLUSIONS............................................................. 19

APPENDIX................................................................ 20

REFERENCES............................................................. 25

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES.............. ....... .... .... .. ... ..... 26















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Florida Counties with fish and shellfish landings in excess
of $1 million, 1976, state ranking and major ports............ 3

2 Population, Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties, 1940, 1950, 1960,
1970, 1976, and projected 1980, 1990, 2000.................... 4

3 Personal income per capital, Florida and selected counties,
1950, 1965, 1970 and 1975................................... 5

4 Volume and value of fish and shellfish landings in Dixie and
Taylor Counties, 1971-1976.................................. 6

5 Volume and value of fish and shellfish landings in Levy County,
1971-1976 .................................................. 6

6 Values of major species of fish and shellfish landed in Dixie,
Taylor and Levy County, 1976.................................. 9

7 Questionnaire dispositions and responses, fishermen survey,
Dixie, Levy, and Taylor Counties, 1977 ........................ 10

8 Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey,
Levy and Taylor Counties, 1977.... ............... .......... 11

9 Classification of commercial fishermen responding to survey in
Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties, by volume of fish and shell-
fish sold, 1976 .............................................. 11

10 Distance from home-to-port and from port-to-fishing grounds,
commercial fishermen in Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties, 1977. 12

11 Landing places used by commercial fishermen in Dixie, Levy and
Taylor Counties, 1977........................................ 13

12 Use and rating of port facilities by active commercial fisher-
men in Dixie County, 1977....... .......................... ... 16

13 Use and rating of port facilities by active commercial fisher-
men in Levy County, 1977 ..................... ............... 17

14 Use and rating of port facilities by active commercial fisher-
men in Taylor County, 1977................................ ... .. 18
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Value of fish and shellfish landings by county in Florida,
1976....................................... .............. 2

2 Volume and value of seafood landings in Dixie and Taylor
Counties, 1971-1976 ................ .......................... 7

3 Volume and value of seafood landings in Levy County, 1971-
1976 .................................................. 8















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Many people are due thanks for their help in the seafood port study
and in preparing this publication and the others in the series. Financial
support from the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation,
Inc., and assistance from its Executive Director, Dr. Roger Anderson, are
much appreciated. The Coastal Plains Regional Development Commission is
the ultimate source of funds partially supporting this study, and Mr.
Stanford Beebe, Program Director for Marine Resources, is to be thanked.
Mr. Bob Jones of the Southeastern Fisheries Association provided
invaluable assistance, for which we are all grateful. The Florida Depart-
ment of Natural Resources was most helpful with a great deal of valuable
information.
Extension Marine Agents Jeffery Fisher and Joseph Halusky were valuable
advisers throughout this project. Ms. Patricia Beville and Mrs. Carol Beran
provided the secretarial and statistical work in an outstanding manner.
Several other career service employees of the Food and Resource Economics
Department spent many hours preparing and mailing questionnaires.
Finally, all the Florida fishermen and seafood dealers who took the
time to complete questionnaires and add comments have our thanks.















SUMMARY


This is one of a series of reports on economic data and survey findings
concerned with commercial fishing activity and needed onshore facilities
and services in nine Florida counties: Citrus, Clay, Dixie, Levy, Okaloosa,
Putnam, St. Johns, Santa Rosa and Taylor.

The three counties discussed here, Dixie, Levy and Taylor, are sparsely
populated, with the rate of population growth expected to be about 2 per-
cent per year for the next two decades.

Manufacturing, mainly in lumber and wood products, employs more people
than any other sector. Government and education also employ a number of
people, and contribute heavily to total personal income.

About 65 people are engaged in commercial fishing in Dixie County, 76 in
Levy County and 73 in Taylor County, with an undetermined number of others
in wholesaling and related services.

Value of seafood landings in all three counties together was about $1.4
million in 1976, with shellfish making up 77 percent of that value.

Fishermens' responses to mailed questionnaires showed that over 50 percent
of fishermen catch less than 10,000 pounds of fish or shellfish annually.

Most of those responding in the survey fishedoutof Horseshoe Beach, Cedar
Key, or Steinhatchee.

About three-fourths of the fishermen used fish houses and fuel sales at
these locations, with smaller numbers using other facilities and services.

Most fishermen rating facilities and'services felt that improvements were
needed. Added cold storage, processing of unused fish, more dock space,
engine repair services and channel dredging were all mentioned as needed
at all landing sites.

Information and assistance is available to groups or individuals interested
in improving commercial seafood facilities and services in these counties.
The County Extension office and other agencies should be contacted by those
desiring help.
















COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITY AND FACILITY NEEDS IN FLORIDA:
DIXIE, LEVY AND TAYLOR COUNTIES

Kary Mathis, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner,
Paul D. Landrum and Fred J. Prochaska

INTRODUCTION


The commercial seafood industry is an important source of income and
employment along Florida's extensive coastline. Values of marine landings
for coastal counties are shown in Figure 1. Of the 35 coastal counties in
Florida, 18 had seafood landings of $1 million or more in 1976. There are
however, relatively few major seafood ports, and all of these are in counties
with $1 million or more in landings values (Table 1). Even though the re-
maining counties have substantial volumes of seafood and significant numbers
of fishermen, port and landing facilities are often limited. These limita-
tions and other restrictions may hamper the seafood industry in these areas.
This publication is one of a series of four which reports analysis of
data from published sources and from surveys of commercial fishermen and
seafood dealers in nine counties with no major commercial fishing ports.
This series includes Citrus, Clay, Dixie, Levy, Okaloosa, Putnam, St. Johns,
Santa Rosa and Taylor Counties (see reference list). The research reported
here was done as a part of a larger project concerned with the feasibility
of seafood industrial port development in Florida. Results of the more
detailed study will be reported in a separate publication.
Two general subject areas are covered in this report economic and
social characteristics, and key aspects of the commercial fishing industry.
Relevant published data and previous studies were used for the first area
and part of the second. A major part of the information on the commercial
seafood industry came from questionnaires completed by commercial fishermen
and seafood dealers in the respective counties.


Kary Mathis, James C. Cato and Fred J. Prochaska are associate pro-
fessors, Robert L. Degner is assistant professor and Paul D. Landrum is
assistant research scientist in food and resource economics, University of
Florida.
































= Over $2,000,000l

= $1,000,000 to $2,000,000

= $500,000 to $1,000,000 ',.

= Less than $500,000

FV 'g-s 'ah,', 9.!




Figure 2.--Value of fish and shellfish landings by county in Florida, 1976.












The remainder of the report is organized into two major sections. The
first describes the economic environment of the county, including the relative
importance of the seafood industry. The first section also discusses the
counties'seafood industries, describing volume and value of landings. Findings
from the mail survey are also reported. The conclusions make up the second
and final section.


Table l.--Florida counties with fish and shellfish landings in excess of
$1 million, 1976, state ranking and major ports.

Value of landings Overall
County Fish Shellfish Total state ranking

-------- $1,000 -----------

Bay 3,247 1,790 5,037 5
Brevard 1,120 1,496 2,616 9
Citrus-Pasco 471 1,018 1,489 14
Collier 666 732 1,398 15
Dade 520 2,463 2,984 7
Duval 687 1,702 2,388 10
Escambia 927 1,752 2,679 8
Franklin 431 7,837 8,268 8
Gulf 305 865 1,170 17
Hillsborough 170 2,933 3,103 6
Lee 3,434 9,284 12,718 2
Manatee 1,350 298 1,648 13
Martin 1,013 3 1,016 18
Monroe 3,640 19,965 23,605 1
Nassau 213 1,733 1,946 12
Pinellas 2,169 3,070 5,239 4
St. Lucie 2,353 12 2,365 11
Volusia 662 592 1,254 16


Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources. Summary of Florida
Commercial Marine Landings, 1971-1976.













THE REGION'S ECONOMY, COMMERCIAL FISHING AND
THE SEAFOOD INDUSTRY


Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties are relatively sparsely populated,
with population growth rates projected at about 2 percent per year through
2000 (Table 2). Employment in Dixie and Taylor Counties is concentrated
in manufacturing, mainly in lumber and wood products. Government and
service occupations are major employment sectors in all three counties.


Table 2.--Population, Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties, 1940, 1950, 1960,
1970, 1976, and projected 1980, 1990, 2000.

Year Dixie Levy Taylor

1940 7,018 12,550 11,565
1950 3,928 10,637 10,416
1960 4,479 10,364 13,168
1970 5,480 12,756 13,641
1976 6,750 15,787 14,659
Projected
1980 7,300 17,000 15,800
1990 8,900 20,500 19,200
2000 10,300 23,700 22,200

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research.


Personal incomes are below the state average in all three counties
covered in this report. Per capital personal income is considerably
below the Florida average in Taylor County, and personal incomes are even
lower in Dixie and Levy Counties (Table 3).
Commercial fishing is a relatively small contributor to employment and
incomes in these three counties. About 65 people are engaged in commercial
fishing in Dixie County, with some 76 in Levy and 73 in Taylor Counties.
These estimates include both full-time and part-time fishermen. Other
workers are employed in fishery-related jobs such as crab-picking, oyster
shucking and shore services.












Table 3.--Personal income per capital, Florida and selected counties, 1950,
1965, 1970,and 1975.

State and county 1950 1965 1970 1975

----------------- Dollars ------------------

Florida 1,280 2,404 3,738 5,640

Dixie 522 1,268 1,948 2,998

Levy 758 1,713 2,650 3,573

Taylor 857 1,650 2,676 4,567

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research.


Seafood landings in all counties increased in volume and value during
the 1971-1976 period (Tables 4 and 5, and Figures 2 and 3). Shellfish
account for a greater part of volume and value during the period shown,
with much larger landings than finfish in 1976. Total landings in Dixie
County accounted for about 70 percent of the values shown for both counties
in Table 4 in 1972 and 1973, the only years for which individual county
figures are available. In 1976, Dixie-Taylor County landings ranked 23rd
in value among Florida counties where landings are reported, while levy
County landings ranked 25th.
Major fish species landed in Dixie and Taylor Counties were black
mullet, spotted sea trout and red drum. These three accounted for 89
percent of fish landing values in 1976 (Table 6). Blue crab, stone crab
and bait shrimp accounted for virtually all shellfish landings, with blue
Crab alone representing 69 percent of shellfish value and 50 percent of
total landings value in 1976.
Major species landed in Levy County were much the same as in Dixie-
Taylor Counties. Black mullet is the major fish accounting for 68 percent
of fish landings, with blue crab representing 78 percent of shellfish
landings (Table 6).
The mail survey conducted during the fall of 1977 provided considerable
information. Survey questionnaires were mailed to all county residents having












Table 4.--Volume and value of fish and shellfish landings in Dixie and
Taylor Counties, 1971-1976.

Fish Shellfish Total
Year Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

1971 1,026,607 120,049 1,634,216 135,840 2,660,823 255,>..'
1972 740,210 97,671 1,394,306 137,576 2,134,516 235,247
1973 1,215,494 170,251 1,506,791 211,475 2,722,285 381,726
1974 1,155,809 200,355 1,944,363 298,083 3,100,172 498,438
1975 1,363,546 240,809 2,625,061 558,551 3,988,607 799,360
1976 1,123,176 224,868 2,547,816 565,384 3,670,992 790,252

Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summary of Florida
Commercial Marine Landings, 1971-1976.







Table 5.--Volume and value of fish and shellfish landings in Levy County,
1971-1976.

Year Fish Shellfish Total
Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

1971 886,499 85,962 1,205,110 160,016 2,091,609 245,978
1972 821,339 93,049 901,463 138,166 1,722,802 231,215
1973 849,118 102,972 656,747 139,391 1,505,865 242,363
1974 773,837 114,186 824,779 169,927 1,598,616 284,113
1975 1,212,089 171,396 2,110,698 391,604 3,322,787 563,000
1976 721,142 113,032 2,712,897 541,593 3,434,039 654,625

Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources. Summary of Florida
Commercial Marine Landings, 1971-1976.



















*9L6L-LL6L IX4uno) XSa1 UL SEULpuP[ poo4pes jo @fLPA pue zfwnLOA--*E z~n6L

9L6L SL6L tL6L L6L ZL6L LL6L






Sao c 000'L




o~vawn LOA 001


0097 00'0 1







000' L$ sqL OOO'L
anl[A awnLOA
















"9L6L-LL6L 'sa@Luno3
JOLIpp puP aL U sBUpuLL poojeas jo anLeA pue awnLOA--'Z aAn6ij

SL6L tL6L L6L ZL6L LL6L


00o




OSL





006


000' L$
an LeA


"sqt 000'L
amnlOA












a 1975 commercial boat registration with the Florida Department of Natural
Resources, and to seafood dealers registered by the National Marine Fisheries
Service in 1975. The questionnaires used are included in the Appendix.


Table 6.--Values of major species of fish and shellfish landed in Dixie,
Taylor and Levy County, 1976.

Fish Shellfish
Value Value
Species Dixie-Taylor Levy Species Dixie-Taylor Levy

Black mullet 121,308 77,119 Blue crab 392,062 424,747

Spotted sea
trout 66,758 9,017 Stone crab 88,266 98,006

Red drum 11,231 7,890 Bait shrimp 80,125 0

Grouper, scamp 1,531 3,487 Bay scallops 2,404 480

All other All other
species 24,040 15,519 species 2,527 18,360

Total 224,868 113,032 565,384 541,593


Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Commercial Marine Landings, 1976.


Summary of Florida


Questionnaires were sent to 134 Dixie County residents with commercial
boat registrations and to four firms registered as dealers. Seafood dealers
may be wholesalers or processors or both. About one-fourth of those register-
ing boats returned questionnaires (Table 7), while none of the dealers responded.
Of the 33 fishermen responding, 16 or 48 percent, were still engaged
in commercial fishing in the fall of 1977. It was assumed that people who did
not return the questionnaire were or were not actively commercial fishing in the
same proportions as those completing the survey. The percentage still fishing
was multiplied times the total number of boat registrations to provide the
estimate of total active commercial fishermen. Based on this percentage, it
is estimated that there are 65 commercial fishermen in Dixie County. This is
about 48 percent of those having commercial boat registrations in the county
in 1975. However, many people having commercial boat registrations fish
commercially only at certain seasons or on a part-time basis.












Table 7.--Questionnaire dispositions and responses, fisherman survey, Dixie,
Levy and Taylor Counties, 1977.

County
Disposition or Dixie Levy Taylor
response No. % No. % No. %

Total mailed 134 100 196 100 143 100

Returned, unable to
deliver 6 4 10 5 14 10

Individuals receiving
questionnaires 128 96 186 95 129 90


Individuals receiving
questionnaires 128 100 186 100 129 100

Questionnaires not
returned 95 74 132 71 80 62

Questionnaires returned 33 26 54 29 49 38


Questionnaires returned 33 100 54 100 49 100

No longer in business 17 52 33 61 24 49

Still in business 16 48 21 39 25 51

Estimatedbtotal commercial
fishermen 65 --- 76 --- 73 ---

aNot fishing commercially but had commercial boat registration in 1975.

bEstimate is based on the proportion of respondents still in business
and the total number mailed, i.e., the total 1975 commercial boat registrants.


Response rates in Levy County were similar to those from Dixie County,
with 54 of 186 or 29 percent of fishermen and 1 of 7 dealers returning
questionnaires (Tables 7, 8). From these responses, it is estimated there
are 76 commercial fishermen in Levy County.
A total of 129 Taylor County fishermen received questionnaires, as
well as 6 individuals registered as dealers. Two dealers, and over one-
third of the fishermen returned questionnaires (Tables 7, 8). With 25 of
the 49 responding still in business, it is estimated there are 73 commercial
fishermen in Taylor County.












Most fishermen responding to the survey catch relatively small amounts
of fish and shellfish. Seven Taylor County fishermen sold over 25,000 pounds
of fish in 1976, but the majority in all three counties sold 10,000 pounds
or less of fish and shellfish (Table 9).


Table 8.--Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey,
Levy and Taylor Counties. 1977.

County
Disposition or Levy .Taylor
response No. % No. %

Total mailed 7 100 6 100

Returned, unable to
deliver 1 14 0 0

Individuals receiving
questionnaires 6 86 6 100


Individuals receiving
questionnaires 6 100 6 100

Questionnaires not
returned 5 71 4 67

Questionnaires returned 1 14 2 33


Table 9.--Classification of commercial fishermen in Dixie, Levy and Taylor
Coutnies, by volume of fish and shellfish sold, 1976.


Pounds sold


Fishermen selling
Fish Shellfish
Dixie Levy Taylor Dixie Levy Taylor
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %


Under 5,000 8 67 9 75 7 41 3 60 4 40 3 25

5,000-9,999 2 17 2 17 2 12 1 20 1 10 3 25

10,000-24,999 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 20 3 25

Over 25,000 2 17 1 8 7 41 1 20 3 30 3 25

Total 12 100 12 100 17 100 5 100 10 100 12 100












Table la--Distance from home-to-port and from port-to-fishing grounds,
commercial fishermen in Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties, 1977.

Home-to-port Port-to-fishing grounds
Fishermen Fishermen
Miles Number Percent Miles Number Percent


Dixie


10 or less

11-25

26-50

51-75

Over 75

Total


Levy


Total


Taylor


Under 1


7-10


Over 10


10 or less

11-25

26-50

51-75

Over 75





10 or less

11-25

26-50

51-75

Over 75


Total 21 100


Under 1


7-10


Over 10


Total


Under 1


40

24

18

0

18


7-10


Over 10


0


21 100


Total












Table ll.--Landing places used by commercial fishermen in Dixie, Levy and
Taylor Counties, 1977.

Dixie Levy Taylor
Landing Landing Landing
places Fishermen places Fishermen places Fishermen


Horseshoe
Beach 9 Cedar Key 10 Steinhatchee 12

Suwannee 5 Yankeetown 6 Bird Island 3

Crystal River 1 Keaton Beach 2

Spring Warrior
Creek 1

Rocky Creek 1

Suwannee 1



Total 14 17 20



Fishermen from all three counties live relatively close to the port or
harbor where their boats are docked, and on the average do not go far off-
shore. Over half of those fishing lived less than 6 miles from their dock
and traveled less than 10 miles offshore to their usual fishing grounds
(Table 9).
Major landing places were indicated by most fishermen completing question-
naires. Horseshoe Beach, Cedar Key and Steinhatchee were the sites used
by most fishermen in Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties, respectively (Table 10).
Fishermen were asked to note which facilities and services they used
in their port and then to rate each of those as satisfactory or as needing
improvement. In addition, fishermen were asked to check those facilities
or services they would use if made available or improved (see questionnaire
in the appendix).
Varying numbers of Dixie County fishermen used each of the facilities
listed. Three-fourths bought fuel and 81 percent used fish houses (Table
12). Up to 25 percent of the fishermen indicated they would use 16 of the
22 facilities listed if those items were made available or improved.












S s..L fishermen rt i each of the facilities felt improvement wA's
needed (Table 12), Eti*' of 11, or 73 percent felt fish houses needed
improving. Commeits on questionnaires indicated the areas needing iminpovcmei

Lack of storage in fich houses and the inability of the houses to t..' al
fish that co 'i e i e aughT were noted as problem areas.
COter comc:.nt", cp orted by the ratings, called for processing :,:-
used fish, such as sharks or catfish, and a freezer and cold stor;,.-
fishermen also felt f-;ei, oil and groceries were not conveniently avail--'b
in Horseshoe Beach.
Docking is I im-ited at Horseshoe Beach and engine repair is needed
according to several fis~erenr. Two commented on the need for charniel
dredging thereere, ere were no specific comments on facilities at uw;.ine..
Over half of the L f County fishermen responding used crab and fiuh
houses, and all felt these needed improvement (Table 13). Bait and fuel
sales were also heavily used. Docking facilities and engine repair service
were noted as needing improvement by fishermen.
Additional comments pointed out a need for a crab-cleaning operation,
and the need for cleaning weeds from the public bait basin at Yankeetown.
Crab and fish houses and freezer and cold storage were used by several
Taylor County fishermen (Table 14). Half or more of those responding also
iii::.. b ait, ice, fiue and groceries at ports, and used docks there. A
fourth or more used ge:t1 supply and repair, and electronics and -.-gin-
repair services in Taylor County ports (Table 14).
Several additional fishermen said they would use a number of facilities
if they were made available or improved. Six fishermen not now using the
ice house would do so, as would six not now using gear supply, five gear
repair and eight engine repair (Table 14).
Nine of 14 in Taylor County felt fish houses needed improvement and
five of nine felt freezers and cold storage could be improved (Table 14).
Bait sales and ice houses also needed improving, according to respondents.
Fishermne, rating the group of facilities which included docking, .. y
and repair generally felt improvement was needed in all of those. Commennts
from questionnaires noted the lack of public docks in Taylor County, arnd
the need for a marine railway for boats 25 feet and over in length at
Steinhatchee.








15


Eight fishermen commented on the need for channel deepening and
maintenance. Channels in the Steinhatchee River and Spring Warrior Creek,
and at Bird Island and Keaton Beach were said to be too shallow at low tide
and in need of dredging. Two fishermen using Keaton Beach noted the need
for channel marking there.
The only comments from dealers were from those in Taylor County, who
pointed out that bait sales needed improvement, as did gear supply and
repair and electronics and engine repair services. Fuel and grocery sales
were also noted as problems at Taylor County landing places, and docking
was very limited.














Table 12.--Use and rating of port facilities by active commercial fishermen in Dixie County, 1977.

Fishermen


Fishermen
presently using


Facility


Number


wh
if m
o


Percent"


Number


o would use Fishermen Fishermen
ade available rating saying facility
r improved facility needs improvement
Percent Number Number Percentc


Shrimp house 4 25 0 0 4 0
Crab house 3 19 0 0 2 1
Oyster house 2 12 0 0 2 1
Fish house 13 81 0 0 11 8
Processing unused fish 2 12 4 25 2 2
Freezer and cold storage 2 12 3 19 2 2
Bait sales and supply 7 44 2 12 7 5
Ice house 6 38 1 6 5 3
Fuel sales 12 75 0 0 10 6
Groceries 5 31 0 0 3 2
Docking facilities 4 25 0 0 4 3
Gear storage area 1 6 2 12 1 1
Gear supply service 12 12 0 0 2 2
Gear repair service 1 6 1 6 1 1
Electronics service 1 6 0 0 1 1
Engine repair service 5 31 1 6 3 3
Marine railway 2 12 1 6 2 1
Restaurant 7 44 0 0 6 3
Retail seafood market 2 12 2 12 2 2
Fisherman's meeting room 0 0 4 25 0 0
Solid waste disposal 0 0 1 6 0 0
Liquid waste disposal 1 6 1 6 1 1


a0f 33 questionnaires returned, 16


are active commercial fishermen.


b percentage
Percentage


Number presently
equals 16 active com-


using or would use c. 1 Number indicating needs improvement tis
mercl sheen times 100. percentage equals active c r r g times 100.
mercial fisherm-ien Nunr tive c fishlSerme n rating faciities














Table 13.--Use and rating of port facilities by active commercial fishermen in Levy County, 1977.


Fishermen
presently using


Facility


Number
Shrimp house 2
Crab house 12
Oyster house 8
Fish house 11
Processing unused fish 0
Freezer and cold storage 6


Percent
10
57
38
52
0
29


Fishermen
who would use
if made available
or improved


Number
1
1
0
2
0
3


Percent
5
5
0
10
0
14


Fishermen
rating
facility


Number
2
12
6
11
0
6


Fishermen
saying facility
needs improvement
Number Percentc


Bait sales and supply 10 48 1 5 9 2
Ice house 6 29 1 5 6 4
Fuel sales 11 52 0 0 9 4
Groceries 6 29 0 0 5 1
Docking facilities 6 29 1 5 6 5
Gear storage area 1 5 1 5 1 1
Gear supply service 4 19 0 0 3 2
Gear repair service 0 0 1 5 -
Electronics service 0 0 1 5 -
Engine repair service 6 29 1 5 6 6
Marine railway 2 10 1 5 1 1
Restaurant 3 14 0 0 3 0
Retail seafood market 4 19 0 0 3 2
Fisherman's meeting room 2 10 2 10 1 0
Solid waste disposal 4 19 0 0 3 1
Liquid waste disposal 2 10 1 5 1 0


a0f 54 questionnaires returned, 21 were from active commercial fishermen.


Number presently using OR would use
__1LSX 100.
21 active commercial fishermen
Tac-l-Tes X 100.


is based on,


SNumber indicating needs improvement
Percentage is based on .-Nber--indca- im vemen
Iwi :r active commercial fishermen rating


- --i I-- I--


bPercentage












Table 14.--Use and rating of port facilities by active commercial fishermen


Fishermen
presently using


Fishermen
who would use
if made available
or improved


Fishermen
rating
facility


Fishermen
saying facility
needs improvement


Number
Shrimp house 2
Crab house 12
Oyster house 1
Fish house 16
Processing unused fish 1
Freezer and cold storage 11
Bait sales and supply 13
Ice house 13
Fuel sales 17
Groceries 11
Docking facilities 14
Gear storage area 7
Gear supply service 6
Gear repair service 6
Electronics service 6
Engine repair service 9
Marine railway 7
Restaurant 9
Retail seafood market 7
Fisherman's meeting room 2
Solid waste disposal 3
Liquid waste disposal 1


Percent
8
48
4
64
4
44


a0f 49 questionniares returned,
presently using OR would us 00
commercial fishermen
X 100.


25 were from active
cPercentage equals


b Number
commercial fishermen. Percentage equals 25 active
Number indicating needs improvement
Nu.-.i -.. --, ... :.i '-I -, ,ii -, : f -' ties


Facility


Number
2
1
0
3
4
4


Number


Percertb
8
4
0
12
16
16


Percent


Number
0
11
1
14
1
9


_I


-----


------c-----------


in Taylor County, 1977.
















CONCLUSIONS


Commercial fishing and seafood processing or wholesaling is important
to those in Dixie, Levy and Taylor Counties engaged in those activities on
either a full-time or part-time basis. Black mullet and blue crab are the
most important species landed in these counties.
The mail survey discussed earlier provides the basis for estimating
that about 65 commercial fishermen operate out of Dixie County, 76 from
Levy County and 73 from Taylor County. There are four dealers registered
in Dixie County, seven in Levy County and six in Taylor County. The volume
of catch, both finfish and shellfish, is relatively small compared with
major fishing areas in the state. Facilities and services at all landing
areas used in the three counties are limited and inadequate, according
to fishermen using them.
Other factors limiting commercial fishing in this three-county area,
according to survey respondents, are channel conditions and dock space at
Horseshoe Beach in Dixie County, and at Steinhatchee and other Taylor County
landing places. All port areas in the three counties are somewhat remote
from major population centers or seafood markets, 20 miles or more from
major highways, making truck transportation of seafood more costly than
in other landing areas.
Groups or individuals interested in improving conditions in the seafood
industry in these counties can use this report as a starting point for
identifying problems and possible solutions. The County Extension Director
in each county can assist groups in organizing to solve problems and in
contacting other groups and agencies for assistance. A list of available
marine economics publications is provided in the Appendix of this publication.


































APPENDIX

























r ')' e =stI-

S -) cTOL


N I f! i


Dear Seafood Dealer

Are conunercial f.shing faclhtles adequate in
our area' The Gulf nd South Atlantic Fishenes


--


I


Develoniment Foundation and your industry a;socla i-
Stiois have asked us to detetrmi the neotd for new I.
Sor improved port fanliti-s and possible ilodtions for
them.


o Your opinions are inmpotdnt to us. Even if you are not now a seafood dualtr, pleIse conpleti e tili part
of the fori that pertains to you and return it to us today it will only take a few minutes Your answers
will show whether or not a conmiierical fishing port is needed We are not proniotiing a port, but are only asking
for your views and opinions
E
2 Your prompt attention is appreciated
SSincerely,



z ames C Cato
Marine Economl st


'(U 4' .-X4
Fred J P/ rchdsa
Mainne Economlist

JCC:FJP- pl

A Cooperatlve Poijct of
Flond Agiculturl Murkitl Rlr i lnn Center
Gfull & South Ari.Il c F hhni, Devl.'lopm nti Fi un;dtioii Inc-
Coastal Plr Rgona, C omnuriur. .


omO
0 :
no

5-Be



Cs


I.,:........


1 z s
Lr o


.250
























SEAFOOD DEALER PROCESSOR SURVEY


1, You were a seafood dealer andor piocessor in 1976
according to our records Are you stdl i hi h bsi- nes?

O Yes -pi.s-. CotiOe
O No --f no please return today so we wil
know you r-ceveA d h 0, ,lustl >,ai :
(NO POSTAGE REQUIHEDi
Thank you.


2. If you ar in the seafood businc ss pl
important products you handle


SHELLFISH


Oyst rs

So'"o-s

Shr mp,


Oi"t1


FISH

f Croaker



] Spanishn-acke,

a King mackerel

O Pompar.



E Spot




D--
O Balt
SOtr E
E 0liro. ir


3 P I ,,, or,-,pl ,,, tt ii ng A, D t y,,, ft i L,
A. In c.1 A ic l th, I, ht, ,,id
-l- B, t 1 yo. ,u,1,


F-lI t cno tte


1 Shrmp uloud tig houti
2. Crah ucnI.odm, q
3. OCyster shuTk ', hos-
4. Fish housi
5 Pror ssin i of u used fi
6 Bait i!es aid sJpplV
7 t)ock: g faclties
8 Frea.Li and ciod istor.
9 Ice houso
10 GLdr istorii' 'a
11. Geor surppl
12 Gear repi service
13 E!icironic s, e
14 Eng;ne repair ti c
lIb M.an i ralit y
16 Fu' sa s
17 Gloci .
18 R,.s:a 'd t
19 Retail i food mn.:
20 Liqui lr e
21 Sohlid i- t, t ,. i .d

72 Otiler ,
22 Ot-r0-


4 t! ..- ,r Il -pro, .u of o
it M 11, or t.t tooi' 5.0r


Culiin B
T d td r ,


N,, dd irlml ovemtnt,

More srfood froim shimein
Mr oi,


El


El




El



El
D










El
El
El

ED
ED
D
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED

Li
ED
ED
ED


Bet-ir roadi or uickrI


Financial assistance 1to -it
sanitation or pol uton
control liquiretn)

Others ( st)


Check Wh that apl,

El


5 Ho, -n, poi,s u d 1o ,, r 197.
(CONFIDEN IAL)

FISH SHELLFISH

S Ud ..50.000 its D U':... so0,o00.)
] 5000 100,00ooo El 5 0000100.000 o

S100,000 300 00O llis n 100.000 30t0 000 [n

0 Over 300,00)3 O 0 .o 300 000


k th* mo-



















F-LCI S7A QCO:








Dear Commercial Boat Owner.

Are conmmetciaf fishing facilities adequate in
your ared? The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Fouindatiorn add your industry dssocla
lions have asked us to determine the need for new
or improved port facilities and possible locations for


J--



:^& D~;T


Your opinions are important to us. Even if you are not engaged in commercial fishing, please complete
the part of thI form that pertains to you and return it to us today it will only take a few minutes Your
answers will show whether or not a commercial fishing port is needed. We are not promoting a port, but are
only asking for your views and opinions.
Your prompt attention is appreciated.
Sincerely,


a ames C. Cato
Marine Economist



Marine onomist

JCC:FJP:pb


A Cooperative Pioject of
Florida Agricultural MJrkit Research Center
Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundatlon, Inc
Coastal Plains Regional Commission


I- o



9 Bi


S


I II g'jr r ra
mJ ii-v
lr : Z0































1. Y, --nd ...... "dii jO,: C~ lill


2. 3N. 3'



B -, B, c k I


COMMEFCIAI FS3HERM3A6N SURVEY

q 'ji1t11 F Do ", 'I'l l -n


! a,k y


3, KV f

C~~ "VC3n Co;:
fe':i Ch~c 3'i )~nr~
li NEd V'ri~3 lor3'ibe i ia


3 Ch-1, f y,, ,,3 ,l

4 Mll Fl,,,d, p-t d3 y- ,,, ,,3


5 H- K, I IVt




7 H- -, y -d, L..dl d y- ,I! ael 19,16'1 CONI -;r.T


FISH


O 0 5,000 lb

Q 5,000'-O10,00j I

] 10.o00-25 00a iL

[ 25,200 moe


1. Sh-mp unload r 9 ho- se
2. Crab unioed r,9
3. Oyster struck ng house
4. Fish ihous
5. Process.ig cf unused is'
6. Bot sals ad supiy
7. Docklng ac es'
8. Freezer ond c jd sts ae
9. Ice house
10. Ge' slorae 'cea
11. Ge-r supp'/
12. Gear re, r service
13. Electronic ser,ce
1. Engne repa se e
15. M -.ne ro3
16. Fuel sioes
17. Crocer es
18. Reslaurun-
19. Reta seafood n.ark
20. Fishermen' meeting rou
21. Liqu.d was- e disposal'
22. Sold waste disposal
23. Othe lstl


SHELL SH


O 0- .00o ::

O 5,C 10-.:'00
E 10,000-25,00i

O 25.030 or 2 e


Comcn
















REFERENCES


Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Florida Statistical Abstract.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. "Commercial Boat Registrations
1976." Tallahassee: 1977.

__ Summary of Florida Commercial Marine Landings, 1971 through
1975. Tallahassee.

Mathis, Kary, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner, Paul D. Landrum and Fred
J. Prochaska, 1978, Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs
in Florida: Citrus County, Industry Report 78-2, Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville.

1978, Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida:
Clay, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties. Industry Report 78-3, Florida
Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville.

1978, Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida:
Dixie and Levy Counties. Industry Report 78-4, Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville.

1978, Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida:
Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties. Industry Report 78-5, Florida
Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville.

National Marine Fisheries Service. "Processors of Fishery Products in
the U.S., 1975." U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

S"Wholesale Dealers in Fishery Products in the U.S., 1975." Un-
published. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.












Additional Information Sources


Cato, James C. "Publications in Marine Economics." Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. Issued annually.

Marine Advisory Program. Florida Sea Grant Program Directory. Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville: 1978.

Marine Economics Publications by subject area:

General

Cato, James C. and Fred J. Prochaska. Landings, Values and Prices in Commercial
Fisheries for the Florida East Coast. Cooperative Extension Service
Marine Advisory Bulletin, SUSF-SG-77-003. Gainesville: University of
Florida. September, 1977.

Cato, James C. and Fred J. Prochaska. Landings, Values and Prices in Commercial
Fisheries for the Florida Northwest Coast. Cooperative Extension Service
Marine Advisory Bulletin, SUSF-SG-77-004. Gainesville: University of
Florida. September, 1977.

Prochaska, Fred J. and James C. Cato. An Economic Profile of Florida Commercial
Fishing Firms: Fishermen, Commercial Activities and Financial Considerations.
State University System of Florida Sea Grant Report No. 19. Gainesville:
February, 1977.


Prochaska,
tance
Grant


Fred J. Florida Commercial Marine Fisheries:
and Input Trends, 1952-72. State University
Report No. 11. Gainesville: February, 1976.


Growth, Relative Impor-
System of Florida Sea


Prochaska, Fred J. and
Fisheries for the
Extension Service
May, 1975.

Prochaska, Fred J. and
Fisheries for the
Extension Service
March, 1974.


James C. Cato. Landings, Values, and Prices in Commercial
Florida West Coast. University of Florida Cooperative
Marine Advisory Bulletin, SUSF-SG-75-003. Gainesville:


James C. Cato. Landings, Values and Prices
Florida Keys Region. University of Florida
Marine Advisory Bulletin, SUSF-SG-74-201.


in Commercial
Cooperative
Gaincsvillc:


Shrimp


Prochaska, Fred J. and James C.
on the Tampa Bay Economy.
Department. Gainesville:


Cato. Primary Economic Impact of Shrimp Landings
Staff Paper 47. Food and Resource Economics
University of Florida. March, 19//.


Alvarez, Jose, Chris 0. Andrew and Fred J. Prochaska. Economic Structure of the
Florida Shrimp Processing Industry. State University System of Florida
Sea Grant Report Number 9. Gainesville: February, 1976.












Prochaska, Fred J., Chris 0. Andrew and Jose Alvarez. Florida Shrimp:
From the Sea Through the Market. University of Florida Cooperative
Extension Service Marine Advisory Bulletin, SUSF-SG-75-005. Gainesville:
May, 1975.

Snapper-Grouper

Cato, James C. and Fred J. Prochaska. "A Statistical and Budgetary Economic
Analysis of Florida Based Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper-Grouper Vessels by
Size and Location, 1975 and 1975." Marine Fisheries Review. Paper 1269.
Volume 39, Number 11. November, 1977.

Prochaska, Fred J. and James C. Cato. Cost and Returns for Northern Gulf
of Mexico Commercial Red Snapper-Grouper Vessels by Vessel Size, 1974.
University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Marine Advisory
Bulletin, SUSF-SG-75-006. Gainesville: December, 1975.

Prochaska, Fred J. and James C. Cato. Northwest Florida Gulf Coast Red
Snapper-Grouper Party Boat Operations: An Economic Analysis, 1974.
University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Marine Advisory
Bulletin, SUSF-SG-75-007. Gainesville: December 1975.

Spiny LubsLer

Williams, Joel S. and Fred J. Prochaska. The Florida Spiny Lobster Fishery:
Landings, Prices and Resource Productivity. University System of
Florida Sea Grant Report No. 12. Gainesville: February, 1976.

Prochaska, Fred J. and Joel S. Williams. Economic Analysis of Cost and
Returns in the Spiny Lobster Fishery by Boat and Vessel Size: Florida
Cooperative Extension Service Marine Advisory Bulletin. SUSF-SG-76-004.
Gainesville: June, 1976.

Mullet

Cato, James C. and William E. McCullough, Co-editors. Selected Papers on
the Economics, Biology, and Food Technology of Mullet;Current Knowledge
and Research Needs. State University System of Florida Sea Grant Report
15. Gainesville: August, 1976.

Cato, James C. "Dockside Price Analysis in the Florida Mullet Fishery."
Marine Fisheries Review. Paper 1187. Volume 39, Number 6. June,
1976.

King and Spanish Mackerel

Cato, James C., Robert A Morris and Fred J. Prochaska. Production, Costs
and earnings by Boat Size: Florida Spanish Mackerel Fishery. Florida
Cooperative Extension Service Marine Advisory Bulletin. (In print).

Prochaska, Fred J., Robert A. Morris and James C. Cato. An Economic
Analysis of King Mackerel Production by Hook-and-Line on the Florida
Atlantic Coast. Cooperative Extension Service Marine Advisory
Bulletin, MAP-1. Gainesville: University of Florida. October, 1977.