• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Survey methodology
 Findings
 Findings
 Catch and prize information
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Appendix A
 Appendix B






Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant College ; no. 21
Title: Economic impact and participant characteristics for the First Annual Greater Jacksonville Natural Light Kingfish Tournament
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074938/00001
 Material Information
Title: Economic impact and participant characteristics for the First Annual Greater Jacksonville Natural Light Kingfish Tournament
Series Title: Technical paper Florida Sea Grant College
Physical Description: 17 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Milon, J. Walter
Publisher: Marine Advisory Program, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1982
 Subjects
Subject: Fishing -- Economic aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Fishing -- Social aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
King mackerel   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by J.W. Milon ... et al..
General Note: Grant NA80AA-D-00038.
Funding: Technical paper (Florida Sea Grant College) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074938
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000990247
oclc - 08684907
notis - AEW7159

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    List of Tables
        List of Tables
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Survey methodology
        Page 3
    Findings
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Findings
        Page 13
    Catch and prize information
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Conclusions
        Page 14
    Reference
        Page 15
    Appendix A
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Appendix B
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
Full Text
















ECONOMIC IMPACT AND PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
FOR THE FIRST ANNUAL GREATER JACKSONVILLE
NATURAL LIGHT KINGFISH TOURNAMENT

By

J.W. Milon, M.J. Ellerbrock,
G.L. Brinkman and C.M. Logan

Technical Paper No. 21
March 1982






Department of Food and Resource Economics
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


Technical Papers are duplicated in limited quantities for
specialized audiences requiring rapid access to information and may
receive only limited editing. This paper was compiled by the Florida
Sea Grant College with support from NOAA Office of Sea Grant, U.S.
Department of Commerce, grant number MA80AA-D-00038. It was published
by the Marine Advisory Program which functions as a component of the
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, John T. Woeste, Dean, in
conducting Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture, Home Economics,
and Marine Sciences, State of Florida, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
U.S. Department of Commerce, and Boards of County Commissioners,
cooperating. Printed and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of
Congress of May 8 and June 14, 1914. The Florida Sea Grant College is
an Equal Employment Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer authorized
to provide research, educational information and other services only
to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race,
color, sex, or national origin.
















ABSTRACT


The methodology and results for a survey of participants in the
First Annual Greater Jacksonville Natural Light Kingfish Tournament are
presented. Socioeconomic characteristics such as education, occupation,
and income are reported for the participants as well as an analysis of
the reasons given for entering the Tournament. Expenditure data for
participants is reported and the overall economic impact of the Tourna-
ment on the Greater Jacksonville area is estimated. The report con-
cludes with a discussion of the participants' rating of the Tournament,
catch data for the two fishing days, and some suggestions for future
research on the economic impact of fishing tournaments.


KEY WORDS: Economic impact; socio-economic characteristics; sport-
fishing tournament; expenditure data; multiplier effect; survey method-
ology; reasons for entry; expected winnings; tournament evaluation.





ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The authors express their appreciation to the captains and the
tournament committee of the First Annual Greater Jacksonville Natural
Light Kingfish Tournament for their cooperation in this survey. We
thank Jim Cato of the Florida Sea Grant Program for originally suggest-
ing this research; Joe Halusky, the local Marine Advisory Program exten-
sion agent, for acting as coordinator and liaison between the research
team and the tournament committee; David Mulkey of the Food and Resource
Economics Department of the University of Florida for providing compu-
tational assistance; and Alice Bliss for expeditious typing of the
manuscript.










TABLE OF CONTENTS



Section Page

Abstract ....................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ................................................. ii

List of Tables ................................................. iv

I. Introduction .................................................. 1

II. Survey Methodology .......................................... 3

III. Findings ............................... ....... ............ 4
A. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Participants ............. 4
B. Reasons for Entry ......................................... 6
C. Fishermen's Expectations ................................. 6
D. Expenditures ..........................................9. 9
F. Tournament Rating ............................. .......... 12

IV. Catch and Prize Information ................................. 13

V. Conclusions............................................... 14

References ........................................................ 15

Appendix A ................................................... .. 16

Appendix B ...................................................... 18











LIST OF TABLES


Tables


1. Number and percent of respondent boat captains
from within/outside the Greater Jacksonville
Area by race, highest educational degree
earned, occupation and household income
in 1980 ........................................

2. Number and percent of respondent participants
from within/outside the greater Jacksonville
Area by age and sex .............................

3. Respondent captains' rating of various
factors on their decision to enter ..............


4. Expected winnings, past participation
rates and past winnings by captains
and partners .................................


... ............ 8


5. Respondent captain's mean estimate of
his/her percentage chance of catching
the winning fish(es) in each of
the Tournament prize categories ............................. 9

6. Total expenditures by category in the
Greater Jacksonville Area and other places
in Florida by respondent participants from
within/outside the Greater Jacksonville Area ............... 11

7. Estimated total economic impact with Water
Resources Council and Mulkey and Gordon's
multipliers ................................................ 12


Page


..... 5















ECONOMIC IMPACT AND PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
FOR THE FIRST ANNUAL GREATER JACKSONVILLE
NATURAL LIGHT KINGFISH TOURNAMENT


J.W. Milon, M.J. Ellerbrock, G.L. Brinkman and C.M. Logan1



INTRODUCTION


The First Annual Greater Jacksonville Natural Light Kingfish Tour-
nament was held in Jacksonville Beach, Florida during July 28 to August
1, 1981. The first day included registration and a celebrity tourna-
ment, the second and third days were fishing days and, the final day was
for the awards ceremony. The Tournament was sponsored by the Jackson-
ville Offshore Sport Fishing Club and by Anheuser-Busch, Inc. The
purpose of the Tournament was to promote sport fishing in the Greater
Jacksonville area and to raise funds to develop the offshore artificial
reef system.
As the title implies, fishing was devoted exclusively to king
mackerel, (Scomberomorus cavalla), more commonly called kingfish. Over
2300 people participated in the Tournament, 874 of whom were from out-
side Greater Jacksonville. Prizes were awarded in a number of
categories: $25,000 in cash and merchandise for the largest kingfish
caught during the Tournament (an extra $50,000 would have been awarded




1J.W. Milon and M.J. Ellerbrock are assistant professors in the
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida;
G.L. Brinkman is a professor at the University of Guelph, Ontario,
Canada who was on sabbatical leave at the University of Florida during
this research; C.M. Logan is a research assistant in the Department of
Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida.


L











if the fish broke the Florida record); $17,500 for the second largest
kingfish overall; and $12,500 for the five heaviest kingfish. Also,
daily prizes of $5,000 for the largest king each day, $3,000 for the
second largest daily and $2,000 for the five heaviest kingfish each
day. Anglers were eligible to win only one of these major prizes. The
overall winner was a local Jacksonville angler who weighed in a 50.2
pound kingfish. Most of the other major prizes were won by Jacksonville
residents.
Sport fishing events such as the Greater Jacksonville Tournament
are becoming an increasingly popular way to attract attention to the
fishery stocks of particular coastal areas.2 Despite this growing
popularity, there is little documentation on the economic impact of
these tournaments on coastal areas or on the characteristics and motives
of the tournament participants.3 As a result there is no agreement as
to whether such events are beneficial for coastal communities or what
types of people participate in these tournaments.
To provide some information on these issues, a survey was conducted
during the Greater Jacksonville Tournament. The purpose of the survey
was to collect information about participants' expenditures and socio-
economic characteristics. This report presents a summary of the survey
methodology and an analysis of participant responses. In addition, an
estimate of the economic impact of the Tournament on the Greater
Jacksonville area is provided.








2Sportfishing tournaments are held now in virtually all the states
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The exact number is not known.

3The only published report is J.W. Smith and C.J. Moore, "A Socio-
Economic Survey of the Third Annual Arthur Smith King Mackerel Tour-
nament," South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Technical Report No. 46
(November, 1980).











SURVEY METHODOLOGY


The survey instrument was distributed to all registered boat cap-
tains at the initial orientation meeting on July 29 (a copy of the
instrument is included as Appendix A). The instrument gave specific
instructions that the captain of each boat should answer the questions
for himself and his party. A sampling procedure was not used due to the
difficulty of contacting participants who embarked from many different
points around Jacksonville.
The researchers were present at the awards ceremony on August 1 to
collect the completed surveys. Captains were encouraged to complete the
survey since this would qualify them for a special prize drawing.4 As a
result, this initial effort produced 242 completed surveys, a response
rate of 46.9 percent.
Following the Tournament a list of non-respondents to the survey
was developed from the Tournament registration list. A letter was sent
(See Appendix B) encouraging the captains to return their completed
survey forms. This effort resulted in 116 additional completed surveys,
bringing the overall response rate to 69.5 percent.
All the information contained in this report is based on responses
to the survey. Although some additional economic activity was attribut-
able to the promotion and concession sales to the general public that
visited the Tournament, no reliable estimates of the dollar value of
these activities were available. We have focused our analysis directly
on the Tournament participants and the economic impact created by their
activity.







4A depth finder was awarded to the winner of the drawing. The
Tournament steering committee kindly provided the prize to encourage
completion of the survey.











FINDINGS

A total of 515 boats registered and participated in the tournament,
329 of which were from the Greater Jacksonville Area and 186 from out-
side the area. Two hundred and fifty-three questionnaires were
completed by boat captains from the Greater Jacksonville Area and 105
were received from boat captains outside the area. The 358 respondent
captains represented 1,627 (1,133 Greater Jacksonville Area residents
and 494 from outside) of the 2,355 total participants (1,481 Greater
Jacksonville Area residents and 874 from outside).
Some of the information solicited in the survey pertained to the
boat captain's entire party and some of the questions pertained strictly
to the captain. The former are referred to in the following tables as
"respondent participants" and the latter as "respondent captains."


Socioeconomic Characteristics of Participants
The distribution for respondent captains according to race, educa-
tion, profession and 1980 household income is shown in Table 1. The
average education level of the respondent captains was at the Junior
College level; however, the highest degree attained by 39 percent was a
High School degree. The average age of the captains was 41 years.
Thirty-five percent of the total had career positions in management or
sales, 9 percent had professional careers and 18 percent were self-
employed. The average captain had a household consisting of three
members and a 1980 household income of $31,000. Forty-two percent
received a household income of over $40,000 in 1980. Table 2
illustrates the age and sex distribution for respondent participants.
Eighty percent of the participants were males between 19 and 65 years of
age; thirteen percent of the participants were women.
In comparison, average per capital income received by residents of
the Greater Jacksonville Area in 1978 was $7,484. Though survey
respondents reported total "household" income, it still appears that


-~11111~11~










Table 1.--Number and percent of respondent
outside the Greater Jacksonville
tional degree earned, occupation


Within


RACE


boat captains from within/
Area by race, highest educa-
and household income in 1980.


Outside


Total


Number % Number % Number %


White
Black
Hispanic
Other


249


104
1
0
0


100
*
0
0


1 *


EDUCATION
High School
Vocational School
Junior College
Bachelor's
Master's
Doctorate
Doctor of Medicine
Doctor of Jurisprudence
Other


103
13
52
55


11 11
1 *
2 3
3 3
1 *


OCCUPATION
Management/sales 85 34 39 34 124 35
Professional 19 8 14 12 33 9
Skilled 49 20 25 22 74 21
Nonskilled 15 6 5 4 20 6
Self-employed 47 20 15 13 62 18
Military 4 2 1 5 1
Fishing Industry 3 1 6 5 9 2
Retired 11 5 6 5 17 5
Non-employed 5 2 3 3 8 2


INCOME
$0-4,999
$5,000-9,999
$10,000-14,999
$15,000-19,999
$20,000-24,999
$25,000-34,999
$35,000-39,999
Over $40,000


1 1
0 0
2 2
4 4
1 12
8 9
1 12
2 58


*less than one percent


_ ___ __ _


I











tournament participants earned considerably higher incomes than the
Area's general population. Forty-five percent of the Area's 1979 High
School graduates entered college. Of the people employed in the Area's
labor force in 1979, 26 percent held jobs in retail and wholesale trade,
five percent were in construction, and 20 percent were in service
industries. Of the Area's 1979 general population, 38 percent were
white males, 39 percent were white females, 10 percent were non-white
males, and 12 percent were non-white females.
The captain's fishing party averaged 4.5 persons per boat for
Jacksonville residents and 4.7 persons per boat for Non-Jacksonville
residents. There were approximately 1,481 Jacksonville residents and
874 participants from outside the Greater Jacksonville Area coming from
as far as Wisconsin and New York. Thus, the total estimated number of
participants was 2,355.


Reasons for Entry
Captains were asked to indicate the relative importance of the
factors listed in Table 3 on their decision to enter. The survey gave
three choices for each factor: (1) not important, (2) somewhat
important, and (3) very important. The table illustrates a summary of
the results. Fun and fellowship was the most important reason for
entering. Total purse and value of prizes were equally important as the
second most important factor influencing respondents' decision to
enter. These reasons were followed by number of prizes, competition,
and entry fee, respectively.

Fishermen's Expectations
Several questions explored further the participants' reasons for
entering the Tournament. The average expected winnings, participation
in other fishing tournaments, and winnings in other fishing tournaments
by captains and their partners are shown in Table 4. The average
expected winning ($30,264) is significantly greater than the average
previous winnings of the participants. This would indicate that
participants were influenced by the relatively high purse offered for
this Tournament compared to other tournaments.










Table 2.--Number and percent of respondent participants from within/
outside the Greater Jacksonville Area by age and sex.

Within Outside Subtotals

Number % Number % Number %
Females under 18 years 16 1 8 2 24 1
Females 19-65 years 126 11 72 14 198 2
Females over 65 years 0 0 1 1 *
Males under 18 years 67 6 24 4 91 5
Males 19-65 922 81 384 78 1,306 80
Males over 65 years 2 5 1 7 *

Subtotals/Total 1,133 100 494 100 1,627 100

*less than one percent







Table 3.--Respondent captains' rating of various factors on their
decision to enter.

Not Important Somewhat Important Very Important
Factor (1) (2) (3)


Entry Fee (1.6)

Competition (2.3)

Fun and Fellowship (2.8)

Total Purse (2.6)

Number of Prizes (2.5)

Value of Prizes (2.6)

Other g (.52)











Table 4.--Expected winnings, past participation rates, and
by captains and partners.


past winnings


Category Minimum Average Maximum

Expected winnings 0 $30,264 $50,000


Captain's previous tournaments
(number in previous 12 months) 0 2.5 11


Partners' previous tournaments
(number in previous 12 months) 0 2.6 16


Captain's winnings
(amount in previous 12 months) 0 $ 1,573 $45,000


Partners' winnings
(amount in previous 12 months) 0 $ 1,878 $50,000


Expected winnings are a function of the competition, the fisher-
man's experience, skills, and equipment, and the total purse. Since the
maximum number of boats (550) and the total purse were set prior to the
Tournament, each captain had sufficient information to determine his
expected winnings. The captains were asked to give the probability of
winning each of the Tournament prize categories.5 The results, reported
in Table 5, indicate that the average captain had highly optimistic
expectations about his party's success in the Tournament. These
estimates imply that the entrants felt that they had superior skills to
others in the Tournament.




5The probabilities should be interpreted as estimates for mutually
exclusive events; in reality these should be joint probabilities since
each entrant could only win one prize.












Table 5.--Respondent captains' mean estimate of his/her percentage
chance of catching the winning fish(es) in each of the
Tournament prize categories.

Percent
World record fish 21
Largest fish of tournament 45
Second largest fish of tournament 48
Most pounds, 5 fish, of tournament 50
Largest fish for home state 43
Largest fish daily, first day 45
Second largest fish daily, first day 48
Most pounds daily, 5 fish, first day 49
Largest fish daily, second day 47
Second largest fish daily, second day 49
Most pounds daily, 5 fish, second day 49



Expenditures
The survey asked for an estimate of expenditures for the captain's
group in the Greater Jacksonville Area and other places in Florida. The
average expenses per participant from the Jacksonville Area was $153.48
and for participants from outside the area expenditures averaged $229.33
per person. Total expenditures by respondent groups are shown in Table
6. The 1,627 respondent participants spent a total of $287,179 related
to the tournament.
The expenditures reported in Table 6 were then extrapolated to the
study's population (all 2,355 tournament participants; i.e., 1,481
Jacksonville area residents plus 874 outside residents). The results
represent approximate expenditures directly related to the tournament by
all participants. Total estimated expenditures by all 1,481 partici-
pants from the Greater Jacksonville Area was $227,303. Total estimated
expenditures by all 874 participants from outside the area was
$200,434. Thus, total direct expenditures for the tournament were
approximately $427,737.











Of the $277,303 spent by Jacksonville residents, $198,413 was spent
in the Greater Jacksonville Area and $28,890 was spent in other places
in Florida. Of the $200,434 spent by Non-Jacksonville residents,
$186,015 was spent in the Greater Jacksonville area and $14,419 was
spent in other places in Florida.
The direct expenditures presented here do not fully reflect the
total volume of economic activity sparked by the tournament. The
economic impact on a community of $1 spent on retail goods is greater
than $1 because the expenditure generates a chain reaction in which the
dollar may be respent several times on production inputs and other
retail goods. Termed the "multiplier" effect, the magnitude of the
chain reaction varies over different types of goods and in different
geographic areas [1]. The multiplier effect is most important when
visitors bring in new dollars to a community, whereas some of the money
spent by residents at a special attraction in their community would have
been spent locally anyway on regularly purchased items.
Mulkey and Gordon of the University of Florida have estimated
output multipliers for Duval County and the State of Florida [2]. The
United States Water Resources Council has estimated output multipliers
for the Jacksonville, Florida region and the Orlando, Florida region
[3]. Both sets of multipliers were applied to the total direct
expenditures by Non-Jacksonville residents in the Greater Jacksonville
Area ($186,015) and other places in Florida ($14,419) and to the total
direct expenditures by Jacksonville residents in other places in Florida
($28,890).6 A multiplier was applied to the first two activities in






6Water Resource Council multipliers were: 1.692 for oil and gas in
the Jacksonville region and 1.586 in the Orlando region, and 2.8 for
general services in both regions. Mulkey and Gordon's multipliers
were: 2.6 for oil and gas in Duval County and 2.3 for the state of
Florida, and 1.95 for general services in Duval County and 2.5 for the
state of Florida.















Table 6.--Total expenditures by category in the Greater Jacksonville area
from within/outside the Greater Jacksonville Area.


Greater Jacksonville


and other places in Florida by respondent participants


Other Places in Florida


Jacksonville
Residents


Non-Jacksonville
Residents


Sub-
total


Jacksonville
Residents


Non-Jacksonville
Residents


Oil and gas for your boat
Oil and gas for your car
Lodging
Bait
Tackle (replacement or new)
Restaurant/coffee shop meals
Entertainment
Groceries/beverages
Ice
Launching or marina fees
Boat repairs
Travel (public transport)
Rental car
Airfarp
Boat charter
Crew costs (e.g., tips)
Other


Subtotal


TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES BY RESPONDENTS ............... .. ......... ..........................................$287,179


Activity


Sub-
total


$ 38,036
6,655
4,215
8,605
16,808
10,207
8,781
11,450
2,656
3,548
32,349
858
280
2.068
1,874
2,051
1,350

$151,791


$ 22,492
6,779
20,808
3,070
4,386
16,502
6,757
6,533
1,555
3,180
5,802
274
624
1.857
643
1,618
2,258

$105,138


$ 60,528
13,434
25,023
11,675
21,194
26,709
15,538
17,983
4,211
6,728
38,151
1,132
904
3.925
2,517
3,669
3,608

$256,929


$ 4,719
2,540
2,000
555
968
1,525
1,250
1,860
280
380
3,075
400
500
500
1,049
500
0

$22,101


$ 2,705
510
893
298
528
499
568
538
99
238
134
122
163
118
493
143
100

$ 8,149


$ 7,424
3,050
2,893
853
1,496
2,024
1,818
2,398
379
618
3,209
522
663
618
1,542
643
100

$30,250


_~=~1~__ _____ ___











Table 6. A multiplier for general services was applied to activities
three through seventeen. Table 7 presents the results.7
Using the Water Resource Council's multipliers, the total economic
impact of the tournament was approximately $765,407 in direct plus
indirect expenditures. Using Mulkey and Gordon's multipliers, the total
economic impact was estimated to be $700,203.



Table 7.--Estimated total economic impact with Water Resources Council
and Mulkey and Gordon's multipliers.

Water Resources Mulkey and
Activity Council Gordon

Oil and gasoline $170,000 $227,000
All other services 596,000 473,000
Total $765,000 $700,000




Tournament Rating
Ninety-four percent of the captains who answered the survey re-
sponded that they enjoyed the tournament, and 99 percent said that they
would like to participate next year. Of the 358 returned surveys, 280
listed comments, suggestions and reactions toward the tournament and
those who organized it. The greatest number of comments in any specific
category expressed the respondent's satisfaction with the tournament.




7It was not known what percentage of the direct expenditures by
Jacksonville residents in the Greater Jacksonville Area would not have
been spent locally if the tournament had not occurred. If so, a 7multi-
plier could justifiably be applied to those dollars. It was thus as-
sumed that none of the local expenditures by Jacksonville residents had
a multiplier effect. This assumption led to a conservative estimate of
the tournament's total economic impact.











Many stated that they had a good time or they felt that the tournament
was well organized, especially for its first year and for the number of
participants.
Many comments concerned various areas relating to the organization
of the event and how it could be improved. Approximately 11 percent of
the comments listed problems experienced during registration, checking
in and out, and the captains' meeting. Many felt that the registration
procedures could have been handled more efficiently. Frequently,
respondents suggested that the captains' meeting be closed to others.
Other comments concerned (in order): problems with the lines, sugges-
tions on tournament times, problems weighing-in, wanting rules to be
clarified and enforced, the poor public address system, and the lack of
punctuality on the part of some committee members.
Forty-three comments suggested a different distribution for
prizes. Many respondents felt that there should be more prizes and of
lesser value. A few asked that the prizes be given in cash so that they
may be divided up more easily with partners.
Twenty-nine comments testified strongly to problems experienced in
the intracoastal waterway and inlets. Some of these suggested that more
inlets be used during the tournament and many complained that, due to
disorganization and neglect on the part of the participants, the water-
ways had been made extremely unsafe.
Fourteen comments indicated problems with lack of boat ramps,
insufficient parking facilities, and inability to locate bait, tackle
and food stores. Miscellaneous statements concerned such topics as:
media coverage, wanting more free gifts, or wanting the tournament to
include other varieties of fish.


CATCH AND PRIZE INFORMATION


The 515 boats "weighed-in" 792 fish, an average of 1.4 per boat.
Total weight was 10,200 pounds, an average of 14.0 pounds per fish. The
largest fish was 50.2 pounds and the second largest was 43.3 pounds.











Many stated that they had a good time or they felt that the tournament
was well organized, especially for its first year and for the number of
participants.
Many comments concerned various areas relating to the organization
of the event and how it could be improved. Approximately 11 percent of
the comments listed problems experienced during registration, checking
in and out, and the captains' meeting. Many felt that the registration
procedures could have been handled more efficiently. Frequently,
respondents suggested that the captains' meeting be closed to others.
Other comments concerned (in order): problems with the lines, sugges-
tions on tournament times, problems weighing-in, wanting rules to be
clarified and enforced, the poor public address system, and the lack of
punctuality on the part of some committee members.
Forty-three comments suggested a different distribution for
prizes. Many respondents felt that there should be more prizes and of
lesser value. A few asked that the prizes be given in cash so that they
may be divided up more easily with partners.
Twenty-nine comments testified strongly to problems experienced in
the intracoastal waterway and inlets. Some of these suggested that more
inlets be used during the tournament and many complained that, due to
disorganization and neglect on the part of the participants, the water-
ways had been made extremely unsafe.
Fourteen comments indicated problems with lack of boat ramps,
insufficient parking facilities, and inability to locate bait, tackle
and food stores. Miscellaneous statements concerned such topics as:
media coverage, wanting more free gifts, or wanting the tournament to
include other varieties of fish.


CATCH AND PRIZE INFORMATION


The 515 boats "weighed-in" 792 fish, an average of 1.4 per boat.
Total weight was 10,200 pounds, an average of 14.0 pounds per fish. The
largest fish was 50.2 pounds and the second largest was 43.3 pounds.











In the daily prize categories, awards for the first day's catch
were: $5,000 for a 38.2 pound kingfish, $3,000 for a 37.2 pound fish
and $2,000 for a five-fish catch weighing 115.3 pounds. All three of
the award winners were local residents. Second day tournament awards
were: $5,000 awarded for a 40 pound fish, $3,000 for a 38.2 pounder,
and $2,000 for a five-fish catch weighing 129.4 pounds. The winners
were from Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville and Largo, respectively.
Tournament officials did not obtain information on the total number
of king mackeral caught. No information was obtained as to the number
or types of other species caught.


CONCLUSIONS


The survey and subsequent analysis indicates that Tournament parti-
cipants generated approximately $700,000 to $800,000 in economic activ-
ity. This analysis falls short of estimating the entire economic impact
of the tournament on the Greater Jacksonville Area for several
reasons. It was not possible to include all pre-tournament expenditures
related to planning, organizing and advertising the event. Post-tourna-
ment expenditures related to this year's tournament should also have
been available and identified by sector. It was also not possible to
quantify benefits to the Greater Jacksonville Area which may stem from
good will, public relations improvement and tourist promotion brought
about by the tournament.
A second aspect of the tournament's economic impact that is missing
from the analysis is expenditures by non-fishing visitors and observers
on concessions, tournament events and related activities. If data were
available on both aspects it would have been possible to identify the
total economic activity created by the Tournament. This information
could then be compared to estimates of the cost for added police
enforcement or other costs borne by the communities involved in the
Tournament. In this manner the net benefits to the Greater Jacksonville
Area from the Tournament could be determined.











In the daily prize categories, awards for the first day's catch
were: $5,000 for a 38.2 pound kingfish, $3,000 for a 37.2 pound fish
and $2,000 for a five-fish catch weighing 115.3 pounds. All three of
the award winners were local residents. Second day tournament awards
were: $5,000 awarded for a 40 pound fish, $3,000 for a 38.2 pounder,
and $2,000 for a five-fish catch weighing 129.4 pounds. The winners
were from Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville and Largo, respectively.
Tournament officials did not obtain information on the total number
of king mackeral caught. No information was obtained as to the number
or types of other species caught.


CONCLUSIONS


The survey and subsequent analysis indicates that Tournament parti-
cipants generated approximately $700,000 to $800,000 in economic activ-
ity. This analysis falls short of estimating the entire economic impact
of the tournament on the Greater Jacksonville Area for several
reasons. It was not possible to include all pre-tournament expenditures
related to planning, organizing and advertising the event. Post-tourna-
ment expenditures related to this year's tournament should also have
been available and identified by sector. It was also not possible to
quantify benefits to the Greater Jacksonville Area which may stem from
good will, public relations improvement and tourist promotion brought
about by the tournament.
A second aspect of the tournament's economic impact that is missing
from the analysis is expenditures by non-fishing visitors and observers
on concessions, tournament events and related activities. If data were
available on both aspects it would have been possible to identify the
total economic activity created by the Tournament. This information
could then be compared to estimates of the cost for added police
enforcement or other costs borne by the communities involved in the
Tournament. In this manner the net benefits to the Greater Jacksonville
Area from the Tournament could be determined.











REFERENCES


[1] Davidson, Lawrence S. and William A. Schaffer, "A Discussion of
Methods Employed in Analyzing the Impact of Short-Term Enter-
tainment Events." Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 18, No. 3,
Winter 1980, pp. 12-16.

[2] Mulkey, W. David and John R. Gordon, "Input-Output Model for the
State of Florida." Food and Resource Economics Department,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, October, 1981.

[3] United States Water Resources Council, "Guideline 5 Regional Multi-
pliers." Washington, D.C., Bureau of Economic Analysis,
January, 1977, p. 44.

[4] Otwell, W. Steven, "Verifying Freshness of Tournament Fish."
Technical Paper No. 22, Florida Sea Grant College, March,
1982.

[5] Otwell, W. Steven, "Judging Tournament Fish." Marine Advisory
Program Fact Sheet (MAFS-35), March, 1982.

























APPENDIX A

















I. Boa3t re'!;on c:ty ninl'er _____ .__ .

2. \'!at is li:e to'!j nur:nher c.f people in your GROL'P
(fi2;i' pI;y. f:':.lics and friends) ulhu c.an: to the
G:e'cr J-cl.,.',.'::: :.cea bhcau;se of li:s tournament?


3. lihal is the nui-bcr of males and females in your
-ISIIING P'.i'! Y in each of the following age groups?
Males Females


Yrjth (usts r I P yrs.)
AMults (19-55 %!'s.)
S'':srs (0),e: 65 V7s.)


TrlE FOLLOW '.iNGJ QUESTIONS API'LY ONLY TO TIHE
BOAT CAPTAIN:

4. Hometown Zip Code


5. Age RaL.: (check one):
Whi'ie D
0..>.k [


Hispanic 0
Other 0


6. P-"'l! educational degree you have earned:
IuG~fis uiolu' n O Doctorate O
Vocational School 0 M.D. Lr 0
Ju:;<.r Col.:ge U J.D. 0r
Bachelor's 0 Oilier:
Mas'er's 0

7. Occupation: or
Non.ecinpluyed 0 Rethied C

8. How many people live in your household?

9. PRIOR TO THE TOURNAMENT, how much cash
and!or merchandise did you expect your boat to win?
*5 _______.
10. Ilow many other fishing tournaments have YOU enter-
ed in the past 12 months?
Your fishing PAR TNFERS?

11. What is thCe dollar value of the prices YOU won in those
tounnlnenlts S
'Youi fishing PAR TNRS? S __

12. vWhat was your household's approximate income last
year?
50- 4.999 0 S2S.000-29.999 O
$ 5.000- 9,000 0 S530.0o0 3.1.999 O
SlO.n0 .-14.999 0 .35.0C10 -39.999 1-
*l-,('0") i.1'1i n,) 1)-r''r if t


13. Iow woiulid ,you ch:lacterize your feelingIs about your
housreholdl's current income level?
Satisfied L Dissatisficd 0I

14. P3ase indicate wilh a check mark Ihowv important each
of the fol!owin;. faclors were in YOUR decision to en.
ter this tournament?


Entry fee (S160)
Comipeitilion
l'un and f'ilowship
Total purse
(S150.000)
Nunmcr of major
prizes (l1)
Value of pis'es
(S25.000. etc.)
Otlier:


Not Somewhat
Important Important
O O
o 0
O 0[
O O


. Very
Important



O0
[]
ta-
a]


O O O
o 0 10

o 0 10


15. How many days does your GROUP plan to stay in the
Glcatec Jacksonville area?
I day 0 3 days 0 5 days 1 week or
2 days 0 4 days U 6 days 0 more 0
16. How many days does your GROUP plan to visit other
places ini lloridla?
1 day 0 3 days 0 S days 0 1 week or
2 clays 4 days N 6 days 0 more 0
17. Please estimate the expenditures by your GROUP for
the following items while visiting the Greater Jackson-
ville area and other places in Florida.
Greater Other Places
Jacksonville in Florida
Oil and gas for
your boat. ........... __ S __
Oil and gas for
your car. .......... $ _
Lodging ............. S ___
Rait ...............S ____ S __
Ta.kle (replacement
or new) ............S S __
Resta,:mat/coffee
slI',p eals..........$ S
I'nlilciltanincil ........S ___ S S
c(;lls. liluw l ..... S__ ._ S ____
Ice ................ __ S __ __
Launching or
Illa;i.i1 fe'C ......... S __ __
!,, ,1 ........ .... .. ... ....


Travel (public
transport) .........S ___
Rental car ...........S
Airle ............ _____
Boat charter..........
Crew costs (e.g. tips,
wa:..s, food)........5 ____
Other ( ) ....... S_


S
S__
S
S

S
S __
S __


18. Based on your party's skills. equipment, and expertise.
wht did you feel your boat's chances v.rc BOr-ORE
t11E TOURNAM.ENT of catching the following fish?
Rate each chance from 0% to 100%.
World record fish. .................. 7
Largest fish of tournament ........... C
2nd largest fish of tournament......... ____ %
Most pounds. 5 fish, of tournament ..... %
Largest fish for your home state....... %
Largest fish daily, 1st day............ %
2nd largest fish daily. 1st day.........
Most pounds daily. 5 fish. 1st day....... .%
Largest fish daily. 2nd day ........... %
2nd largest fsh daily. 2nd day........ %
Most pounds daily, 5 fish. 2nd day ...... .
19. Did you enjoy fishing in this Tournament?
Yes, very much 0 No 0
Yes .No, not at all 0
Satisfactory 0
20. Would you like to participate again next year?
Yes 0 Probably not 0
Yes, with im- No 0
provements
listed below 0

21. Your comments, complaints. ideas, suggested improve-
ments-
























APPENDIX B















FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES



GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611
August 5, 1981


McCARTY HALL






Dear Captain,

We hope that you enjoyed participating in the Greater Jacksonville
Natural Light Kingfish Tournament. Because we did not receive a com-
pleted Captain's Opinion Survey from you at the Tournament, we have
enclosed another copy which we hope you will return to us as soon as
possible. Your responses will be included in our research project which
will help the Tournament Committee in serving you, the sport-fishing
industry, and the Greater Jacksonville community. All of your responses
are strictly confidential. Please drop your completed Survey in the
mail, no postage is needed. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,



Wally Milon



Mike Ellerbrock
Florida Sea Grant College


WM:ME:gj

Enclosure


EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER


COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE


AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS


COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE


SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION


J~ illi'lEXTENSIONi


CENTER FOR TROPICAL AGRICULTURE







University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs