economic and biological evaluation of the South Carolina pier fishery

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

An Economic and Biological
Evaluation of the
South Carolina Pier Fishery

Donald L. Hammond and David M. Cupka,

South Carolina Marine Resources Center
Technical Report Number 20
November,1977

9 A

South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

SH
222
s6
H3
1977

@AIM

An Economic and Biological Evaluation

of the South Carolina Pier Fishery

Donald L. Hanmond

and

David M. Cupka

South Carolina Marine Resources Center

Technical Report Series Number 20

Property oil CSC Library

S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Departmnt
Marine Resources Division
Office of Conservation and Management
Recreational Fisheries Section
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, S. C. 29412

US Department of Coleffief"
NOAA Coastal Services COMM Sibrary
2234 South Hobson AvenU4
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Angler Residency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Duration of Visit and Annual Pier Trips . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Angling Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bait Preference 13

Species of Fish Sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
DISCUSSION . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Projected angler attendance (angler days) for each
public pier, April through November, 1974 . . . . . . . 2

2. Angler attendance and economic projections for South
Carolina pier fishery, April through November, 1974 5

3. Comparison of lodging preferences for in-state and
out-of-state residents presented in percent of total
number of anglers for each category . . . . . . . . . . 6

4. Average dollar breakdown spent by pier anglers and
projected expenditures for five economic sectors,
April through November, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. Observed fish landings for the four South Carolina
pier surveyed,April through November, 1974 . . . . . . 9

6. Projected number of fishes landed by month for the
six dominant genera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Locations of South Carolina's public fishing piers
in 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Interview form employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Monthly composition of pier anglers in regard to their
residency category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4. Distance traveled by anglers fishing on South
Carolina piers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Average time spent fishing by pier anglers per trip
on monthly basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6. Projected effort (angler hours) and number of fish
harvested for the twelve public piers . . . . . . . . . 8

7. Monthly catch-per-unit-of-effort (fish per angler
hour) for all species of fish caught on the piers . . . 10

8. Monthly catch-per-unit-of-effort (fish per angler
hour) for the six most abundant genera of fish . . . . 11

9. Length frequency distributions for the six dominant
genera of fish caught on South Carolina piers . . . . . 12

Acknowledgments Introduction
The authors wish to thank the numer- The South Carolina pier fishing in-
ous pier owners and operators who contri- dustry is located mainly along the Grand
buted to the success of this survey and Strand area which extends from the North
those individuals who assisted in the Carolina state line southward to George-
collection of the data, especially William town, S.C. (Figure 1). Thousands of an-
Y. Ripley and Richard H. Dawson. Karen glers visit these piers weekly. The
Swanson and Evelyn Myatt assisted in the piers rely heavily on anglers from out-
preparation of the figures used in this of-state and non-coastal areas of South
report. Alice Charest, Patricia Godsell, Carolina for the major portion of their
Betty Drews and Myra Jones typed the text clientele. Consequently, their business
of the manuscript. Kenneth Roberts, Paul closely follows the pulse of the area's
Sandifer, Mike McKenzie, and David Liao tourism.
reviewed the manuscript and offered
significant contributions to its develop- Easy access to a fishing site and the
ment. usual willingness of the spot, Leio4tomu6

'arne OVIVER

INLET PIER
CHERRY GROVE PIER

TILGHMAN BEACH PIER

CRESCENT BEACH PIER

WINDY HILL PIER

KIT'S PIER

SECOND AVENUE PIER
SPRINGMAO PIER

MYRTLE BEACH ST PARK PIER
2. SURFSIDE BEACH PIER
KINGFISHER PIER

G11 1

A-

BULL &A1

ME
IAKE
MAIION

E?opt Z,
T.

-ISLE OF PALMS PIER

C H.".

Figure 1. Locations of South Carolina's public fishing piers in 1974.

2
Xaniltu4uS, to bite a baited hook are the This survey was designed to evaluate
chief contributors to the popularity of the pier fishing industry in South Carolina,
the South Carolina piers. The ease with using pier admission tax records and personal
which one may fish from piers, coupled with interviews with anglers. One of the main
the relatively inexpensive tackle that is areas of interest in the survey was the di-
required, lends a relaxed attitude to this rect economic impact to the area by the pier
sport. The other key element, the spot, industry. Another major concern was the
provides action for anglers throughout the type and quantity of fish being harvested.
fishing season but reaches peak abundance Information was also gathered on general
during its fall migration, at which time characteristics of pier anglers.
hundreds of anglers turn out to harvest this
delicious food fish. Methods
The piers are generally open from Monthly attendance records for each of
the first of April until the end of No- the twelve ocean fishing piers along the
vember and will often re-open for a few South Carolina coast were obtained through
days at a time in winter when the wea- the South Carolina Tax Commission. Because
ther is favorable. Operating hours are of personnel limitations, sampling was
generally from 6 or 7:00 AM until 10 or limited to four of the twelve ocean fishing
11:00 PM. During the summer, many piers piers operating in 1974. The piers were
remain open all night. All of the piers divided into two categories based on
are lighted to allow night fishing. A annual attendance figures derived from pier
wide selection of baits such as dead admission tax records - those piers with
shrimp, bloodworms, mullet and earth- an annual attendance less than 24,500 and
worms are available at each pier, along those whose attendance exceeded this fig-
with a complete line of fishing tackle ure (Table 1). Two piers were then selec-
and rental rod and reel outfits. Snack ted from each category. These were Inlet
bars or restaurants are usually availa- Pier and Isle of Palms Pier (representing
ble at the piers. piers of less than 24,500 attendance), and
Myrtle Beach State Park Pier and Surfside
Annual and daily admission tickets Pier (representing piers with an annual
are available at most piers. Local resi- attendance greater than 24,500 people).
dents are the primary purchasers of an-
nual tickets. These allow the angler to Since tax records from previous
fish each day of the year without further years revealed that those piers having
charge. The daily ticket allows the an- an annual attendance greater than 24,500
gler to fish only on that day, though he anglers accounted for roughly 75 percent
may leave and return to the pier as often of the total attendance, the sampling was
as he desires. Annual tickets cost from stratified so that the large pier repre-
$15 to $25 while the daily tickets usual- sentatives (Myrtle Beach State Park Pier
ly cost $1.25 per person. Some of the and Surfside Beach Pier) received 75 per-
piers have reduced rates on daily tickets cent of the sampling effort and the other
for children, 50C to 75C per child. group (Inlet Pier and Isle of Palms Pier)

Table 1 Projected angler attendance (angler days) for each public pier, April through November, 1974.

Pier -April May June July. August September October November Total

Second Avenue 747. 496 449 825 975 825 876 320 5513
Crescent Beach 147 159 650 1285 956 648 784 119 4748

Cher@ Grove 1386 1571 3519 6230 3188 4639 6346 1815 28694
Inlet 344 542 1123 2054 907 1375 2923 582 9850
Isle of Palms 951 1554 2647 2041 1469 950 869 699 11180
Kingfisher 0 1719 2906 3855 3064 2822 6727 3586 24679
Surfside 5161 3625 6006 10927 5266 493 6840 2919 41237
M.B. State Park 1599 2237 4007 5165 3425 3229 5163 2558 27383
Windy Hill 1659 1768 3414 4684 3579 2615 4935 1348 24002
Kits 589 299 1311 1829 1263 487 1246 0 7024
Tilghman Beach 122 418 872 1433 965 489 1121 222 5642
Springmaid 5044 4211 3629 5389 5816 3861 7234 2625 37959

TOTAL 17749 18599 30533 45717 30873 22433 45214 16793 227,911

were sampled on 25 percent of the sampl- on each sampling day, two members of
ing days. the Recreational Fisheries Section stationed
themselves at a convenient location on the
Each sampling day was divided into two pier so that they could interview anglers
sampling periods (9AM - 11AM and 2PM - leaving the pier during the sampling period.
4PM). Ten days were sampled each month After briefly identifying themselves and
which resulted in a total of twenty samp- presenting the purpose of the survey, they
ling periods per month. The ten sampling proceeded to ask the cooperating angler (or
days each month were stratified so that spokesman for a group of anglers leaving to-
the sampling occurred on six week days and gether) a series of questions (Figure 2).
four weekend days. The twenty sampling On several occasions all of the groups of
periods were then stratified so that the anglers leaving could not be interviewed be-
two piers representative of those receiv- cause Section personnel were already engaged
ing 75 percent of the attendance were in an interview or the departing anglers
sampled during fifteen sampling periods, were not willing to be interviewed.
and the other two received the balance of
the sampling. The actual sampling dates The fish which were caught were clas-
and time periods for each pier were then sified into two categories, those retained
selected randomly for each month resulting and those that were thrown back or given
in an overall stratified random sampling away. Attempts were made to identify,
scheme. count and record the total length, in mil-

Figure 2. Interview form employed. No.

P I E R S U R V E Y
Morning
Pier -Date Afternoon

1. Residence of party
(City) (State.) Q i-p _C o-d-e T

2. Number of people in par-ty

3. Total time fished

4. How many nights will you stay in area

5. Where will you stay: Friends-relatives Motel

CamPgrounq__Second home Rent

6. Best estimate of expenditures for the following categories during trip:
Bait and tackle Lodging _ Fooq_ _ Gas Oil

7. Did you came to this area strictly to fish? Yes No

If No, what other activities attracted you to this area?

8. How many pier fishing trips do you generally make a year in South Carolina?

9. Species

10. Bait generally used

11. Species caught but not retained Nunber

limeters, of as many retained fish as pos- the daily cost per individual for each cat-
sible. In some cases this was impossible egory. The economic evaluation for the
because the fish had already been cleaned. four primary sectors (Figure 2, question 6)
Under these circumstances, attempts were surveyed was expanded using the three resi-
made to identify the fish and record the dency divisions and their average daily
number taken for each species. The iden- costs to encompass the South Carolina pier
tification of those fish not retained was fishery as a whole.
mainly based on the angler's knowledge or
from a description provided by the angler. Projected total number of individuals
When fish could not be identified, they landed for the six dominant genera of fish
were deleted from the interview record. was based on the assumption that the month-
ly genera catch per unit of effort (fish
The pier anglers were classified into per angler hour) observed on the four piers
one of three categories based on their sampled was representative of all the piers.
place of residency; local residents, in- This catch rate was then expanded by using
state residents residing outside the imme- the total projected effort (angler hours)
diate area of the pier, and out-of-state for all piers to estimate the total number
residents. These three categories were of individuals of a genera harvested.
further sub-divided into those anglers who
zame to the area strictly to fish and Total biomass was calculated for the
those who came to the area for other rea- projected harvest of the four major genera
sons. of the drum family, Sciaenidae, which com-
prised the bulk of the pier catches. This
To determine the distance traveled by calculation was based on the assumption
pier anglers, concentric rings of fifty that length measurements and monthly catch
miles separation were drawn around each per unit of effort for each species were
pier on a highway map of the eastern Unit- representative of the entire pier fishery.
ed States. Then each angler's residence The length-weight formula, log w = a + b -
was-located on the map. Several of the log 1, was used to calculate biomass esti-
residences could not be located. It was mates for these four genera. In the for-
assumed that these were randomly spaced on mula, log w was in grams and log 1 was in
the map, consequently not affecting the millimeters total length. The values of
,data. The number of anglers residing in the constants used in the formulae are
each divisional ring was calculated as a from Shealy, @@t al (In prep.) and are as
percentage of the total number of inter- follows: spot, a = -4.852, b = 2.979; At-
views which were pin-pointed as lying lantic croaker, a = -5.161, b = 3.073;
within each respective division. kingfish, a = -4.970, b = 2.951; and silver
perch, a = -5.311, b = 3.198.
Another item determined was the num-
ber of days spent in the area by in-state
and out-of-state anglers. The length of
stay for each category was figured by Results
taking each interview and multiplying the A total of seventy-eight days was
number of anglers in the party by the num- sampled from April through November 1974 at
ber of nights spent in the area. Then the which time sampling was terminated because
angler days were totaled and divided by the piers had ceased normal operations. A
the number of anglers involved to arrive total of 880 interviews were generated.
at the average number of days spent in the These involved 1,751 anglers which repre-
area by the anglers of each category. sented 2.0 percent of the attendance re-
corded for the four piers during this per-
A comparison was made of the annual iod. An estimated 227,911 angler days were
pier visits by anglers from each of the spent on the piers during this survey. The
three categories. It was assumed that anglers were estimated to have harvested
those people interviewed represented a nor- 923,391 fish in 746,612 hours of effort.
mal cross-section of pier anglers. The
average number of pier visits for each cat- ATTENDANCE
egory was derived by totaling the number of
visits for each of the categories of an- The monthly pier attendance (Table 1)
glers and dividing by the number of inter- reached its major peak in July, coinciding
views. with the peak in the tourist trade for the
Grand Strand area. A secondary peak in
The data on expenditures from all in- October is a reflection of the enthusiasm
terviews were divided into the three resi- anglers have in catching the spot, Leio-
dency categories for summarization. When stomus xanthurus, during its annual fall
an angler gave a range of expenditures for migration throuih the Myrtle Beach area.
a commodity the average of the range was Lowest monthly attendance occurred in No-
used. The total expenditure for each resi- vember and was partly a result of inclement
dency category was derived, and then divid- weather conditions during this period.
ed by the number of anglers involved. This
gave the individual cost per trip which was Of the projected 25,000 anglers who
further divided by the average number of attended -the piers during the study. out-of-
days spent in the area so as to arrive at state anglers accounted for 57.2 percent
of the attendance.

Table 2. Angler attendance and economic projections for South Carolina pier fishery, April through November, 1974.
e,ojecied
Number of Projected
Average Percent Angler Days Total Expenditures
Projected Average Angler Projected Projected Projected of Anglers by Anglers by Anglers
Trip Daily Ann-I Pier Gross Strictly Strictly to Strictly to
@@fy. Expense Expenditure Expenditure Fee. Expenditure to Fish Fish Fish

Local
Residents 37,617 $ 3.09 $ 3.09 $ 116,237 $ 44,476 $ 160,713 97.97 36,853 $ 157,450

In-state
Residents 59,874 41.97 10.71 641,251 70,793 712,044 54.65 32,721 389,132

Out-of-state
Residents 130,420 69.21 10.50 1,369,410 154,203 1,523,613 39.10 50,994 595,732

Total 227,91-1 46.37 9.33 2,126,898 269,472 2,396,370 52.90 120,568 1,142,314

In-state anglers constituted 26.3 percent pier anglers traveled to the coast strict-
of the pier attendance, while the local ly to fish. Among the three groups the
residents accounted for only 16.5 percent local residents had the highest percentage
of the attendance (Table 2). The monthly rate of people who came strictly to fish,
attendance composition (Figure 3) showed 98.0 percent. over half, 54.6 percent, of
significant variations among the months. the in-state residents came to the area to
Out-of-state anglers reached their highest fish while 39.1 percent of the anglers
percentage level in June at 68.8 percent, from out-of-state came to the area solely
while during May they were at their lowest because of the fishing.
level. The in-state anglers reached their
peak percentage in May, 35.2 percent, ANGLER RESIDENCY
dropping the following month to a low of
19.1 percent. Local anglers constituted The data indicated that 88.5 percent
the lowest percentage in every month. of the anglers lived within 250 linear
miles of the piers. More anglers, 34.2
The majority (52.9 percent) of the percent, resided between 150 to 200 miles

OUT OF STATE
STATE RESIDENTS
LOCAL RESIDENTS

70-

65-

60-

50-

X0 45-

40-
z
W
L) 35-
W 30-
0-

25-

20-

15-

10-

0
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT. OCT. NOV.

FIG. 3. MONTHLY COMPOSITION OF PIER ANGLERS IN FEGARD TO THEIR WSIDENCY CATEGORY

30-

20.

Z
W

WO 15-

10.

0-50 50-100 W150 150-200 2OD-250 250-300 300-350 350r-400 400-450 over 500

MILES

FIG. 4. DISTNCE TRAVO.ED BY ANGUTS FISHUIG ON SWM CAROLIM PIERS

(Figure 4) from the pier on which they tronized them showed a significant varia-
fished than any other area. This area tion. More than a third, 35.6 percent, of
contains most of the large metropolitan all out-of-state anglers preferred motels
areas of North Carolina (e.g. Durham, compared to 18.8 percent of all in-state
Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and Charlotte) anglers. Another notable item was that 4.4
along with several of the large metropol- percent of the out-of-state anglers did not
itan areas of both South Carolina and spend at least one night in the area while
Georgia. The area between 50 and 100 28.8 percent of the in-state residents came
miles contributed the second highest per- to the area for only that particular day.
centage of people, 18.4 percent. These Motel and campground lodging accounted for
anglers were mostly day anglers with the over 61 percent of the out-of-state resi-
majority of them returning home at night. dents and 37.1 percent of the in-state
Anglers from states to the north and residents. A lower percent of the in-state
northwest of South Carolina represented residents patronized rental accommodations
the largest portion of the pier users. possibly because a larger portion of them
stayed with either friends or relatives.
LODGING
DURATION OF VISIT AND ANNUAL PIER TRIPS
The data showed a difference in lodging
preference between the in-state and out-of- Out-of-state anglers tended to stay in
state residents (Table 3). The preferred the area 68 percent longer, 6.6 nights,
accommodation by both groups was the motel, than in-state anglers who averaged 3.9
but the proportion of the people which pa- nights per trip. A wide variation was

Table 3 Carparison of lodging preferences for in-state and out--of-state residents presented in percent of total nunber
of anglers for each category.

Friends
and Second Day
Relatives Motel Campground HCM Rent Trip

Out-of-state
Residents 8.85 35.61 25.55 8.45 17.10 4.43

In-state
Residents 10.48 18.78 18.34 9.17 14.41 28.82

Table 4 Average dollar breakdown spent by pier anglers and projected expenditures for five economic sectors, April
through November, 1974.

Bait & Pier Admission
Tackle Lodging Food Gas & Oil Fees

Percent of
Total Expenditure 7.06 36.68 38.42 6.59 11.25

Projected
Value $169,301 $879,047 $920,734 $157,816 $269,472

noted in the estimated number of visits of-state angler spent more money per trip
made annually to the piers among the three ($69.21) than the others, in-state anglers
categories. As would be expected, the spent slightly more on a daily basis. The
local area residents averaged fishing more local pier anglers who were treated as
times annually, 68.7 visits, than did the daily visitors, averaged spending the
in-state residents who averaged 18.5 pier least per day, $3.09. Due to longer trips
visits annually. Out-of-state anglers and the fact that out-of-staters were the
tended to fish the fewest times from the predominant users of piers, their $1.5
piers annually, 6.2 visits, even though a million of expenditures was the highest of
visit was generally made each day they were the categories. The in-state angler
in the area. The average size of the category accounted for approximately
fishing party showed little variation among $712,000. Projected expenditures by the
the three residency categories. The out- local residents trailed far behind the
of-state and local residents averaged 2.0 other categories at slightly over
persons per party while the in-state anglers $160,000. During this eight month period,
averaged 1.9 persons per party. an estimated $2.4 million was spent by
anglers during 228 thousand angler days.
ECONOMICS Considering all monies spent by anglers
who came strictly to pier fish, plus all
The total amount of expenditures on other expenditures on bait, tackle and
pier angling trips is a good indicator admission fees, $1.3 million can be at-
of the magnitude of this segment of the tributed to the South Carolina Pier
coastaX economy. However, the allocation Fishery for the eight month period from
of t11-e_ expenditures to sectors of the April through November, 1974.
economy is important for a good under-
standing of the distribution of benefits ANGLING EFFORT
(See Table 4). Lodging and food estab-
lishments received approximately 75 cents, Average angling time per trip by month
the petroleum industry approximately 7 generally ranged between 2.6 hours and 3.5
cents, and the fishing industry itself ap- hours except in November when a large in-
proximately 18 cents of each dollar crease was noted, 4.6 hours (Figure 5).
brought into the economy by pier anglers. Overall, the anglers spent an average of
The fishing industry's benefits arise from 3.3 hours fishing per visit each month.
pier admission fees and the sale of bait More angling effort was exerted in October,
and tackle. Table 4 indicates that the 156,000 angler hours, than in July which
food sector was estimated to directly had the highest angler attendance but only
benefit by over $920,000 from the pier 142,600 angler hours of effort (Figure 6).
anglers while lodging establishments re- Similarly, November ranked eighth in atten-
ceived direct expenditures of some dance but fifth in effort. April, June and
$879,000. The sale of bait, tackle and August remained in the same relative posi-
pier admission fees resulted in pier tion as far as effort and attendance were
operators receiving an estimated $438,000. concerned. The projected total monthly ef-
Local petroleum dealers directly benefited fort ranged from slightly over 49,000 hours
by an estimated $157,000. in May to nearly 156,000 hours in October.
An estimated 746,000 angler hours were ex-
The economics of the pier fishery pended on the piers during this eight month
were analyzed in regard to the three period.
residency categories (Table 2). This
analvsis showed that even though the out-

D
0

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT. OCT. NOV.

FIG. 5. AVERAGE TIME SPENT FISHING BY PIER ANGLERS PER TRIP ON A MONTHLY BASIS

220- FISH LANDINGS ESTIMATE
210- EFFORT(ANGLER HOURS)

200-

190-

180-

170@

160-

Cn 150-
0
z
< 140-
cn
:D 130-
0
= 120-
F-

110-

IOD-

90-

80.

70-

60-

50-

40-
RIL MAY i JULY AUGUST SEPT. OCT NOV.

FIG. 6. PROJECTED EFFORT (ANGLER HOURS) AND RMER OF FISH HARVESTED FOR THE TWELVE RELIC PIERS

BIOLOGY species were seldom consumed, 25 of the
species are noted food fish. Three addi-
Of the 1751 anglers interviewed, 72% tional species, Urophycis regius, and U
caught at least one fish. Successful an- floridianus, (representing one additional
glers interviewed during the survey har- family, Gadidae) and Scomberomorus cavalla
vested 8.109 fish (Table 5). Thirty-nine were observed to enter the fishery but were
percent of these fish were either thrown not documented in the interviews.
back or given away. A total of 58 species
representing 28 families were documented as Monthly catch-per-unit-of-efforts
entering the landings of the pier fishery (CPUE) fluctuated between 0.73 fish-per-
(Table 5). Though the majority of these angler-hour (FPAH) in June and 2.74 FPAH in

Table 5. Observed fish landings for the four South Carolina piers surveyed, April through November 1974.

April May June July August September October November Total
Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus 445 176 289 405 84 120 1055 306 2880

Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus 628 359 272 521 190 80 23 84 2157

King fishes, menticirrhus 265 237 91 135 97 98 232 221 1376
M. littoralis

Silver perch, Bairduiella chrysura 287 26 6 6 1 1 20 30 377

Florida pamopanc,Trachinotus carolinus - - 2 35 91 127 53 10 318

Bluefish,Pomatomus saltatrix 43 60 52 68 19 7 58 10 317

Sea catfishes,Arius felis, 14 49 11 41 14 4 3 - 136
bagre mauinus

Weakfish, Cynoscion regalis 13 1 - 5 - 7 46 6 78

Spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus - 8 6 59 3 - 1 - 77

Seatrout, Cynoscion spp. 7 1 - 2 - 2 6 11 29

Sea basses,Centropristis, C. 7 1 6 1 4 8 12 15 54
philadelphica

Searobins, prinonotus tribulus
P. evolans and P. carolinus 1 - 3 12 23 9 4 1 53

Oyster toadfish,Opsanus tau - 3 16 9 1 5 6 1 41

Requiem and Hammerhead sharks 8 5 6 6 4 - 1 - 30
Carcharhinus limbatus, C. milberti
C. obscurus, Mustelus canis, Negaprion
brevirostris, Sphyna tiburo, S.zygaena

Atlantic menhaden,Brevoortia tyrannus - - 27 - - - 1 - 28

Stingrays and Eagle rays, Dasyatis 2 1 - 1 - 6 6 5 21
sabina, gymnura micruna,aetobatus
marinari, Rhinoptera bonasus

Crevalle jack, Caranx hippos - - - - 11 2 2 1 16

Summerer flounder,Paralichtys dentatus, 3 3 1 - - 3 3 2 15

Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera - - 2 1 1 1 4 - 9

Flounders Paralichthys spp. 2 2 1 - 1 - 2 - 8

Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus - - - - - - 3 5 8

Southern flounder, Paralichthys - - - - 7 - - - 7
lethostigma

Stardrum,Stellifer laneolatus 1 - - 1 1 - 1 3 7

Black drum,Pogonias cromis - - - - - - 4 3 7

Atlantic bumper,Chloroscombrus - - - - - 3 4 - 7
chrysurus

Mullets,Mugil cephalus, M. curema - - 1 1 2 2 - - 6

Spanish mackerel,Scomberomorus - - - - - 6 - - 5
maculatus

Red drum, Sciaenops ocellata - - - 2 - 1 2 - 5

Pinfish,Lagodon rhomboides - - 3 2 - - - - 5

Snake eels,Ophichthus gomesi, - 1 - 1 - 2 1 - 5
0cellatus

Atlantic spadefish,Chaetdipte faber - - 5 - - - - - 5

Atlantic cutlassfish, Trichiurus - - - 1 2 - - - 3
lepturus

Ladyfish, Elops saurus - - - - - - 3 - 3

Balo, HEmiramphus balao - - - - 2 - - - 2

Inshore lizardfish, Synodus foetens - - 1 - 1 - - - 2

Harvestfish, Peprilus alepidotus - - - - - - - 2 2

Puffers, Sphoeroides maculatus, - 1 - - - 1 - - 2
Lagocephauls caevigatus

Sheepshead,archosargus probatocephalus - - - - - - 1 - 1

Tomtate, Maemulon aurolineatum - - - - - 1 - - -

Windowpane, Scopthalumes aquosus 1 - - - - - - - 1

Angelfish, Molacanthus sp. - - 1 - - - - - 1

Barracuda,Sphyraena sp - - 1 - - - - - 1

Cobia,Rachycentron canadum - 1 - - - - - - 1

2.7-

2.5-

0 2.01

O*L-APRIL MAY JUINE JULY AUGUST SEPT. Oct. NOV.
FIG. 7. MWMLY CATCH-PER-LJNIT-T-EFFORT (FISH PER ANGLER HDUR) FOR ALL SPECIES OF FISH CALIGHT
ON THE PIERS

SPOT
CROAKER
KINGFISH

POMPANO
SILVER PERCH
1.0- F_-1 BLUEFISH
it
:D 0.9-
0
X 0.8-
Ir
W 0.7-
_J
0 0.&
z

Q5_

W
0.4-

U) 0.31
LL 0.2-

X
il
0 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT OCT. NO'V.

FIG. 8, MONTHLY CATCH-PER-LNIT-OF-EFFORT (FISH PER ANGLER HOUR) FOR THE SIX MOST AUNDAN'T

GENERA OF FISH

April (Figure 7). Five months (April, May, while pompano were taken chiefly in August
July, October and November) produced CPUE's and September. Spot displayed two peak
above the 1.00 FPAH indicating these as months in its productivity, April and Oc-
prime fishing months, while the CPUE's for tober.
April and May exceeded 1.5 FPAH. Overall,
the monthly CPUE averaged 1.24 FPAH. Four families of fish accounted for
over 96 percent of the fish harvested.
In a comparison of the monthly CPUE These families were the drums (Sciaenidae)
for the six most abundant genera of fish with 85.8 percent, the jacks (Carangidae)
(Figure 8), the Atlantic croaker yielded with 4.6 percent, the bluefishes (Pomato-
the single highest monthly CPUE at 1.00 midae) with 3.9 percent and the sea cat-
FPAH in April. The second highest monthly fishes (Ariidae) with 1.7 percent. Six
CPUE for a single species, 0.81 FPAH for genera, Leiostomus, Micropogon, Menticir
spot occurred during October. Spot pro- rhus, Trachinotus, Bairdiella, and Pomato-
duced the highest sustained yield averag- mus, representing three of the families,
ing 0.44 FPAH over the duration of the sur- namely the drums, the jacks and the blue-
vey. Croaker and kingfish followed with fish, comprised 91 percent of all fish
overall CPUE's of 0.33 and 0.21 FPAH re- harvested.
spectively.
Total length measurements were re-
Using the monthly CPUE as an indica- corded for 2,342 individuals belonging to
tor of species' abundance, anglers inter- the dominant six genera. This represented
ested in catching croaker, kingfish and over 31 percent of the actual recorded
silver perch would have the most liklihood landings, including those fish not retain-
of success in April and May. Peak catches ed during the sampling periods. Over 90
of bluefish occurred in April and May percent of these measurements belonged to

the top four species of the drum family. The projected monthly catch for the
six dominant genera (Table 6) accounted
As expected, anglers generally re- for 841,000 individuals, representing 91.2
tained only the larger specimens caught. percent of the total projected catch dur-
Spots harvested during the survey ranged ing the survey. The four drum family mem-
from 126 mm total length (TL) to 280 mm TL bers accounted for an estimated 766,000
with a mean of 213 mm TL (Figure 9). individuals representing 83 percent of the
Croakers ranged in size from 160 mm TL to total estimated catch. The spot alone ac-
403 mm TL with a mean of 215 mm TL. The counted for 36 percent of the total pro-
kingfishes ranged from 113 to 405 mm TL, jected catch from the public piers.
and had a mean total length of 231 mm.
Pompano caught from the piers ranged from July, which had the highest angler
114 mm TL to 366 mm TL with a mean length attendance, produced the greatest fish
of 193 mm TL. Bluefish varied in size harvest with a projected 214,000 fish
from 145 mm TL to 352 mm TL. The mean being taken (Figure 6). October, which
size of the bluefish was 245 mm TL. Sil- had the highest angling effort produced
ver perch, which is a smaller fish, ranged the second largest catch with an estimat-
from 130 to 235 mm TL and had a mean ed 186,000 fish being caught. September
length of 178 mm TL. proved to be the least productive month

FIG. 9 LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR THE SIX DOMINANT GENERA OF FISH CAUGHT ON
SOUTH CAROLINA PIERS

Table 6. Projected number of fishes landed by month for the six dominant genera.

April May June July August September October November Total
Spot, Leiostomus xanthuAu6 41687 14697 25450 66027 12866 11616 126350 33513 332206
Atlantic croaker,MicAopogon undutatu,6 S8832 29976 23953 84926 29101 7746 2761 9202 246497
Kingfishes, MenticiAAhu6 ameAicanuz, 24826 19793 8010 22009 14857 9484 27781 24201 150961
M. uttoL@

Florida pompano, TAachinotus caAotinu6 - - 175 5705 13940 12295 6349 1099 39563
Silver perch,Bai&dieUa chAyAuAa 26888 2170 524 984 153 97 2402 3288 36506
Bluefish, Pomatomuz sattatAix 4031 5008 4583 11083 291-1 678 678 6941 35913

in terms of the number of fish harvested. percent of the anglers were fishing spe-
Three months, April, July and October, cifically for king mackerel and/or cobia.
accounted for almost 61 percent of the Many other species such as croaker,
fish harvested during the eight month sheepshead, black drum, red drum, pompano
survey period. and Spanish mackerel were also sought but
at a much lower frequency.
Biomass caught during the entire sur-
vey period was calculated for spot, croak-
er, kingfish and silver perch. Over Discussion
191,000 pounds of these fish were project- The pier fishing industry is a sig-
ed to have been landed on the piers. nificant marine recreational activity in
Spots were calculated to account for the South Carolina. Approximately 25,000
largest proportion, 91,000 pounds, while people participated in this fishery dur-
the croaker followed in second place with ing the eight months from April through
54,000 pounds. Kingfish, which ranked November, 1974 and generated approximate-
third in both number of individuals har- ly 228,000 angler days of effort. Over
vested and in poundage, produced an esti- 8,200 of these anglers came from other
mated 38,000 pounds. The total catch for states specifically to enjoy the pier
silver perch, which is a notably smaller fishing opportunities in South Carolina.
species of fish, was projected to be 8,000 Pier anglers injected $2.4 million di-
pounds. This 191,000 pounds represents rectly into the local business economy.
only 83 percent of the individual fish Of this amount, $1.3 million can be di-
harvested during the eight month period. rectly attributed to the presence of the
Thus, a reasonable estimate would be that pier fishing industry.
over 220,000 pounds of fish were harvested
from the piers during the course of this This study showed definite socio-
survey. economic patterns among the anglers in each
of the three residency categories. The
BAIT PREFERENCE average out-of-state angler resided between
150 and 200 miles from the pier. He spent
Though many anglers used a variety six nights in the area staying at a motel
of baits, dead shrimp was definitely pre- or campground. He averaged fishing 6;2
ferred and was used by over 91 percent of times from a pier annually, spending $69.21
the anglers. Cut fish was the second most during the stay. In-state anglers averaged
popular bait with 14 percent of the an- spending four nights in the area of the
glers using it. Bloodworms and earthworms piers, staying at either a motel or a camp-
were two other popular baits. Live bait ground and spending $41.97 during the visit.
(shrimp, minnows, and other small species The in-state anglers fished an average of
of fish) were popular among 8 percent of 18.5 times a year on South Carolina piers.
the anglers. The anglers who used either Local pier anglers averaged fishing 68.7
cut fish or live bait were those who times from piers in South Carolina annually
sought a particular species of fish. An- while spending an average of $3.09 during
glers who sought no particular species of each trip.
fish typically used dead shrimp.
As a whole, pier anglers averaged stay-
SPECIES OF FISH SOUGHT ing five nights in the area and spent $46.37
during the stay. They averaged 19.7 fishing
Over 71 percent of the pier anglers trips to the piers annually. Each angler
sought no particular "species" of fish. spent 3.3 hours fishing and caught 4.1 fish
Those anglers who did pursue particular per visit to the pier on the average.
fish, generally were seeking more than
one species each trip. Spot and kingfish Anglers utilizing South Carolina
were the two most sought after species piers expended 746,612 man hours indulg-
with over 10 percent and 9 percent, re- ing in this sport. This fishery pro-
spectively, of the anglers seeking them. duced a projected 183,000 pounds of spot,
Flounder, sea trout, and bluefish were croaker, and kingfish during the eight
three species that were also sought after months of the survey. This poundage of
regularly. A notable item is that over 3 fish amounted to 36 percent of the total

commercial landing for these three types
of fish in South Carolina during 1974.
These data document an added source of Literature Cited
marine fish entering the American food
market while giving an indication of the Shealy, M.H., Jr., C.R. Richter and B.B.
pressure applied by pier anglers to fish Stamey. In Prep. Length-weight rela-
stocks in South Carolina. tionships, length frequency patterns,
and body condition factors for nine
The pier industry plays an important sciaenid fishes in South Carolina es-
role in the state's recreational and tuaries.
tourism business. Not only does it at-
tract large numbers of people to the
northern coast of South Carolina, but it
also offers an additional recreation out-
let to those who come to the area for
other reasons. The industry attracts
fresh money from outside South Carolina,
injecting it into the area's and state's
economy with a much larger economic
multiplier than another business, which
deals with monies already within the area
or state. Additionally, the aesthetic
value derived by the participants in this
sport is immensely important and even
though it cannot be measured, it is a
factor that cannot be overlooked.

or"
P@ 'N4,

@,T,77

;kw

4r,
JI,

,rIf

W-W

MAC
.16668 14100 0713

I
I

Date Due

- -- - -1 1
I- --d

LIBRARY, USDC/NOAA/NMFS
P.O. Box 12607
CHARLESTON, SC 29412

4 2- .0 bf"A