Detailed Scottish Sea Angling Study

Technical ReportEconomic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland

The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2009

Technical ReportEconomic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland

© Crown copyright 2009

ISBN: 978-0-7559-9068-9 (web only)

Fishing Communities & Inshore Management Team

Marine Scotland – Sea Fisheries Policy

Room 511

Pentland House

47 Robb’s Loan

Edinburgh

EH14 1TY

Tourism

Promotion of Scotland and Tourism Division

Culture, External Affairs and Tourism

Area 2-J North

Victoria Quay

Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

Produced for the Scottish Government by RR Donnelley B61548 7/09

Published by the Scottish Government, July, 2009

1

Division of Public Policy

GRID ECONOMICS

Cogent Research

International Ltd.

Technical Report:

Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in

Scotland

Tender reference SAG/0005/07

Prepared for the Scottish Government

July 2009

CogentsiCOGENT STRATEGIES INTERNATIONAL LTD

2

FOREWORD

The Scottish Government commissioned this study, which was undertaken by Alan Radford at

Glasgow Caledonian University and Geoff Riddington of Grid Economics. Cogentsi Research

International Ltd constructed the models of the regional economies. The work at Cogentsi

Research International Ltd was undertaken by Professor Hervey Gibson.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout this study a high level of assistance was provided by many individuals and

organisations connected with sea angling. The authors are deeply indebted to the anglers who

completed questionnaires. In addition, there were many individuals who provided valuable

assistance and advice. Particular thanks go to Steve Bastiman, John Crowther, Robert

Henderson, Rob Roberts, Ian Burrett, Eric McLean, Mike Horn, Gerry Wilson, Roy Anderson,

Iain Rendell, Robbie Wells and Bill McLaughlan.

OUTPUTS

The output from the project exists in various forms:

Technical Report Provides a literature review, full details of all aspects of the research

process, including construction of the models of the local economy

and associated outputs.

Executive Summary An overview of the principal results presented at a high level of

aggregation

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Previously, very little was known about the scale of sea angling, its distribution across Scotland,

or the economic impact of sea anglers’ expenditure. In these circumstances, it is possible that sea angling could have been over-looked when fisheries, tourism and coastal developments

were being considered. The Scottish Government has sought to rectify this by commissioning

this assessment of sea angling and its contribution to employment and income both in Scotland

as a whole and its regions.

1 Objectives

The broad aims of the study were to: � estimate the economic impact of sea angling, � identify:

- the important local sea angling centres; - the main competing areas within and outwith Scotland; - the principal characteristics of the sea angling sector; - the key trends and;

� consider future prospects for the sector.

2 Study Overview and Methods

Sea angling is a diverse activity in terms of the variety of species targeted, locations and participants. The larger the geographical area under consideration the greater is the possibility that this diversity might be obscured.

Regional approach. In recognition of this, the study partitioned Scotland into eight regions based largely around the new Economic Development Offices (which also function as Tourist Office regions). These were as follows:

� Argyll and Lochaber (southern half of the HIE area); � Dumfries and Galloway; � Glasgow and the West; � Edinburgh and the East (including The Borders, Fife and Stirlingshire); � the North East including Perthshire and Moray; � The North (northern half of the HIE area); � The Western Isles; � Orkney and Shetland.

For each of the eight areas, as well as Scotland as a whole, the study was tasked with estimating such indicators as:

� overall sea angling activity levels, measured in angler days; � the number of home and visiting anglers; � the distribution of angler days across shore, private and charter boats; � the target species; � angler expenditure; � the economic contribution of sea angling to regional incomes and employment.

4

Including Scotland as a whole, the study therefore aims to provide a detailed, quantitative assessment of the economics of sea angling across nine geographical areas.

In addition, five case study areas were selected, reflecting not only the diversity of characteristics but also contemporary issues relating to sea angling in Scotland. The case study areas were:

� the Upper Clyde Estuary; � Luce Bay (Dumfries and Galloway); � Orkney; � Loch Etive (Argyll); � East Grampian (between Stonehaven and Arbroath).

Survey Methods. Given the above objectives and the paucity of secondary data, extensive primary data needed to be collected from sea anglers and other stakeholders. The following broad strategy was developed:

� Sea angling questions were incorporated into a Scottish omnibus telephone survey.1

The questions were designed to reveal the sea angling participation rate both across Scotland and in the eight regions. They also provided information on the characteristics of anglers and unbiased estimates of: the total number of days anglers devote to sea angling, the proportion of sea angling undertaken in their own region and the distribution of angler fishing effort across shore, private boat and charter boat. In total, the sea angling questions were presented to 15,037 Scottish individuals. The sampling unit was Scottish adults. It was therefore necessary to use a combination of information from other surveys and published data to estimate juveniles and visiting sea anglers2.

� An angler survey was used to identify: the distribution of visits across the eight regions; angler expenditure per day; species fished; specific locations used; angler opinions and trends in fishing activity. An internet questionnaire was authored, piloted, amended and loaded to a Glasgow Caledonian University server. Awareness of the questionnaire’s URL among sea anglers was facilitated through press coverage and the distribution of thirty five thousand postcards to tackle shops, angling clubs and charter boat proprietors and other providers of angling services.

� A Stakeholder Survey. A list of key personnel within the wider sea angling community was established encompassing anglers, tackle shop owners, charter boat operators, sea angling officials, hoteliers, boat suppliers and repairers, owners of caravan and campsites. Some were telephoned, whilst others were visited. A questionnaire was used to provide a common framework for each discussion. This survey informed a SWOT analysis and the assessment of sea angling trends and prospects.

� On-Site Surveys were used to provide insight into juvenile expenditure and activity levels.

� With respect to case study areas, less precise estimates of the economic contribution of sea angling were developed using a top down approach based on interviews with suppliers of angling services (tackle shops, charter vessels, self drive rentals, boat and

1 Undertaken by Progressive Ltd of Edinburgh. 2 The UK Tourist Survey, The UK Time Use Survey (2000), The TNS Fishing Report (2007).

5

outboard suppliers, hotels, B&Bs, caravan parks, camp sites, self-catering accommodation). Many of these also provided input to the stakeholder survey.

An overview and summary details of the surveys are given in the Table below:

Table 1. Surveys Undertaken and Utilised

Name Commissioned by Conducted by Method Size Key Data Obtained

ScottishOmnibus

This Study ProgressivePartnership

Telephone 15,037

Participation Rate by Region.Angler Characteristics.Number of Days by broad destination and type.

Internet This Study ResearchTeam

Internet 501

Expenditure. Destination of trips away from home region.Substitution.Species fished.Locations Used.Changes in Fishing Activity.Activity Days per Trip.

UK Tourist Survey

VisitScotland et al TNS

Household & Individual Face to Face

97,000 Number of trips to Scotland for Fishing.

Fishing Report

VisitScotland TNSActivitiesPanelMail Survey

1,452Percent of anglers who go sea fishing.Activity Days per Trip.

Time UseSurvey

ONS

Household & IndividualFace to Face

12,000Juvenile to adult ratios in sea angling.

StakeholderSurvey

This Study ResearchTeam

Face to Face,Telephone

95Activity and expenditure in case studies.Trends and Prospects.

Angler On- Site

This Study ResearchTeam

Face to Face

120Juvenile expenditure. Trends and Prospects.

3 Key Concepts and Estimation Procedures

The distribution of both days fished per angler and expenditure per sea angler day were found to be highly skewed. Contemporary research suggests that when skewed distributions are found Robust Estimates based on the trimmed means are more accurate. In this study, angler activity levels and expenditure are presented using Robust Estimates based on the 5% trimmed mean3.

The full effect on regional income and employment of each pound of the (Robust) sea angler expenditure depends on what the angler purchases and the strength of the direct, indirect andinduced effects. The regional direct effect is the increase in regional local income and employment arising directly from sea angler expenditure. Through a combination of taxation and the purchase of supplies from outside, a proportion of angler expenditure will be immediately lost to the region, and can be ignored. The proportion remaining creates the direct effect on those supplying angling services such as hotels, angling charter businesses, tackle

3 The Annex of the Main Report contains estimates using untrimmed means. These estimates are much larger than the Robust Estimates.

6

shop etc. Indirect effects arise from the direct effect. For example, a local hotel may purchase butcher supplies from within the region. In turn, the local butcher may purchase supplies from the local abattoir who may take supplies from local farms. Thus, the income of a diverse range of jobs and household incomes in the region will ultimately be dependent on sea angler spending. Also a proportion of the regional income that is dependent on sea angling will also be spent on goods produced within the region, creating further increases in regional income and employment. This is the induced effect. The direct, indirect and induced effects were modelled for each of the nine geographical areas using the Detailed Regional Economic Accounting Model (DREAM®) developed by CogentSI4. In regional economic analysis, there is an important distinction between economic activity currently supported by angler expenditure and the economic impact of angler expenditure. The former simply describes the regional household income and employment that is currently dependent on the current expenditure of sea anglers. Economic impact assessment seeks to estimate what would happen within the region if sea angling ceased completely. In such a scenario, some sea angler expenditure would switch to other substitute activity in the region (e.g. brown trout, hunting, golf) thereby supporting other jobs in the region. Crucially, a proportion of sea angler expenditure would be diverted outside the region creating a net loss of jobs and income. The internet survey specifically asked sea anglers what they would do if sea angling ceased. From their responses, the study is able to undertake a substitution analysis which estimates the net loss in regional expenditure, income and employment. The „economic impact‟ of sea angling is this net loss of income and jobs.

4 Principal Results

In this Executive Summary it is not feasible to present the detailed results for each of the eight regions. The main report should be consulted for details by region of:

the popular shore and boat locations within the region;

the target species in the region;

the expenditure by category, by angling type (shore, own boat, charter) and by visitor type (Home, Scottish, Rest of the UK);

direct, indirect and induced expenditure, multipliers, jobs and income currently supported by angler expenditure;

the substitution patterns for each angler visitor type;

the jobs and income that would be lost if angling ceased.

Similarly, the main report should be consulted for detailed description and discussion relating to the five case study areas. The main Report is available online at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/seaanglingstudy.

4.1 Scottish and Regional Angler Effort and Expenditure The Table below summarises the estimates of adult angler activity and expenditure occurring in each region and in Scotland as a whole. It is estimated that 125,188 adults went sea angling in Scotland (plus some 23,445 juveniles). From the first column, it can be seen that Glasgow and the West has the greatest number of adult resident sea anglers (23,548 anglers). From column two, it also has the greatest number

4 Cogent Strategies International Ltd, Killylung House, Dumfries DG2 0RL, Scotland.

7

of angler days (269,783 days), despite relatively poor sea angling. From column five, Edinburgh Fife and the South East Region has the greatest total expenditure (£26.896m). Total expenditure on sea angling across the whole of Scotland was £140.868m.

A recent study of the economic contribution of Scotland’s game and coarse angling estimated that game and coarse anglers spent a total of £131m (salmon and sea trout £85.6; brown trout £17.2m; rainbow trout £22.6m; coarse fish £5.76m)5. It would appear that, in terms of angler expenditure, sea angling is as significant as all Scottish freshwater angling combined.

Table 2. Estimated Regional Sea Angling Activity and Expenditure (£’000s)

RegionNumber of Resident Sea Anglers6

Annual Sea Angler Days in Region

Annual Trip Expenditurein Region

Annual Capital Expenditure in Region

Total Annual Sea Angler Expenditure

Argyll & Lochaber 5,825 252,615 £16,744 £5,879 £22,623

Dumfries &Galloway

3,224 233,080 £16,247 £9,048 £25,294

Glasgow and West 23,548 269,783 £16,481 £7,645 £24,126

North East Scotland 8,904 234,307 £9,818 £5,659 £15,477

NorthernScotland 7,894 144,346 £8,909 £2,251 £11,160

Edinburgh,Fife and South East

20,455 250,868 £13,902 £12,994 £26,896

WesternIsles 2,515 80,567 £5,518 £3,672 £9,190

Orkney & Shetland 2,823 74,640 £3,949 £2,153 £6,102

Outwith Scotland

50,000 NA NA NA NA

Total 125,188 1,540,206 £91,567 £49,301 £140,868

The Table below summarises the net inflow or outflow of angler activity and expenditure. From the first column, Glasgow and the West also has the greatest net export of adult angler effort (150,798 days). Associated with this, there is a net outflow from the region of £11.377m of sea

5 Radford, A. and Riddington, G. (2004)The Economic Impact of Game and Coarse Fishing in Scotland. For SEERAD, November 2004. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19506/38879

6 This is number of resident sea anglers who fished in Scotland during the last year.

8

angler expenditure. In contrast Dumfries and Galloway, which has a better reputation for sea angling, has the largest net inflow of sea angler effort (213,906 days), and the greatest annual net inflow of expenditure £23.793m.

Table 3. Net Flow of Angler Activity and Expenditure (£’000s)

RegionAnnual Net Inflow (+) and Outflow (-) of Angler Days

Annual Net Inflow (+) and Outflow (-) of Angler Expenditure

Argyll & Lochaber 121,947 £11,164

Dumfries & Galloway 213,906 £23,793

Glasgow and West -150,798 -£11,377

North East Scotland 93,967 £6,902

Northern Scotland 25,308 £1,998

Edinburgh, Fife and South East -91,661 -£2,123

Western Isles 44,737 £5,923

Orkney & Shetland 44,620 £7,117

Outwith Scotland -302,026 -£43,398

Total 0 £0

4.2 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scotland Table 4 below summarises sea angling’s current economic contribution in terms of jobs and income supported as well as the net loss of income and employment if sea angling were to cease to exist. The table shows that, currently, sea angling supports 3,148 Full Time Job Equivalents (FTEs)7 and £69.67m annually of Scottish household income in the form of wages, self employment income, rents and profits. If sea angling ceased we could expect a net loss of at least 1,675 FTEs and annual income loss of £37m.

Table 4. Economic Contribution of Sea Angling

Currently Supported Would be Lost

Jobs Income (£’000s) Jobs Income (£’000s)3,148 FTEs £69,670 1,675 FTEs £37,042

4.3 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scottish Regions Table 5 summarises the estimates for each of the eight regions. Note that the jobs and incomes lost would not be expected to sum to the Scotland equivalent figure because loss to one region normally results in gains in another and smaller loss to Scotland as a whole.8

7 A single FTE could be one full-time all year post, or two part-time jobs, or two seasonal jobs, or four part-time seasonal jobs. Thus, 3148 FTEs could translate to, say, the jobs of over 4,000 individuals. 8 The Scottish total for jobs and income supported was estimated by running a model of the Scottish economy and not by summing the totals for each region. Because of these procedural differences, there will be slight differences between the Scottish total and the regional sum, though conceptually they should be identical.

9

Table 5. The Economic Impact of Sea Angling by Region


Jobs Income (£’000s) Jobs Income (£’000s)

Argyll & Lochaber 524 £8,446 392 £6,342

Dumfries and Galloway 534 £7,714 462 £6,670

Glasgow and West 523 £11,892 249 £5,657

North East Scotland 343 £7,319 226 £4,822

Northern Scotland 299 £5,009 167 £2,800

Edinburgh, Fife and South East 504 £11,866 397 £9,370

Western Isles 184 £3,172 117 £2,028

Orkney & Shetland 145 £2,498 96 £1,657

4.4 The important local centres for sea angling in Scotland Table 6 identifies the number of internet respondents who identified a particular location they used for own boat charter/launching.

Table 6. Twenty Six Most Popular Launch Sites.9

Launch Site Number Launch Site Number

Drumore/Portpatrick 115 Taynuilt/Bonawe 25 Luce Bay 112 Rothesay 23

Oban 82 N. Berwick 23

Arbroath 65 Ardrishaig 22

Whithorn 51 Peterhead 21

Stranraer 49 Lochgilp 19

Dunbar 47 Tobermory 19

Thurso 43 Loch Aline 18 Girvan 43 Ayr 17

Sunart 40 Port Logan 12

Inverclyde 30 Crinan 12

Stonehaven 27 Lochinver 11

Stornoway 25 Wick 9

Table 7 below, identifies the number of internet respondents who identified a particular location they used for shore angling.

9 Names in italics were not on the drop down menu in the internet questionnaire but were written in by respondents.

10

Table 7. Thirty Most Popular Shore Areas

Shore Area Nos Shore Area Nos

Luce Bay 153 Nigg to St Cyrus 68

Mull of G to Stranraer 151 N.Clyde 68

Fyne 132 Nairn to Peterhead 61

Etive 120 St.Andrews -Earlsferry 56

Gareloch/Loch Long 112 Cruden Bay to Nigg Bay 55

St Cyrus to Montrose 102 Inner Forth 53

West Kintyre/Oban 96 Morvern-Mallaig 51

Wigton Bay 95 Cowal/Bute 49

N.Berwick-St Abbs 90 Skye 45

Inner Solway 89 Kyle -Ullapool 43

Ballantrae to Wemys Bay 84 South Tay 42

Lorne/Linhe 79 Cumbrae 41

Inverclyde 75 Newport-St Andrews 38

South Queensferry - Nth Berwick 75 Ullapool-Durness 37

Peterhead to Cruden Bay 68 EarlsFerry-Inverkeithing 34

4.5 The main competing areas both within and outwith Scotland It seems that sea anglers will participate provided there is the reasonable prospect of catching fish. For many anglers the main determinant of fishing mark is distance from home. Nearly 43% of Scotland’s population resides within 5km of the shore and the participation rate in these “coastal” areas is double that of inland areas.

The combination of fish stock characteristics and abundance, the local physical geography and the size of the local population will largely determine the extent and type of local sea angling.Dumfries and Galloway, particularly Luce Bay and the Mull of Galloway, have relatively sheltered waters, good shore access and a variety and reasonable abundance of sea fish. It therefore supports shore, own boat and charter sea angling. Indeed, the majority of the sea anglers are visitors to the region. In contrast, the Firth of Clyde has relatively poor fish stocks and is not capable of supporting regular charter activity, though the local population size means there are reasonable numbers of local (shore) anglers who rely heavily on migratory fish stocks such as mackerel. Own boat and charter boat angling is popular elsewhere on the West Coast where there are a number of excellent sheltered lochs enabling safe comfortable fishing. In Orkney, shore angling and own boat angling is largely undertaken by local anglers, though fish abundance and variety is sufficient to attract visiting charter anglers. Along the East Coast, there are charter vessels out of Arbroath and to a lesser extent Stonehaven. On this coast, shore angling is relatively more popular as there are extensive beaches and, in winter, cod.

In every area, two of the three most popular fish are mackerel and pollack. Cod is now rare on the West Coast, whereas in the North East it is the most popular species. Dogfish appears to be a popular West Coast target with coley and flatfish forming a second tier of target species. Further details of the relative popularity of each species in each region are given in the main report.

Specialist and competition anglers are willing, regularly, to travel further and the attraction is often the size of the fish. Among other possibilities, Scotland offers the prospect of catching

11

tope in Luce Bay, porbeagle in the Northern Isles and North Coast, rays/skate in Argyll and in the Western Isles and conger in Orkney.

Within the UK, sea anglers identified the South Coast of England and Cornwall as alternatives to charter boat angling in Scotland. Internationally, many sea anglers fish, or aspire to fish, in Norway, Iceland and Ireland. Although expensive, Florida and the Caribbean are regarded as offering good value for money because of the size, variety and quantity of fish that could be caught.

4.6 The principal characteristics of the recreational sea angling sector Sea angling is an activity carried out by all ages and classes roughly in line with the proportion in the population at large. Middle aged, skilled working men form a group somewhat larger than their proportion in the population. Juveniles, however, are relatively more likely to fish than their elders and men almost six times more likely than females. By its nature sea angling can be an activity for all the family and many women seem to participate as part of the family experience.

The number of days fished by each person is extremely wide with a trimmed mean of 5.46 for anglers from the rest of the UK and 16.85 for Scottish sea anglers giving an overall 12.30 days per angler. However these figures mask massive variations with some anglers reporting over 200 or even 300 days per annum but 51% reporting less than 10

Expenditure is similarly widely spread with some individuals, particularly, but not exclusively, own boat anglers spending as much as £10,000 a year in total on their sport and others (such as juveniles) spending less than £50. The trimmed mean cost of a days adult sea angling, including allowance for capital spend on items times like rods and boats comes to a surprisingly high £110 per day. The mean annual expenditure in Scotland by adult sea anglers was £1,516.

4.7 The key trends in the sector In the 1970s and 1980s Scottish tourist and angling publications proclaimed that Scotland offered exciting sea angling, record sized fish and that the country comprised Europe’s greatest untapped potential angling grounds.10

There is a belief among sea anglers that this untapped potential has not been realised. Most participants in the stakeholder survey believed that there were fewer sea anglers now than 20 or 10 years ago and they also expected the downward trend to continue. Indeed, the Firth of Clyde case study revealed evidence to support the view that, in the Clyde, angling has declined significantly, largely because of a decline in sea fish abundance.

On the other hand, respondents to the internet questionnaire revealed that their activity was very similar or slightly higher than levels 20 and 10 years ago. The exception was anglers from Glasgow and the West where the decline of fish stocks in the Clyde has had serious repercussions on participation. It should also be recognised that those who are disillusioned, or have given up, would probably not complete the internet questionnaire. Consequently, the decline revealed by the stakeholder survey could be more reliable than the apparent slight increase reported by internet respondents. For those internet respondents whose activity levels have increased the key determinant was an increase in their leisure time. This is likely to

10 For example, Scotland For Sea Angling, 1973, Scottish Tourist Board and Scotland, 1987, For Fishing. Produced by Pastime Publications (Edinburgh) and distributed by the British Tourist Authority

12

continue. For those whose activity levels had decreased the major reason cited was lack of fish.

5 The future prospects for the sector

There is significant potential for growth in Scottish sea angling. Scotland has many beautiful, peaceful, un-crowded angling areas, an extensive range of native sea species many of which are still available, a diverse shoreline and safe sheltered coastal waters offering the possibility of all year round fishing. The coastal communities themselves have excess capacity of visitor accommodation and an enviable reputation for welcoming visitors. There is an infrastructure of breakwaters, harbours, piers and slipways and an emerging network of Scottish marinas for berthing and maintaining own boats, particularly on the Firth of Clyde and the West Coast. An established system of sea angling clubs exists to encourage sea anglers to develop their interest and participate in competitions. Additionally, sea angling can be a healthy outdoor activity in which whole families can participate. It can promote mental and physical well-being, and, in some areas, participation may reduce youth crime. The inexpensive start up costs and the absence of access or licence charges mean youngsters and individuals on low incomes are able to start and to participate regularly.

There is evidence from abroad, particularly in the USA, that improvements in the quality of sea angling generate very substantial increases in angling activity, incomes and employment. If Scotland were to achieve a 50% increase in sea angling activity levels this would secure a minimum of 1,675 FTEs and could possibly add a further 840 FTEs. The difference between the loss of sea angling and its enhancement could be 2,515 FTEs.11

It may be possible to achieve some growth simply by more energetically promoting sea angling and hoping that increased participation will subsequently lead to greater investment in businesses supplying angler services. The problem is that the returns from promotional initiatives could be low if the perception among stakeholders remains one of long term decline.The key to unlocking the potential of sea angling is to ensure the availability of fish stocks for anglers to catch. There are concerns that underlying uncertainty about fish stock abundance deters new entrants, reduces the willingness of anglers to invest in capital equipment (e.g. boats, engines, caravans) and undermines the confidence of those who might otherwise invest in sea angling services (e.g. charter vessels, tackle shops, accommodation services).

To the extent that the Scottish Government can influence the abundance of stocks exploited by sea anglers, it has an important role in sea angling’s future. With the Scottish Government’s recent publication of its Strategic Framework for Scottish Freshwater Fisheries and, given work in England and Wales, sea angling in Scotland may soon be the only major UK angling sector not underpinned by a government backed strategy, despite having an economic contribution similar to that of all Scotland’s freshwater angling.

A strategy for Scottish sea angling that set out aspirations and priority actions for the protection and eventual further development of the sector would give those in the industry a greater confidence to invest and develop their services, and would enable effective promotion of Scottish sea angling by the appropriate agencies. On the other hand, a strategy that attached a relatively low priority to sea angling, whilst reducing the underlying uncertainty, might accelerate disinvestment and job loss.

11 These are indicative based on an assumption of linear relationships.

13

List of Tables

Table 2.6.1: Economic Activity Supported by Freshwater Angling in England and Wales

(Radford,2007)

Table 2.6.2 Economic Impact of Freshwater Angling (Radford,2007)

Table 2.6.3 Expenditure Estimates (TRRU 1982) (2003 prices)

Table 2.6.4 Regional Rod Days (TRRU ,1981)

Table 2.6.5 Regional Rod Days (Mackay Consultants, 1989)

Table 2.6.6 Number of overnight and day trips (GSR,2003)

Table 2.6.7 Aggregate annual expenditure 2002/3 (£m) (GSR, 2003)

Table 2.6.8 Economic impact of sea angling in HIE (GSR, 2003)

Table 2.6.9 Freshwater Angler Days Summary Table (Radford 2004)

Table 2.6.10 Freshwater Angler Expenditure Summary Table (£ 000s) (Radford,2004)

Table 2.6.11 Expenditure Loss Summary Table (£’000s) (Radford,2004)Table 2.6.12 Regional Economic Impact: Household Income (Radford,2004)

Table 2.6.13 Regional Economic Impact: Employment (Radford, 2004)

Table 2.6.14 Scottish economic impact of and activity supported by freshwater angling

(Radford,2004)

Table 2.6.15: Estimated Economic Impact and NEV (Riddington 2004)

Table 2.6.16 Average expenditure by activity and location (LUC,2006)

Table 2.6.17 Angler gross expenditure in Kyle of Sutherland (Radford 2007).

Table 2.6.18 Economic Activity Supported by Angler Gross Expenditure (Radford,2007)

Table 2.6.19 Economic Impact of the Net Expenditure Loss (Radford,2007)

Table 5.2.1 Overnight Fishing Trips in Scotland

Table 5.2.2 Origin of Overnight Fishing Trips to Scotland

Table 5.2.3 Destination of Overnight Fishing Trips to Scotland

Table 5.2.4 The Number of Sea and Freshwater Anglers in Scotland

Table 5.3.1 Participation In Angling in last 4 weeks by age group

Table 5. 9.1 Impact in Region by Angler Type

Table 5.9.2. Impact on Scotland by Angler Type

Table 6.1.1 Popularity of Areas for Shore Fishing

Table 6.1.2 Popularity of launch sites in Dumfries and Galloway

Table 6.1.3 Angler Days by Dumfries and Galloway Residents

Table 6.1.4 Angler Days in Dumfries and Galloway by origin and type

Table 6.1.5 Extra Species Specified by Anglers

Table 6.1.6: Expenditure in D&G by Category

Table 6.1.7 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Dumfries and Galloway

Table 6.1.8 Responses of Dumfries and Galloway Anglers to Closure

Table 6.1.9 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Dumfries and Galloway

Table 6.1.10 Key Ratios for Dumfries and Galloway

Table 6.2.1 he Main Islands in Argyll and Lochaber


Table 6.2.3 Popularity of launch sites in Argyll and Lochaber

Table 6.2.4 Angler Days by Argyll & Lochaber Residents

Table 6.2.5 Angler Days in Argyll & Bute by origin and type

14

Table 6.2.6 Other Species specified by Argyll and Lochaber Anglers

Table 6.2.7: Expenditure in A&L by Category

Table 6.2.8 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Argyll and Lochaber

Table 6.2.9 Responses of Argyll and Lochaber Anglers to Closure

Table 6.2.10 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Argyll and Lochaber

Table 6.2.11 Key Ratios for Argyll and Lochaber


Table 6.3.2 Popularity of launch sites in Northern Scotland

Table 6.3.3 Angler Days by Residents in Northern Scotland

Table 6.3.4 Angler Days in Northern Scotland by origin and type

Table 6.3.5 Other Species specified by Northern Anglers

Table 6.3.6 Expenditure in Northern Scotland by Category

Table 6.3.7 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Northern Scotland

Table 6.3.8 Responses of Anglers in Northern Scotland to Closure

Table 6.3.9 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Northern Scotland

Table 6.3.10 Key Ratios for Northern Scotland


Table 6.4.2 Popularity of launch sites in North East Scotland

Table 6.4.3 Angler Days by Residents in North East Scotland

Table 6.4.4 Angler Days in the North East by origin and type

Table 6.4.5 Other Target Species

Table 6.4.6: Expenditure in North East Scotland by Category

Table 6.4.7 Contribution of Sea Angling to North East Scotland

Table 6.4.8 Responses of Anglers in North East Scotland to Closure

Table 6.4.9 The Impact of Sea Angling in North East Scotland

Table 6.4.10 Key Ratios for North East


Table 6.5.2 Popularity of launch sites in Edinburgh and East


Table 6.5.4 Angler Days in the Edinburgh and East by origin and type

Table 6.5.5 Other Nominated Species by East of Scotland Anglers

Table 6.5.6: Expenditure in Eastern Scotland by Category

Table 6.5.7 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Eastern Scotland

Table 6.5.8 Responses of Anglers in Eastern Scotland to Closure

Table 6.5.9 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Eastern Scotland

Table 6.5.10 Key Ratios for Edinburgh and East


Table 6.6.2 Popularity of launch sites in Glasgow and West

Table 6.6.3 Angler Days by Glasgow and West Residents

Table 6.6.4 Angler Days in Glasgow and West by origin and type

Table 6.6.5: Expenditure in G&W by Category

Table 6.6.6 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Western Scotland

Table 6.6.7 Responses of Anglers in Western Scotland to Closure

Table 6.6.8 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Western Scotland

Table 6.6.9 Key Ratios for Glasgow and West


15

Table 6.7.2 Angler Days in the Western Isles by origin and type

Table 6.7.3: Expenditure in the Western Isles by Category

Table 6.7.4 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to the Western Isles

Table 6.7.5 Responses of Anglers in Western Isles

Table 6.7.6 The Impact of Sea Angling in Western Isles

Table 6.7.7 Key Ratios for Western Isles

Table 6.8.1 Angler Days by Residents in Orkney and Shetland

Table 6.8.2 Angler Days in Orkney & Shetland by origin and type

Table 6.8.3 Other Target Species in Orkney and Shetland

Table 6.8.4: Expenditure in Orkney and Shetland by Category

Table 6.8.5 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Orkney and Shetland

Table 6.8.6 Responses of Anglers in Orkney and Shetland

Table 6.8.7 The Impact of Sea Angling in Orkney and Shetland

Table 6.8.11 Key Ratios for Orkney and Shetland

Table 6.9.1 Population and Distance from Coast,

Table 6.9.2 Number of Sea Anglers in Scotland

Table 6.9.3 : Participation Rates in Coastal and Inland Areas

Table 6.9.4: Means by Region: Active Anglers Only

Table 6.9.5 Mean Days per angler by Location

Table 6.9.6 Number of Angler Days by Origin and Destination

Table 6.9.7 Shore v Boat Angling (Scottish Anglers)

Table 6.9.8 Popularity of Fish Species.

Table 6.9.9 Mean Expenditure when Sea Angling by Category

Table 6.9.10 Daily Expenditure Flows when Sea Angling (£000’s)Table 6.9.11 Expenditure in all Regions by Category (£000’s Table 6.9.13 Loss to Scotland if Sea Angling ceases by Region

Table 6.9.14 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Scotland.

Table 6.9.15 Key Ratios for Scotland as a whole

Table 7.5.1 Loch Etive Angler Effort

Table 8.1.1 Age: Internet v Omnibus

Table 8.1.2 Gender: Internet v Omnibus

Table 8.3.1 Days Fished: Past and Future

Table 8.3.2 Days Fished 20 Years Ago by Reason for Change


Table 8.3.4 Forecast of Days Fished to be fished 10 Years hence by Reason for Change

Table 8.4.1 Competitiveness of Regions Table 9.1.1 Estimated Regional Sea Angling Activity and Expenditure (£’000s)Table 9.1.2 Net Flow of Angler Activity and Expenditure (£’000s) Table 9.2.1 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling Table 9.3.1. The Economic Impact of Sea Angling by Region Table 9.4.1. Twenty Six Most Popular Launch Sites Table 9.4.2. Thirty Most Popular Shore Areas

16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 22

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 22

1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 22

1.2 Background Considerations ................................................................................................................. 23

1.2.0 Estimating Scottish population totals .................................................................................................. 23

1.2.1 Generating data on average angler expenditure and other variables ................................................... 24

1.2.2 Assessment of non Scottish sea anglers .............................................................................................. 25

1.2.3 Assessment of Young Anglers ............................................................................................................ 25

SECTION 2 KEY PRINCIPLES AND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................ 26

2.0 Introduction to Economic Evaluations. ............................................................................................... 26

2.1 A Brief Overview of Economic Value. .................................................................................................. 26

2.1.0 NEV of Sea Angling in Scotland. ....................................................................................................... 27

2.2 Examples of Previous Assessments of the Economic Value of UK Recreational Fisheries. ............ 27

2.3 An Overview of Economic Impact Assessment ................................................................................... 29

2.3.0 Angler Substitution Possibilities ......................................................................................................... 29

2.3.1 Distinction between “economic activity supported” and “economic impact” .................................... 30

2.3.2 Regional expenditure and its direct, indirect and induced effects. ...................................................... 30

2.3.3 Regional impact of changes in angling activity .................................................................................. 31

2.4 Using the results to assess regional economic impacts. ...................................................................... 32

2.5 Using the results to inform resource allocation. .................................................................................. 32

2.6 Previous Assessments of the Economic Impact of UK Recreational Fisheries. ................................ 34

2.6.0 Economic Impact Studies in England and Wales ............................................................................... 34

2.6.1 Scottish Impact Studies ....................................................................................................................... 38

SECTION 3 AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS .................................. 50

3.0 Objective A (What is the economic impact of recreational sea angling in Scotland) ...................... 50

3.0.0 The Geographical Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 50

3.0.1 Economic Modelling .......................................................................................................................... 51

3.0.2 Non-Specific Expenditure ................................................................................................................... 51

3.1 Objective B (Where are the important local centres for sea angling in Scotland?) ......................... 51

3.2 Objective C. (What are the main competing areas both within and outwith Scotland?) ................ 52

3.3 Objective D. (What are the principal characteristics of the recreational sea angling sector?) ....... 52

3.4 Objective E. (What are the key trends in the sector?) ........................................................................ 53

17

3.5 Objective F. (What are the future prospect for the sector) ................................................................ 53

SECTION 4 SURVEYS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES ..................................... 54

4.0 The Omnibus Survey ............................................................................................................................. 54

4.1 The Internet Survey .............................................................................................................................. 54

4.2 Case Study Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 55

4.3 Stakeholder Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 56

4.4 GIS Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 56

4.5 Secondary Data Sources ........................................................................................................................ 57

4.5.0 UK Tourist Survey .............................................................................................................................. 57

4.5.1 Time Use Survey ................................................................................................................................ 57

4.5.2 The TNS Fishing Report (2007) ......................................................................................................... 58

SECTION 5 PROCEDURES, ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELS ........................... 59

5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 59

5.1 Scottish Participation Rates, Angler Numbers and Angler Days ...................................................... 59

5.2 Visitor Angler Numbers and Angler Days .......................................................................................... 60

5.3 Angler Days and Numbers for those under 18. ................................................................................... 62

5.4 Daily Expenditure .................................................................................................................................. 63

5.5 Accommodation Costs ........................................................................................................................... 63

5.6 Charter Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 64

5.7 Non Specific/Capital Costs .................................................................................................................... 64

5.8 Activity at Destination Region .............................................................................................................. 64

5.9 Identifying Substitution and Displacement ......................................................................................... 64

5.10 “Best” and “Robust” Estimates ............................................................................................................ 65

5.11 Analysis of Non-Quantitative Data ...................................................................................................... 66

5.12 Estimation of Economic Impact ........................................................................................................... 67

SECTION 6 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SEA ANGLING ............................... 68

6.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 68

6.1 Dumfries and Galloway ........................................................................................................................ 68

6.1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 68

18

6.1.1 Locations ............................................................................................................................................ 69

6.1.2 Sea Anglers and Angling Activity ...................................................................................................... 70

6.1.3 Target Species ..................................................................................................................................... 71

6.1.4 Expenditure ......................................................................................................................................... 72

6.1.5 Economic Contribution ....................................................................................................................... 74

6.1.6 Economic Impact ................................................................................................................................ 74

6.1.7 Key Ratios .......................................................................................................................................... 75

6.2 Argyll and Lochaber ............................................................................................................................. 75

6.2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 75

6.2.1 Locations ............................................................................................................................................ 78


6.2.3 Target Species ..................................................................................................................................... 80

6.2.4 Expenditure ......................................................................................................................................... 80


6.2.6 Economic Impact ................................................................................................................................ 82

6.2.7 Key Ratios .......................................................................................................................................... 83

6.3 Northern Scotland ................................................................................................................................. 83

6.3.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 83

6.3.1 Locations ............................................................................................................................................ 85


6.3.3 Target Species ..................................................................................................................................... 86

6.3.4 Expenditure ......................................................................................................................................... 87


6.3.6 Economic Impact ................................................................................................................................ 89

6.3.7 Key Ratios .......................................................................................................................................... 90

6.4 North East Scotland .............................................................................................................................. 91

6.4.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 91

6.4.1 Locations ............................................................................................................................................ 92


6.4.3 Target Species ..................................................................................................................................... 94

6.4.4 Expenditure ......................................................................................................................................... 95


6.4.6 Economic Impact ................................................................................................................................ 96

6.4.7 Key Ratios .......................................................................................................................................... 97

6.5 Edinburgh and East .............................................................................................................................. 98

6.5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 98

6.5.1 Locations ............................................................................................................................................ 99


6.5.3 Target Species ................................................................................................................................... 101

6.5.4 Expenditure ....................................................................................................................................... 101

6.5.5 Economic Contribution ..................................................................................................................... 103

6.5.6 Economic Impact .............................................................................................................................. 103

6.5.7 Key Ratios ........................................................................................................................................ 104

6.6 Glasgow and West ............................................................................................................................... 104

6.6.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 104

6.6.1 Locations .......................................................................................................................................... 106

6.6.2 Sea Anglers and Angling Activity .................................................................................................... 106

6.6.3 Target Species ................................................................................................................................... 107

6.6.4 Expenditure ....................................................................................................................................... 108


6.6.6 Economic Impact .............................................................................................................................. 110

19

6.6.7 Key Ratios ........................................................................................................................................ 110

6.7 Western Isles ........................................................................................................................................ 111

6.7.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 111


6.7.2 Target Species ................................................................................................................................... 113

6.7.3 Expenditure ....................................................................................................................................... 114


6.7.5 Economic Impact .............................................................................................................................. 115

6.7.6 Key Ratios ........................................................................................................................................ 116

6.8 Orkney and Shetland .......................................................................................................................... 117

6.8.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 117


6.8.2 Target Species ................................................................................................................................... 118

6.8.3 Expenditure ....................................................................................................................................... 119


6.8.5 Economic Impact .............................................................................................................................. 121

6.8.6 Key Ratios ........................................................................................................................................ 121

6.9 SCOTLAND ......................................................................................................................................... 122

6.9.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 122

6.9.1 Activity Rates and Sea Angler Numbers .......................................................................................... 122

6.9.2 Angler Days ...................................................................................................................................... 126

6.9.3 Types of Fishing ............................................................................................................................... 127

6.9.4 Species .............................................................................................................................................. 128

6.9.5 Expenditure ....................................................................................................................................... 129


6.9.7 Economic Impact .............................................................................................................................. 132

6.9.8 Key Ratios ........................................................................................................................................ 133

6.9.9 Summary Conclusion on Scotland .................................................................................................... 133

SECTION 7 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 135

7.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 135

7.1 The Upper Clyde .................................................................................................................................. 136

7.1.0 Description of area ............................................................................................................................ 136

7.1.1 Species .............................................................................................................................................. 137

7.1.2 Shore angling .................................................................................................................................... 137

7.1.3 Boat angling ..................................................................................................................................... 138

7.1.4 Estimated Angler Activity, Expenditure and Employment. .............................................................. 138

7.1.5 The Suppliers .................................................................................................................................... 138

7.1.6 Direct Employment ........................................................................................................................... 139

7.1.7 History .............................................................................................................................................. 140

7.1.8 Future Prospects ................................................................................................................................ 143

7.1.9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 143

7.2 Luce Bay ............................................................................................................................................... 144


7.2.1 Species .............................................................................................................................................. 144

7.2.2 Shore angling .................................................................................................................................... 145

7.2.3 Boat angling ..................................................................................................................................... 145

7.2.4 Estimated Angler Activity ................................................................................................................ 145

7.2.5 Expenditure and Employment .......................................................................................................... 145

20

7.2.6 History .............................................................................................................................................. 146


7.3 Orkney .................................................................................................................................................. 148


7.3.1 Species .............................................................................................................................................. 148

7.3.2 Shore angling .................................................................................................................................... 149

7.3.3 Boat angling ..................................................................................................................................... 149

7.3.4 The Suppliers .................................................................................................................................... 150


7.3.6 Direct Employment ........................................................................................................................... 151

7.3.7 History .............................................................................................................................................. 151


7.4 Stonehaven to Arbroath ...................................................................................................................... 153


7.4.1 Species .............................................................................................................................................. 153

7.4.2 Shore angling .................................................................................................................................... 153

7.4.3 Boat angling ..................................................................................................................................... 154


7.4.5 Suppliers and Direct Employment .................................................................................................... 154


7.5 Loch Etive ............................................................................................................................................ 156


7.5.1 Species .............................................................................................................................................. 156

7.5.2 Shore angling .................................................................................................................................... 157

7.5.3 Boat angling ..................................................................................................................................... 157

7.5.4 Estimated Angler Activity, Expenditure and Employment. .............................................................. 157


SECTION 8 TRENDS AND PROSPECTS ......................................................... 159

8.0 Profile of the Sea Angler ..................................................................................................................... 159

8.1 Sea Angling Archetypes ...................................................................................................................... 161

8.1.0 The Sports and Competition Angler ................................................................................................. 161

8.1.1 The Social Angler ............................................................................................................................. 162

8.1.2 The Weekend Away Angler ............................................................................................................. 162

8.1.3 The Family on Holiday ..................................................................................................................... 162

8.1.4 The Evening Angler .......................................................................................................................... 162

8.2 Angler Behaviour: Past and Future ................................................................................................... 162

8.3 The Views of the Anglers .................................................................................................................... 164

8.4 Factors that determine success of a location ..................................................................................... 165

8.5 A SWOT Analysis of the Industry ..................................................................................................... 166

8.5.0 Strengths. .......................................................................................................................................... 166

8.5.1 Weaknesses ....................................................................................................................................... 167

8.5.2 Opportunities .................................................................................................................................... 168

8.5.3 Threats .............................................................................................................................................. 169

8.6 Future Prospects .................................................................................................................................. 170

21

SECTION 9 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................. 174

9.1 Scottish and Regional Angler Effort and Expenditure .................................................................... 174

9.2 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scotland ................................................................. 175

9.3 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scottish Regions .................................................... 175

9.4 The Important Local Centres for Sea Angling in Scotland ............................................................. 176

9.5 The Main Competing Areas Within and Outwith Scotland. ........................................................... 177

9.6 The Principal Characteristics of the Recreational Sea Angling Sector .......................................... 178

9.7 The Key Trends in the Sector ............................................................................................................. 178

9.8 The Future Prospects for the Sector .................................................................................................. 179

22

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

Very little is known about the scale of sea angling and its geographical spread across Scotland,

or the economic impact of sea angler expenditure on coastal communities. Because the impact

is largely hidden, it is possible that sea angling could be over-looked when fisheries, tourism

and coastal developments are being considered. The Scottish Government is seeking to rectify

this by funding this study which will be the first assessment of the contribution made by sea

angling to employment and income in Scotland as a whole and regions within Scotland12.

1.1 Objectives

The aims of the study, as stated by the Scottish Government, were as follows:

a) What is the economic impact of recreational sea angling in Scotland? Economic

impact should be measured in terms of income and employment effects arising from the

expenditure by those undertaking recreational sea angling (RSA). Where possible, estimates

should include not just direct effects but indirect and induced multiplier ones as well. It is

essential that displacement effects should be explicitly estimated and taken into account so that

both gross and net impacts are estimated.

b) Where are the important local centres for sea angling in Scotland? Measures of

relative importance could be presented in terms of the level of participation, level of expenditure

and the volume of catches by RSAs.

c) What are the main competing areas both within and outwith Scotland? Centres

should be described and compared also in terms of the type of sea angling operations and the

species caught so that it is clear why some areas are more important than others. This may

require an assessment of other factors such as the availability of slipways, charter boats, other

attractions and facilities. It should be noted that there may well be important variations between

different areas in terms of the species that are targeted. The west coast tends to specialise in

sharks, skate, spurdog, dogfish and tope whilst the species on the east coast are predominantly

cod and ling.

d) What are the principal characteristics of the recreational sea angling sector? This

should be considered in terms of both the numbers involved, their age, sex and socio-economic

status, the frequency of their participation; the level, type and location of their expenditure;

whether they fish from the shore or boats (chartered or their own); their area of residence and

length of stay. Area of residence will reveal how many are stay or day visitors to an area.

e) What are the key trends in the sector? What factors seem to explain the past

absolute and relative performance of the sector in different areas?

12 Sea angling is the catching of sea fish for pleasure and/or “for the pot” using a hook. Potting for pleasure and/or “for the pot” is therefore excluded from this study. Whilst some commercial fisheries also use hooks in longlining and trolling, they are fishing for profit, rather than pleasure. We note that, at the margins, distinctions can be blurred.

23

f) What are the future prospects for the sector? Are there areas, and if so where, that

appear to offer the best prospects for future expansion and what are the principal opportunities

and constraints likely to affect future development?

1.2 Background Considerations

With the above objectives and the paucity of secondary data, extensive primary data needed to

be collected from sea anglers and other stakeholders. There are however particular problems

associated with the collection of primary data on sea angling in Scotland. These are introduced

below.

1.2.0 Estimating Scottish population totals

In Scotland, the angling population totals are unknown because a) there is no licensing system

and b) no reliable household omnibus survey has yet been undertaken to determine Scottish

participation rates in angling; either generally or in relation to particular types of angling, such as

sea angling. Moreover, there are no lists of sea anglers’ contact details. Whilst a similar

situation exists in England and Wales with respect to sea angling, there has been some general

household survey work in England and Wales directed at determining participation levels in sea

angling (eg NOP, 1971; Moon and Souter 1995; Dunn and Potten, 1994). Yet, even then, rather

than utilising prior estimates of population participation rates, a more recent assessment of the

economic value of sea angling in England and Wales (Drew Associates 2004) believed it

necessary to participate in a household omnibus survey.

Since Scottish sea angler contact details were not available, sea anglers could not be randomly

selected in order to distribute telephone or postal questionnaires. It is of course feasible for

researchers actively to seek sea anglers, perhaps by visiting sea angling marks, or by

contacting clubs, or by leaving self completion questionnaires at suitable locations. A similar

strategy is to issue a general invitation for anglers to supply their contact details, or to complete

on-line questionnaires.

The problem is that, to a greater of lesser degree, all these approaches are inherently biased

towards the more enthusiastic angler. For example, with on-site interviews, anglers who fish

more regularly are more likely to be contacted. A similar problem exists with distributing

questionnaires through angling clubs or inviting sea anglers to provide contact details or to

complete on-line questionnaires. Exclusive reliance on these instruments would generate

estimates of, for instance, mean sea angler days which would be hopelessly biased (unless

observations were weighted according to the probability of the angler being sampled). It was

therefore not appropriate for this evaluation to rely exclusively on either contacting sea anglers

on-site or inviting them to complete questionnaires.

The twin problems of an unknown population and the potential bias in survey instruments have

been tackled in a number of ways. For example, studies of freshwater angling in Scotland

(Mackay Consultants, 1989; Fisheries Research Management, 2000; Deloitte and Touche,

1996; Radford et al, 2004; Riddington et al, 2004) have tackled the issue of an unknown

24

population by aggregating estimates of the number of angler days provided by individual fishery

owners. Unfortunately, since sea angling is open access, this option was not available.

Another theoretical possibility would be to try and count the population of anglers around the

coast. It would of course be prohibitively expensive to constantly monitor every sea angling site,

let alone the broader expanse of the open sea. Inevitably, sampling would be necessary, with

the sample stratified by types of sites, times of the day, days of the week etc. On site sampling

would also raise the problem that the keener anglers are more likely to be sampled on-site. It

was concluded that on-site enumeration could not produce reliable population totals.

The most robust and cost effective approach to the identification of the population of Scottish

sea anglers is to undertake a general telephone omnibus survey of individuals in Scotland,

stratified by regions to establish regional participation levels in sea angling.

Given the objectives of the study, unbiased estimates were also required of other key

parameters relating to the total population of sea anglers. These include the distribution of total

angler effort (measured in sea angler days) across (i) shore angling, (ii) own or friend’s boat and

(iii) charter boats. As explained above, the available angler survey instruments are biased and,

by themselves, cannot be relied upon to generate reliable population totals for (i), (ii) or (iii).

Consequently, the omnibus survey also has to provide unbiased estimates of how often sea

anglers fish, and the relative importance of shore and boat angling trips.

1.2.1 Generating data on average angler expenditure and other variables

A requirement of the study is to estimate the economic impact of angler expenditure, and to

estimate expenditure impacts specific to regions within Scotland. A large number of

observations are required to provide sufficient observations on expenditure per angler day

covering all the regions and expenditure categories. It was not feasible to use the omnibus

survey for this purpose. This is because, assuming 2% of the population engage in sea angling,

10,000 telephone contacts would only yield 200 observations and we estimate that 450-500

would be required. The omnibus survey would therefore have to be expanded to 25,000

telephone contacts and many more questions would have to be asked of each sea angler. This

option was prohibitively expensive and the complex questioning would have placed a

considerable burden on the telephone questionnaire itself.

It is therefore necessary to deploy, where possible, more cost effective instruments to generate

information on the activity and the views and expenditures of a sufficient number of individual

anglers. A recent approach has been the use of on-line questionnaires. This was used

successfully in a Scottish angling context by Radford (2004) and by Riddington (2004) and in

England and Wales by Radford et al (2007).

Provided that there is sufficient advertising, promotion and support from within the sea angling

community, it has been our experience that an on-line survey is the most cost effective way to

generate observations on large numbers of anglers.

As discussed above, by inviting anglers to complete an on-line questionnaire, there is a

potentially serious problem of self-selection bias. There are two points to be made about this.

25

First, the inherent bias in the angler survey instruments is not too serious provided the extent of

the bias is known. If the omnibus survey (and the United Kingdom Tourist Study) is unbiased,

and it should be, then it can be used to correct for the inherent bias in the angler survey

instruments. Indeed, this becomes a key role of the omnibus survey.

Second, there are some key variables that will be largely unaffected by self selection bias. For

example, an important variable is the average angler expenditure per day. There is no reason

to suppose that the keener angler necessarily spends more per day. Similarly, whilst Radford et

al (2007) found bias in the amount of visiting angling activity, it could not find any bias in the

distribution of that activity. To clarify, whilst the “biased” internet respondent from Glasgow might

spend 10 days, on average, fishing outside his home area, compared to 2 for the unbiased

“omnibus” respondent, the likelihood of these being spent in Skye would not be significantly

different. Thus, provided unbiased estimates of the total sea angling days of visiting anglers

from each region (including outside Scotland) are available, we were able to estimate the

number of sea angler days in each region.

A further problem arises. A Scottish omnibus telephone survey will not pick up visitors from

outside Scotland. The issue of non-Scottish sea anglers is discussed below.

1.2.2 Assessment of non Scottish sea anglers

As outlined above, it would have been prohibitively expensive to undertake an on-site count to

identify the number of non-Scottish visitors participating in sea angling. Although far fewer are

expected, the importance of non-Scottish visitors is magnified in that they are potentially the

least likely to retain their spending in Scotland and hence have a larger than normal economic

impact. Fortunately the UK Tourist Study (UKTS) is a very large survey that covers all

households in the UK and asks questions both about visit destinations but also about activities

undertaken during these visits.

A major problem is that angling in the UKTS covers both sea and freshwater angling. The

number of freshwater anglers identified cannot be simply subtracted from the total number of

anglers found by the UKTS because an unknown, and possibly significant number, undertake

both sea angling and freshwater angling. TNS(2007) surveyed some 1427 anglers and identified

the proportions that went game, coarse and sea angling and combinations thereof. Although the

sample was not random nor exclusively from the RUK (Rest of the UK), the proportions were, at

least in part, verified by the internet study and consequently allowed an estimate of sea anglers.

1.2.3 Assessment of Young Anglers

For both practical and legal reasons, the population of young anglers under 18 cannot be

obtained via a telephone survey. For a number of reasons discussed later, this group is not

thought to be critical in determining economic impact. However they are potentially important if

trying to identify policy because of the high economic value that might be associated with the

high number of participants in this category. In this case participation estimates have been

extracted from the archived data of the very large UK Leisure Survey and the ratio of young to

adult rates calculated. That ratio has then been applied to the participation rates found in the

omnibus survey.

26

SECTION 2 KEY PRINCIPLES AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction to Economic Evaluations.

Historically, two kinds of ‘economic’ evaluations have been applied to angling in the UK and elsewhere; each predicated on a different set of held values.

One type of evaluation focuses on the economic impact of angling on local/regional economic activity. For example, a Regional Development Board's or a Tourist Board’s concern may be with the effect of visiting sea anglers’ spending on regional income and/or employment and is thus likely to request an economic impact study. Studies which have addressed the economic impact of angling include; Mackay Consultants (Anon 1989), Dunn et al (1989), Radford et al(1991) and Moon and Souter (1994) and Riddington et al (2004) Radford et al (2004). The objectives of this study make explicit reference to this form of evaluation. The principles of economic impact assessment are discussed in Section 2.3 below.

Another set of held values define the scope and limitations of what is termed the Total Economic Value (TEV) or the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) framework. This type of study examines economic value and its sensitivity to changes in resource allocation. The primary focus is how changes in resource use affect the well being of individuals within a defined society. As such, the evaluation process might be unconcerned about the differential impacts on the incomes of individual regions or sectors of the economy. Examples of this kind of evaluation of angling activity include Willis and Garrod (1991), Foundation for Water Research (1996), Davis and O’Neill (1992), Willis and Garrod (1999), Gibb Environment (1999) and Spurgeon et al (2001).

Unfortunately, the findings of an impact studies can be cited and used inappropriately This is because many of those involved in public debate, quite understandably, are not necessarily familiar with some of the finer points of economic evaluation, In some instances inappropriate use can be deliberate, but more often is simply misguided. In this section, we therefore briefly address the assessment of economic value, to enable a clear understanding of how the results of this impact study might legitimately be used to inform decision making.

2.1 A Brief Overview of Economic Value.

Fundamentally, this framework seeks to provide a monetary measure of society's preferences for alternative uses of its scarce resources, where society's preferences are taken as simply the aggregate of the individual preferences of its members. A key precept of this framework is that peoples’ strength of preferences for particular goods can be measured by their Willingness To Pay (WTP) for them, or alternatively, their Willingness To Accept Compensation (WTA) to forego them. This is a reasonable proposition, since the more valued something is to an individual then the more of their finite income and wealth will be WTP for it - or the more they will require in compensation voluntarily to forego it.

The Gross Economic Value (GEV) of allocating resources to produce something is simply the sum of individuals' WTP for it. Thus, the GEV of sea angling is the aggregate WTP of sea anglers. Unfortunately, gross values ignore the resources used by sea anglers in producing their recreational experiences. From society’s perspective, these resources could have been

27

used to produce something else for which there is also a WTP. There is therefore an Opportunity Cost.

The more relevant concept of Net Economic Value (NEV) of sea angling is obtained by subtracting from sea angling’s GEV, the opportunity costs of the resources used by sea anglers. In applied economic work it is normal, and reasonable, to assume that the market value of resources used (eg energy, labour, raw materials) reflects society’s opportunity costs. Therefore the market value of the tackle, petrol, bait, equipment etc that sea anglers use is assumed to reflect society’s opportunity cost of the resources used in sea angling.

2.1.0 NEV of Sea Angling in Scotland.

As outlined above, NEV is found by estimating WTP (ie GEV) and then subtracting the market value of the resources anglers use, as reflected in anglers’ actual expenditure on tackle, petrol, bait, accommodation etc. The difference between what anglers are WTP and what they are actually required to pay in the market place (their actual expenditure) is known as Consumers'Surplus. So, for non-priced angling such as sea angling:

NEV = Consumers’ Surplus of Sea Anglers (CS)

2.2 Examples of Previous Assessments of the Economic Value of UK Recreational Fisheries.

The studies outlined below are selected to facilitate an appreciation of the range of angling and angling related activity that have been evaluated using the economic value approach.

Spurgeon et al, 2001: in a survey of both anglers and non-anglers showed that coarse anglers were willing to pay from £2.50 to £3.10 per visit to maintain the existing quality of fishing at their usual site and salmon and trout anglers had a WTP between £3.20 and £4.77. Non-anglers were willing to pay £6.49 per household per annum to maintain or improve fish populations in their most familiar water body, and £3.63 to do so in the River Wye (although only 20% of respondents were willing to pay for improvements to the Wye). This study also gathered information on use and non-use motivations held by the general public for valuing fish populations within England and Wales

Peirson et al, 2001: A 2001 survey of anglers visiting the River Teifi, and of those fishing around the Leeds urban area, revealed a WTP per person per trip for game fishing in the River Teifi of £7.10. The equivalent WTP for coarse fishing in and around Leeds was £2.21. A linked survey of the general population, investigating WTP for the re-introduction of salmon populations into the River Thames, estimated the figure at £2.40 /household/year.

Of particular interest is the study of sea angling in England and Wales by Drew Associates, (2004)13. The “NEV” of sea angling, as measured by angler consumers’ surplus was estimatedto be £602m which is a similar magnitude to their estimate of angler expenditure. As implied in Section 2.1.0,14 the GEV of sea angling is obtained by summing NEV and angler gross

13 Drew Associates also considered economic impacts and this element of their study is considered in a

subsequent section. 14 NEV is found by estimating WTP (ie Gross Economic Value) and then subtracting the market value of the resources used. GEV therefore equals NEV plus the value of resources used. With respect to sea angling, ignoring existence, bequest and option values, NEV = Anglers’ Consumers’ Surplus. Thus GEV

28

expenditure. On this basis, and using the full range of estimates for the constituent elements, the GEV of sea angling in England and Wales is estimated to be between £600m and £1300m. With respect to changes in economic values, they found that WTP increased by £0.22 for each 1% increase in the size of fish and an additional WTP of £11.38 for the ability to catch new species. Only shore anglers were WTP more for more fish (£0.81 per fish). Boat anglers had a negative WTP for more fish, perhaps reflecting their preference for larger fish and a diversity of species, rather than quantity.

Spurgeon et al. (2007) examined the potential willingness to pay for salmon stocks in England and Wales. The mean WTP to prevent the “severe decline in salmon populations across all of England and Wales” described in the survey was £15.80 per household per annum. This aggregates to a total WTP of around £350 million per annum, equivalent to a Present Value of £6.2 billion. Removing both the 5% of responses with the highest WTP and the 5% of responses with the lowest WTP, produces a “trimmed mean” WTP of £11.47 per household per annum, a reduction of 27% compared to the mean WTP. Both use values and non use values appear to be significant contributors to the WTP to maintain salmon across England and Wales.

Among other things, they examined the ways in which the WTP for an individual river varies as the characteristics of that river vary. One variable was found to be significant was river length. WTP tended to be higher for longer rivers than for shorter ones. For example, a river that is only 25km long would have an expected WTP that is 16% lower than the overall average. Conversely, a river that is 150km long would have an expected WTP that is 17% higher than the overall average. Based on this and other insights, the contribution made to aggregate WTP by each of three named rivers below was:

� The River Wye contributes £5.6 million p.a. (equivalent to a Present Value of £99 million).

� The River Thames contributes £7.1 million p.a. (equivalent to a Present Value of £123 million).

� The River Wyre contributes £4.0 million p.a. (equivalent to a Present Value of £70 million).

The Thames makes the largest contribution, as it is the biggest river and also has the greatest number of people living close to it (over 3.4 million households are located within 10km of the Thames). The Wye is also a long river, but has fewer people nearby. The Wyre is both a much shorter river and also has lower population levels than the Thames; as a result, its contribution is less than the average river’s contribution.

The probability of a respondent having a positive WTP went up for: � people who walk by rivers; � interviews where income tax was used as the payment vehicle; � people educated to at least GCSE level; � those who understood the survey well; � wealthier respondents; and � households with no children.

of angling equals Anglers’ Consumers’ Surplus plus the market value of the resources used by anglers. The market value of resources used by anglers approximates to their gross expenditure. Thus GEV = Anglers’ Consumers’ Surplus + Angler Expenditure.

29

Of those respondents who were willing to pay something the probability of having a positive WTP went up for:

� people who go boating on rivers; � people educated to at least GCSE level; � respondents with certain motivations for having a WTP (environmental concern; anglers;

and those who want to eat fish); and � wealthier respondents.

From the above theoretical discussion and examples of applied work, the non-specialist reader would have an appreciation of the foundations, boundaries and limitations of the economic assessment of Net Economic Value. It is worth noting that we know nothing of the economic value of sea angling in Scotland.

2.3 An Overview of Economic Impact Assessment

As stated in Section 2.0, in the public domain, the magnitude of angler expenditure and its impact on income and employment is often used for advocacy purposes. It is therefore important initially to consider some of the important issues that underpin economic impact assessment.

In assessing the economic impact of angler expenditure, one is effectively seeking to answer the question: “What would happen (to income and employment) in region ‘X’ if angling for fish species ‘Y’ ceased to exist?” Two key issues arise here.

Firstly, what would anglers do if angling for fish species ‘Y’ ceased in region ‘X’ and how much of their expenditure would be diverted outside the region? We use the term angler substitution possibilities to describe this issue, see Section 2.3.0, below.

Secondly, what is the impact on income and employment within region ‘X’ of the decrease in angler expenditure? This is estimated by first modelling the regional economy and then using

the model to trace the direct, indirect and induced effects of the expenditure change. These

terms are explained in Section 2.3.2, below.

2.3.0 Angler Substitution Possibilities

Anglers will respond in different ways to the loss of sea angling in a region. Some anglers might spend as much on alternative activities within the region. If all sea anglers responded in this way, the cessation of sea angling would have little impact on regional income and employment.On the other hand, if sea anglers diverted their expenditure outside the region, sea angling’s contribution to regional income and employment could be much more significant.

Practitioners often assume that visiting sea anglers have better substitutes outside the region, whereas local resident sea anglers have better substitutes within it (see for example Fisheries Resources Management, 2000). This implies that a region would lose almost all visitor sea angler spending and retain almost all local sea angler spending. Researchers employing this assumption thus only need to quantify visitor sea angler spending.

This assumption is somewhat crude. Actual substitution possibilities are not always evident and may only be properly revealed by interrogation of anglers. Moreover, substitution possibilities will vary with size of region. The smaller the region, the fewer substitutes there are within it.Since this study encompassed 8 regions of varying size, plus Scotland as a whole, the

30

legitimacy of the above assumption would vary across the region. We therefore eschewed the above approach and sought to obtain data on sea angler substitution possibilities from individual anglers. Note that other things being equal, a small region can be expected to lose more of its angler expenditure than a larger one.

2.3.1 Distinction between “economic activity supported” and “economic impact” Estimates of gross sea angler expenditure (ie pre-substitution levels of expenditure) provide a snapshot of current levels of angler expenditure in each region. Gross expenditure supports regional household income and employment. In this study, gross expenditure is the basis for estimating the economic activity supported by sea angler expenditure.

The net change in angler expenditure depends on substitution effects. For example, if anglers in a given region substitute the loss of their sea angling by switching to trout angling, the net loss in regional expenditure, income and jobs could be relatively minor. Although the region will lose income and jobs previously supported by sea angling, it will gain from increased expenditure on trout angling. In this report, the balance of these effects is termed the economic impact of the loss of angling within the region.

For each of the regions, this study sought to estimate both the economic activity supported by sea angling and the economic impact of losing sea angling.

2.3.2 Regional expenditure and its direct, indirect and induced effects.

The full effect on regional income and employment of each (gross or net) pound of angler expenditure depends, among other things, on what the angler purchases and the strength of the direct, indirect and induced effects. These effects are explained below.

The direct effect on a region is simply the increase in local income and employment arising from initial angler expenditure. Through a combination of taxation and the purchase of supplies from outside, a proportion of this initial expenditure will be immediately lost to the region, and can be ignored. However, a proportion of angler expenditure will remain within the area. It is this proportion which creates the direct effect. For example, the direct employment effect of angler expenditure on, say, accommodation is simply the proportion of employment in hotels that is dependent on angler expenditure. The direct income effect of angler accommodation expenditure is the wages and profits paid by hotels to households in the region.

Some categories of expenditure have a minimal direct impact. For example, only about five per cent of spending on petrol has a direct effect locally; 95 per cent ‘bounces off’ through tax, duty and the purchasing of inputs from outside. In contrast, angler accommodation expenditure has a strong direct effect. The composition of angler expenditure is thus important in determining the magnitude of the direct effect on regional incomes and employment.

Indirect effects can arise from the direct effect. For example, a hotel may purchase butcher supplies from within the region. This supports the wages of the local butcher’s staff, the butcher’s own income from self-employment and perhaps the rent charged by the shop owner. It also contributes to employment in the butcher’s shop. These effects are known as first round indirect effects.

Further indirect rounds can be considered. The butcher may purchase some of his supplies from a local abattoir, thereby supporting the wages of abattoir staff and the abattoir’s profits. This also contributes to employment in the abattoir. There will be further rounds of, albeit

31

successively smaller, indirect effects. For example, the abattoir may purchase livestock from local farmers, who in turn may purchase building services from local companies. The combined impact of direct and indirect effects is modelled by “Type I” multiplier analysis. Among other things, this analysis calculates the total Type I household income in the region (measured by Gross Value Added or GVA) and regional employment (measured by Full-Time Equivalents or FTEs) dependent on sea angling.

Both the direct effect and every round of indirect effects increases household incomes in the region in the form of wages, profits, rents and income from self-employment. Thus, the income of a diverse range of households in the region will be increased as a result of angler spending (such as hotel workers, hotel owners, butcher’s staff, the butcher, butcher’s landlord, abattoir staff, owners of the abattoir, farm workers, the farmer, building workers and so on). In each spending round, a proportion of these regional income streams are spent on goods produced within the region, creating further increases in regional income and employment. This is the induced effect. “Type II” multiplier analysis incorporates these induced effects, enabling estimation of the corresponding Type II total income effect (Type II GVA) and Type II total employment (Type II FTEs). In this report, we only record the outcome of the Type II analysis.

The strength of the direct, indirect and induced effects depend on such things as inter-firm links within the regional economy, taxation policy, and the proportion of local income normally spent within the region. These parameters themselves will depend on the size of the region. The smaller the area, the less likely local businesses and retailers will purchase locally produced supplies (weak indirect effects). The smaller the area, the less likely local households will purchase locally produced goods (weak induced effects). In modelling the regional economy, this study used the Detailed Regional Economic Accounting Model (DREAM®) developed by CogentSI.

2.3.3 Regional impact of changes in angling activity

As previously stated, the results of this study might be used to inform policy; as such it is not just the magnitude of current economic impact which is of interest, but the sensitivity of these magnitudes to policy initiatives. Arguably, the current magnitude is not particularly relevant for decision making, because decisions should be evaluated in terms of their consequences. As stated elsewhere, just because something is large (small) does not mean that more (less) resources should be devoted to it.

In this context, our estimates of current sea angling activity levels, regional income and employment impacts enables a number of ratios to be produced. In this study, six ratios were calculated.

� GVA (Type II) generated in the region per pound of local sea angler expenditure;

� GVA (Type II) generated in the region per pound of visitor sea angler expenditure;

� GVA (Type II) per sea angler day;

� local sea angler expenditure necessary to generate one FTE (Type II);

� visitor sea angler expenditure necessary to generate one FTE (Type II);

� FTEs (Type II) per thousand sea angler days.

32

2.4 Using the results to assess regional economic impacts.

Provided some caution is exercised, the ratios outlined above can be used to draw inferences about the impact of more or less sea angling activity. For example, GVA per sea angler day informs about the impact on household incomes of additional sea angler days. In would, however, be necessary to assume that, for a given species, the expenditure characteristics of additional and existing sea angler days would be similar. In other words, underlying relationships are assumed to be linear and calculated averages adequately describe the consequences of marginal changes. Similarly, if the magnitude of additional visitor (or local) spending is known, the calculated ratio of GVA per pound of visitor (or local) sea angler spending can be used to estimate how regional GVA will change.

Greater caution is needed when drawing inferences about employment, because the causal chain linking additional sea anglers to employment is longer and there is a greater probability that some relationships will not be linear. Further, if there was significant excess capacity, additional sea angler expenditure is likely to result in existing labour being used more intensively, rather than new labour being hired.

It is difficult to generalise about the use of these ratios. The context in which they are used will determine how much caution should be exercised.

2.5 Using the results to inform resource allocation.

Finally, we emphasise that this study offers no formal economic value type analysis and thus, in some respects, has a somewhat constrained focus. This is a very important point, especially if the results of this study were the basis for assessing, say, the relative merits of recreational and commercial exploitation15. This is because it is perfectly possible for a commercial fishing vessel to have a significant economic impact and a low, or even negative, economic value. Similarly, recreational sea angling could have both a low economic impact and a high economic value. Given this, resources allocation decisions which focussed on economic impact could have unintended consequences for society’s net economic value. This is briefly explained below, by first looking at the economic value and economic impacts in both commercial and recreational fisheries.

Applying the principles explained in Section 2.1, the Gross Economic Value (GEV) of a commercial vessel is society’s WTP for the vessel’s output (fish for the table). The Net Economic Value (NEV) is obtained by subtracting what society foregoes by using inputs to catch fish, rather than to produce something else (i.e. society’s opportunity cost). The labour and operating costs of fishing vessels are an approximation to opportunity costs.

It follows that, if a particular vessel were barely covering its own (internal) costs, its NEV is close to zero. In common sense terms, the vessel’s NEV is low because society values its output (fish) only marginally more than it values the output forgone by using these inputs to catch fish rather than to produce something else. In short, society would experience no great loss of NEV if such a vessel stopped fishing. On the other hand, if the value of a vessel’s catchgreatly exceeds the costs of catching fish, society’s welfare would be diminished if fishing effort was curtailed.

The situation is a bit more complicated because, in some circumstances, there are externalcosts to consider and these can seriously compromise the NEV of commercial vessels. On

15 See the Clyde Sea Angling Study (1988), which is discussed in the literature review and which used this approach.

33

joining a fleet, a new vessel catches fish which other vessels are also trying to catch. Existing vessels therefore experience increased costs in simply landing the same amount of fish.Indeed, society’s NEV from the additional vessel could be negative if the WTP for the new vessel’s catch is less than the sum of the new vessel’s own costs and the external costs it imposes on other vessels. This can be termed economic overfishing, and in these circumstances, society’s NEV would actually increase if the additional vessel was decommissioned. The NEV contribution of this additional vessel is further diminished when we include the possibility of further external costs, this time imposed on recreational fishing. For example, with respect to the Firth of Clyde, the CSAS concluded that increased commercial effort, plus the negative impact of discards on recruitment to the fishery, resulted in a sharp decline in recreational catches16.

Potentially, some commercial fishing vessels’ costs therefore include:

� their own (internal) operating costs, � the external costs on other vessels, � the external costs on sea angling.

If the combined magnitude of all these costs exceeds the market value of such vessels’ catch, then society’s NEV would increase if such vessels were withdrawn.

It is therefore theoretically possible for some vessels to diminish society’s NEV, yet these vessels would still record a positive economic impact, because household incomes and jobs are being supported17. The link between economic impact and economic value in commercial fisheries is therefore not straightforward.

With respect to sea angling, unless there are significant external costs, the NEV from angling (in the form of consumer’s surplus) will never be negative. This is because no angler would spend more on angling than they would be WTP for it. Indeed, the more anglers are WTP and the less they do pay, the greater will be NEV. The logic here is that society’s NEV will be greater the more its WTP for the output (the sea angling experience) exceeds the value of the inputs used (as reflected in angler expenditure). It is interesting to note that Drew Associates (2004) found that sea anglers’ WTP was twice their actual expenditure (see Section 2.6.0 below), confirming an NEV (in the form of consumer’s surplus) of similar magnitude to anglers expenditure. What about the external costs associated with sea angling? These could be small, because the angling catch is small in relation to stock biomass and arguably would be zero if anglers practiced “catch and release”18. It follows that, if external costs are not characteristic of sea angling, a negative NEV is unlikely.

In general, sea angling can be expected to make a positive contribution in terms of both economic value, and, provided that anglers spend something, there will also be a positive economic impact. Interestingly, a high angling NEV could be associated with a low economic impact. This would arise if sea anglers obtained great pleasure from their angling (and were WTP substantial sums for it) but could not find anything to spend their money on.

16 See Clyde Sea Angling Study (1988) 17

In the longer run, if new vessels and labour continue to enter the fishery, we may experience biological overfishing and the risk of stock collapse with potentially devastating effects on income and employment. At this stage, withdrawing vessels increases both NEV and economic impacts, provided that stocks do eventually recover. 18

If there was congestion at fishing marks, anglers would be imposing external costs on other anglers.

34

From the above discussion, a resource allocation discussion which focussed only on changes in economic impacts might favour jobs and incomes in commercial fishing, whilst at the same time compromising NEV. Similarly, resource allocation based exclusively on changes in NEV may favour recreational exploitation at the expense of jobs and incomes predicated on commercial exploitation.

The purpose of this discussion is simply to emphasise that resource allocation based exclusively on economic impact criteria can lead to sub-optimal outcomes compared to those appraised using economic value criteria. It is hoped that, when assessing policy initiatives and development opportunities, policy makers would take a wider view and would not be guided solely by the local economic impacts explored in this study.

2.6 Previous Assessments of the Economic Impact of UK Recreational Fisheries19.

2.6.0 Economic Impact Studies in England and Wales

In the UK, there have been a number of applied studies that have sought to assess the economic impact of angler expenditure. Some of these have had a national focus; others have concentrated on individual river systems or other surface water space.

Nautilus Consultants (2000) in a study of Inland and Sea Fisheries in Wales, prepared for the National Assembly of Wales, generated estimates of sea angling activity levels and expenditures. By interviewing three sea angling specialists they estimated 12,000 local participants and 28,000 visiting anglers. Using the same sources they estimate total expenditure was £28m with visitors contributing £21.8m. Their approach was to divide the Welsh coast into six areas and to aggregate these to produce the national estimates. In their study visitors are not visitors to Wales, but visitors to the defined coastal locations. Many of these will be Welsh sea anglers. Indeed, if we were to assume they were all Welsh anglers, this would imply an upper limit for the Welsh sea angling population of 40,000, which, compared with the Drew Associates results (see below), would suggest a relatively low Welsh participation rate in sea angling of 1.37%.

Drew Associates (2004), is one of a number of studies of sea angling in England and Wales and is notable because it embraced economic value and economic impact in their assessment of sea angling in England and Wales. Participation in sea angling was estimated on the basis of questions inserted into the General Omnibus survey of 10,980 households in England and Wales during 2003. The key question asked how many members of the household went sea angling in England and Wales in the last year. Responses indicated that 5.02% of households (1.11m of 22.2m households in England and Wales) participated in sea angling. If multiple sea angling members of households are included, the survey identified 1.45m sea anglers of all ages, including under 12 years of age. The adult sea angling population was estimated at 1.1m. This would suggest an adult participation rate of 1.99%, given a population in England and Wales of 55.71m.

To estimate expenditure, Drew associates interviewed 514 anglers on-site during the summer months. A postal questionnaire was also used. This involved selecting 14 active members each from a sample of sea angling clubs. This generated 383 replies and a total of 897 from

19 Since these studies are relatively recent and inflation has been low, in this Section prices have not

been adjusted to 2009 prices.

35

both survey instruments. Interestingly, 15% had gone sea angling outside England and Wales on an average of 8 days.

They estimated that sea anglers undertook 12.7m of angler activity days, and spent a total of £538m with half of this accounted for by own boat anglers, reflecting the capital expenditure on boating. Sea angler total spending was estimated to support 18,889 jobs and £71m in income to suppliers. These estimates were based on the direct effect only and would have been greater if the analysis had been extended to embrace indirect and induced effects. They did not undertake a substitution analysis.

Simpson, D. and Mawle, G.W. (2005) undertook a study of public attitudes to angling in England and Wales. One of their objectives was to assess the levels of participation in freshwater and sea angling. The data were collected through Omnibus surveys using face to face interviews amongst representative samples. Two omnibus studies were utilised: an adult omnibus over 1 week and a youth omnibus over 4 weeks. A total of 2258 people were interviewed 419 of whom were aged 12-16yrs. Both the youth and adult samples were

designed to be representative of the population in England and Wales, in terms of gender, age, social grade and region. Those aged 15+ were included within the adult sample, whilst the youth data were collected from 12-16 year olds. The margin of error at the 95% confidence level for the overall sample data is approximately +/-2%.

Their survey data suggests that 8% of the population within England and Wales have been freshwater fishing in the last 2 years. Based on a population aged 12 and over in England and Wales of 44,254,462, the number of people aged 12 and over who have been freshwater fishing in the last 2 years is 3.5million. This is a considerably higher participation rate than found by other studies, and is three times the sales of around 1 million Environment Agency rod licences.Even making allowances for anglers not buying a licence every year and allowing for licence evasion, it is difficult to reconcile this participation rate with licence sales.

With respect to sea angling, 7% of the population of England and Wales aged 12yrs+ had been sea fishing in the last 2 years. Based on the same population total (44,254,46) the number of people aged 12 and over who had been sea angling is 3 million. It is difficult to reconcile this with the Drew participation rate.

Nautilus Consultants (2006) examined recreational sea anglers’ potential economic contribution to the South West region and the interdependencies between recreational sea angling, commercial fishing and the environment.

Using the Drew Associates participation rates (see above), Nautilus estimated there were 240,900 resident sea anglers in the South West. With respect to visiting anglers, the South West Tourist Board data, as part of the UK Tourism Survey 2003, indicated that a further 600,000 visitors participated in sea angling. Nautilus Consultants assume this translates into 750,000 days.

Expenditure data was obtained from a survey of 314 anglers using face to face interviews at angling marks, tackles shops, angling competitions (138 respondents) and telephone interviews with members of the National federation of Sea Anglers (176 respondents). Face to face respondents fished 35 times per year and the phone sample 49 times per year. Adjustments were made for on-site sampling bias, but not for the phone sample. This reduces the average number of days to 14, which is comparable to the Drew corrected trips per respondent.

36

The total sea angler expenditure by households resident in the South West was £190 million; of those only £110 million was undertaken in the South West, the remainder was directed elsewhere. The visitors’ expenditure is assumed to be the same as the residents at £73.51 per day. This generates a visiting sea angler expenditure of £55 million and a total expenditure of £165 million in the South West.

The mean spend per resident sea angling household was £1028 per annum. This compares with a Drew Associates household spend of £489 per household. If Nautilus Consultants had used the same approach as Drew Associates, their estimates would be 50% less. The differences between these two approaches relate largely to the treatment of equipment costs in the method used to correct for the sampling bias. The Nautilus approach effectively assumes that equipment costs do not vary with the number of trips. Thus, an angler making one trip per year is assumed to have the same equipment costs as an angler making 40 trips per year. Drew Associates assume there is linear relationship between total equipment costs and trips, and thus average equipment costs per day are a constant.

Nautilus sought to reconcile the £161 million of angler expenditure with observed direct employment. From a survey of suppliers, £7.7 million of expenditure on chartering and £15.6 million in tackle shops can be identified, yielding a total of £23 million. The same supplier survey identifies chartering to be responsible for 231 FTE’s and tackle shops 246 FTE’s. For each of these activities, the turnover derived from the supplier survey is significantly less than the turnover obtained from the angler survey.

Logically, the remaining £141 million (88%) of £165 million total must have been spent on “other categories” (Transport and Parking, Boats and Insurance, Accommodation, Harbour Dues, Accommodation, Food, Competitions, Magazines and “other”). On the basis of turnover per job, they estimate that a further 2,676 jobs must be created in these other categories. This does seem a lot of employment in the South West in these categories. An alternative explanation is that the bias in the angler survey has over estimated angler expenditure. Nautilus did not include indirect or induced effects, nor did they undertake a substitution analysis.

In addition to estimating economic activity supported by sea angling they estimated the NEV of angling in the form of sea anglers’ consumers’ surplus at £77 million per annum.

Radford et al (2007), were responsible for the latest study of freshwater angling in England and Wales. This study sought to estimate the economic activity supported by and the economic impact of different types of freshwater angling in each region of England and in Wales. The study also considered the economic consequences of potential increases and decreases in different types of freshwater angling.

Assessments were made for the nine Government Office Regions of England; Wales; and for England and Wales as a whole. For each of these regions, a separate evaluation was undertaken for coarse fish, trout, salmon and sea trout. In effect, there were thirty three separate evaluations each of which could be disaggregated to yield estimates by types of surface water (namely, rivers, stillwaters and canals).

In England and Wales a licence is required to fish in freshwater and the Environment Agency holds the names and addresses of licensed anglers. A controlled sample of 3,000 anglers was drawn from these records and a telephone survey was undertaken of the anglers to establish the average number of angling days per angler across the region/fish species combinations. An

37

online internet questionnaire was then used to collect information on angler activity and expenditure. Using the known total number of anglers from licence sales, these observations were scaled to population totals (angler days per region per fish species).

The Table below summarises the “economic activity supported by angling” in England and Wales20. As can be seen, coarse angling was the most popular activity, while salmon and sea trout angling was relatively minor.

Table 2.6.1: Economic Activity Supported by Freshwater Angling in England and Wales

(Radford,2007)

Angler days(’000s)

Coarse 26,387Trout 3,434S & ST 429ALL 30,250

Gross angler expenditure (£’000s)Coarse £971,228Trout £172,707S & ST £36,958ALL £1,180,893

Income (GVA) supported (£’000s)

Coarse £804,203Trout £147,603S & ST £28,612ALL £980,418

Employment supported (FTEs)

Coarse 30,580Trout 5,628S & ST 1,179ALL 37,386

From the Table, above we can see that angler gross expenditure across the whole of England

and Wales was £1.18 billion, with coarse angling responsible for £971 million of this. Household

income of £980 million and 37,386 jobs were supported across England and Wales.

In the unlikely event of all forms of angling ceasing, expenditure would be diverted to other

activities creating income and jobs elsewhere in England and Wales. Thus, although income

and jobs would be lost in angling services, there would be increases elsewhere. A substitution

analysis was carried out for each species, to estimate the “economic impact” of net expenditure

loss. The results are summarised in the Table below.

20 Readers wishing information on particular species / region combinations should consult the report

38

Table 2.6.2 Economic Impact of Freshwater Angling (Radford,2007)

Net expenditure (£’000s)Coarse £160,996Trout £49,363S & ST £14,501

Impact on income (GVA) (£’000s)Coarse £133,082Trout £41,643S & ST £10,720

Impact on employment (FTEs)

Coarse 5,060Trout 1,588S & ST 445

Combining the information from Tables 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, and using coarse fish as an example we summarise as follow. The gross expenditure of coarse anglers in England and Wales supported household incomes of £804 million and 30,580 FTEs. If coarse angling were to cease across England and Wales, £161 million would be lost, resulting in a net loss of £133 million in household income and 5,060 jobs.

2.6.1 Scottish Impact Studies

It is appropriate that we pay more attention to Scottish studies of the economic impact of angling. There are eleven particular studies that to a greater or lesser extent have influenced the design and execution of this study.

� Tourism and Recreation Research Unit of Edinburgh University study of salmon and sea trout angling in Scotland (1982)

� PIEDA Ltd and the Scottish Marine Biological Association study of Firth of Clyde sea angling (1988)

� Mackay Consultants study of salmon angling in Scotland (1988) � Fisheries Resource Management study of sea angling in the Western Isles (2000) � George St Research and Jones Economics assessment of sea angling in the Highlands

and Islands (2003) � Radford et al, study of the economic contribution of freshwater angling in Scotland

(2004) � Riddington et al an evaluation of the economic impact of angling and paddle sports on

the River Spey (2004), � Land Use Consultants review of marine and coastal recreation in Scotland (2006) � Arkenford’s survey of UK watersports and leisure participation (2006) � Radford et al an evaluation of the economic impact of trout, salmon and sea trout

angling in the Kyle of Sutherland (2007)

2.6.1.1 Tourism and Recreation Research Unit (1982).

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAFS) provided estimates of rod days obtained via a form sent out by DAFS to proprietors of fishing’s along with the salmon and sea trout catch return forms.

39

Table 2.6.3 Regional Rod Days TRRU (1982)

Estimated rod days

Borders 22,291Central 4,729Dumfries and Galloway 49,630Grampian 105,970Highland 100,727Strathclyde 25,620Tayside 61,629Western Isles 3107Scotland Total 373,703

Face to face interviews and self completion questionnaires produced 47 observations across three areas (Kyle of Sutherland, the Tay and the Spey). Combining the mean expenditure with the rod days estimates produced the following expenditure figures for the three study areas.

Table 2.6.4. Expenditure Estimates (TRRU 1982) (2009 prices)

Area Rod Days LocalExpenditure

Non-LocalExpenditure

Total

Kyle of Sutherland 7,053 £1,323,468 £486,171 £1,809,640Tay 42,018 £9,372,315 £2,187,773 £11,560,089Spey 62,230 £15,476,474 £3,889,375 £19,365,850

The rod day estimates were also used to produce a figure for expenditure across the whole of Scotland. The total expenditure on salmon angling in Scotland in 1982 was estimated between £58m and £122m. The best estimate was £92m, implying expenditure per day of £246. This study is somewhat dated and is reliant on relatively few observations. The emphasis was on gross angler expenditure. There was no substitution analysis and no assessment of the impact on income or employment.

2.6.1.2 PIEDA Ltd and the Scottish Marine Biological Association (1988)

This study was funded by the Scottish Tourist Board and was commissioned in response to the sea angling sector reporting a sharp decline in angling activity in the Firth of Clyde, the primary cause of which was believed to deteriorating quality of sea angling, as reflected in species diversity, weights of fish and specimen size. The deterioration was greatest with respect to cod. The now defunct White Horse sea angling shore competition, which regularly attracted around 1,000 anglers fishing the shore from Saltcoats to Greenock, in 1988 produced a particularlypoor return of shore caught cod and never recovered its previously high reputation.

In response to these developments, the Scottish Tourist Board wrote to local tourist boards requesting information and all boards reported adverse effects on sea angling related businesses. The Clyde Sea Angling Study (CSAS) had both biological and economic objectives. The biological objectives were to assess the extent and cause of the decline in fish stocks. The economic objectives were to estimate the economic impact of the decline and the economic impacts associated with remedial policy initiatives.

After reviewing the available evidence, CSAS concluded that the Clyde fish stocks declined as a result of the increased commercial fishing effort, much of which resulted directly from the

40

Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. Prior to the 1984 Act, commercial fishing effort was controlled by a complex set of fishing regulations, including, crucially, a ban on trawling within the three mile limit. In effect, these restrictions on commercial effort meant that large areas of the Clyde, and the upper Clyde in particular, had been used exclusively by anglers.

In the case of Clyde cod, CSAS found there was also evidence to support the view that low recruitment was also a contributory factor. Recruitment is the biomass of fish entering the exploited fishery for the first time. There are a number of variables that could adversely affect recruitment including a mismatch between the larval/juvenile stages and food availability, increased predation by sea birds or seals, or increased pollution. Through the discarding of undersized cod, commercial fishing effort itself could also affect recruitment. CSAS did, however, reject sea anglers’ claim that the disruptive effects on the sea bed of trawling adversely affected the food supply of juvenile stocks. This was because the fish preferred by anglers do not rely on bottom living organisms for their food supply. CSAS was generally inconclusive about the cause of low recruitment but accepted that discarding was probably a significant source of pre-recruit mortality.

The overall conclusion was that “if the fish stocks of the Clyde are to be improved, the intensity of fishing effort must be reduced as there is relatively little that can be done to influence recruitment (except perhaps to reduce discarding by increasing mesh size).”21

The CSAS study area covers the ports of Campbletown, Carradale, Tarbet and Rothesay on the west of the Clyde area and Girvan, Ayr, Troon, Largs, Inverkip, and Gourock on the East22.Despite the absence of data, CSAS used a variety of sources to estimate of the economic impact of both angling and commercial fishing.

At these ports, there were 137 registered commercial fishing boats employing 486 individuals.One difficulty is that the official data ignores vessels under 30ft or vessels using static gear.Interestingly, CSAS judged that the activities of static gear boats were not an issue for a study of sea angling. Using the above employment figures, and data on earnings and profits from a small sample of boat owners CSAS estimated £18.1m of pre-tax earnings from these 137 vessels. A further 500 jobs and £22.3m in gross earnings could be attributed to activities which supply and fleet and process the catch. In total, the ‘industry’ supports 1,000 jobs and generates £40.1m of local incomes. Further rounds of indirect and induced effects of £0.20 per £1.00 of direct effect would add another £8.0m of local income and 200 local FTEs.

With respect to sea angling, CSAS extrapolated from a number of national sources to estimate the total number of angling trips. Using data from the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports (SCCS) (1983) they estimate 660,000 sea angling trips in Scotland and making assumptions about the relative importance of the Clyde produce a figure of 242,000 Clyde sea angling trips. Average expenditure per trip was obtained from both a sample of 78 anglers and data from SCCS. The SCCS data yielded an estimate of £13.7m23, whereas the CSAS sample data implied an expenditure of £15m. Assuming the same relationship between expenditure and jobs observed in the commercial fishery, £14.9 would translate to around 170 local jobs. Further, assuming a value added per employee of £44,580, total household income would be £7.4m. Once the further rounds of indirect effects and induced effects are included, the total

21 Page 37 Para 2.53

22 One of this study’s case study areas is the Upper Firth of Clyde. Only Gourock and Inverkip are within the Upper Firth of Clyde, as defined by this study. 23

At 2009 prices.

41

household income effect is £8.9m with 200 FTE’s being supported. CSAS judged that “an improvement in sea angling conditions might be expected to increase this impact significantly”24.

CSAS estimated that from the early 1980’s up to 1988, sea angling had declined by at least 30%, with some charter firms reporting declines of up to 85% compared with the early 1980’s. With respect to the resulting economic loss, CSAS estimate that the decline in sea angling resulted in the Firth of Clyde losing 90 jobs and annual household income of £3m. Further, CSAS held the view that in 1988, conditions had become so unfavourable that, in the absence of improved catches, continual decline in sea angling activity was likely, risking 200 jobs and £8.9m of household income.

Given this, an improvement in sea angling conditions might be expected to arrest the decline, regain the lost jobs and income and create the potential for new jobs and income. CSAS reviewed the potential of the Clyde to attract additional Scottish anglers, non Scottish UK anglers and non UK visitors and estimated that the total benefit from sea angling improvement was 370 FTEs and £17.8m of household income.

With respect to the policy initiatives that might deliver these benefits, CSAS recommended: � closure of all mobile gear of the area north of a point from Cloch Point to Dunoon25

� a weekend ban on fishing with mobile gear throughout the Clyde � an increase in mesh size for nephrops trawls to 80mm codend

and possibly: � changes in the maximum size of otter boards

It should be noted that the argument advanced by CSAS is that the negative economic impact of restricting commercial fishing would be less significant than the economic impact benefits of consequential improvement in sea angling.

2.6.1.3 Mackay Consultants (1989)

This study sought to establish the pattern and impact of salmon and sea trout angler expenditure, but also the economic importance of netting. Sample data on angler expenditure were obtained through a mixture of on site surveys, a postal survey (names and addresses provided by hotels and fishery owners) and questionnaires left with tackle shops, hotels proprietors etc. A total of 2,364 responses were received and the calculated average daily expenditure was £145.10.26

Regionally, the estimated rod days were distributed as follows27:

24 Page 60 para 4.32

25 This area, is the greater part of this study’s Upper Firth of Clyde case study area. 26 £77.25 in 1988 prices is derived from the average of anglers across ten case study rivers and not the whole sample

of 2,364.

27 The angler day’s estimates were derived from a survey of 95 proprietors covering 202 beats across the whole of

Scotland.

42

Table 2.6.5 Regional Rod Days (MC. 1989)

Recorded rod days

Borders 28900Central 6,400Dumfries and Galloway 56,800Grampian 121,600Highland 112,600Strathclyde 33,800Tayside 70,300Western Isles 3,200Fife 1,300Scotland Total 434,900

These figures are higher than those estimated by DAFS in 1982. Using the expenditure per day estimate of £145 and the 434,900 rod days, MC estimated the direct expenditure of all salmon anglers in Scotland to be £63 million.

As far as substitution is concerned, no distinction was made between the impact of visiting anglers' expenditure and that of resident Scottish anglers' expenditure on the Scottish economy. This implies that, if salmon angling did not exist, all domestic (and visitor) expenditure is assumed to be diverted out with Scotland. MC assumes a multiplier value of 1.5, (the sum of direct, indirect and induced expenditure) and the total expenditure in Scotland derived from salmon angling was estimated to be £94.7million.

2.6.1.4 Fisheries Resources Management (FRM) (2000)

In a study for the Western Isles Fisheries Trust, FRM estimated the economic contribution of freshwater recreational angling to the Western Isles. This was an extensive and very detailed study which examines many type of angling in the Western Isles, including some aspect of sea angling. FRM found that 20% of the Western Isles residents may take part in some form of recreational fishing, making on average 25 angling trips per year. This is a high participation rate and a high level of average effort. Especially since 85% of participants are male and 86% of these are over 16 years old. With respect to sea angling 12% of residents took part in sea angling. The study did not collect expenditure data for sea anglers.

2.6.1.5 George Street Research and Jones Economics (GSR) (2003)

The aim of this study was to identify the economic impact of nine niche activities on the Highland and Islands Enterprise area. One of these activities was sea angling. To estimate population totals, questions were placed on a face-to-face UK omnibus survey in December 2002. The survey respondents were a representative sample of 4,000 adults throughout the UK, excluding those parts of Scotland north of the Caledonian Canal. This yielded a population of 79,900 UK residents who visited the HIE region and engaged in sea angling.

A survey of sea angling tourists was undertaken using two instruments. Face-to-face and self completion questionnaires were distributed to visitors at the European Sea Angling Championship in Orkney during August 2003. Self-completion questionnaires were distributed to sea anglers by the Federation of Scottish Sea Anglers (FSSA) the National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA). Respondents who participated in the 2002 Highlands Visitors Survey and who

43

had consented to be re-contacted were also sent a self-completion questionnaire in August 2003. Completed questionnaires were received from 174 respondents. The responses provided information on numbers of trips, expenditure per trip and expenditure per annum. The number of visitors and type of trips are summarised in the Table below

Table 2.6.6 Number of overnight and day trips (GSR,2003)

Overnight Day Trippers Total

Trips/annum/person 3.2 8.3 n.a.Nights in area/person 6.07 0 n.a.Number of visitors (‘000) 42 38 80Sea angling trips (‘000) 135 312 447Days in area ‘(000) 823 312 1,135

The total number of days in the HIE area by those undertaking any sea angling during 2002/3 was 1.1m days from just under 0.5m trips. For overnight visitors and day trippers, the annual expenditure per person was £421.3 and £72.0 respectively. Applying these figures to the population of 79,900 visitors to HIE gives aggregate annual expenditure of £20.5m on sea angling. Of this, £17.8m came from overnight visitors, and £2.7m from day trippers.

The GSR survey of tourists addressed the issue of additionality by asking respondents whether sea angling played a very important part in the decision taken to visit the area. For 85% of overnight visitors, sea angling was very important bringing the net annual aggregate expenditure down to £15.2m. For the day trippers, the figure was higher at 93%, giving a net annual aggregate expenditure of £2.7m28.

An adjustment was also made to reflect that some HIE based sea anglers would switch their expenditure to activities outside the HIE area. In total, sea anglers’ expenditure in the HIE area wholly attributable to that activity for 2002/3 was £17.7m. A breakdown on this total is given in the table below.

Table 2.6.7 Aggregate annual expenditure 2002/3 (£m) (GSR, 2003)

Overnight Day Trippers Total

Gross expenditure 17.8 2.7 20.5Net Expenditure 15.2 2.5 17.7

An allowance was made for a modest amount of public sector expenditure on sea angling in HIE29. Net expenditures were reduced to reflect the reduction in government welfare payments to HIE resulting from the positive contribution of sea angling to HIE employment. Indirect and induced effects were incorporated using multipliers taken from the Scottish Tourism Multiplier Study published in 1992. The final results are summarised in the Table below.

28 These figures are not surprising since the user survey was directed at committed sea anglers, such as the Orkney competition anglers. This may have also resulted in a bias in both the number of trips and the average annual expenditure.29 £80,380

44

Table 2.6.8 Economic impact of sea angling in HIE (GSR, 2003)

Overnight Day trip Totals

Aggregate Net Expenditure £(m) 13.2 2.3 15.5Income £(m) 4.2 0.7 4.9Employment (FTEs) 348 57 405

2.6.1.6 Radford et al (2004)

The principal aim was to analyse the impact of angler expenditure on output, income and employment for each of seven regions (Dumfries and Galloway, Borders, Highlands, North East Scotland, Central Scotland, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland) and for each of four types of angling (Salmon and Sea Trout, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout and Coarse Fish). In addition, estimates were also produced for Scotland as a whole. Through surveys of fishery owners, Radford et al constructed a database of 2830 brown trout, rainbow trout and coarse fisheries, plus salmon and sea trout fisheries on a river-by-river basis. From the database, it was possible to provide estimates of angler fishing effort (measured in angler days) for Scotland as a whole, or for four fishing types, or for seven regions. The database also provided a breakdown of angler effort according to angler origins.

Table 2..6.9 Freshwater Angler Days Summary Table (Radford 2004)

Salmon and Sea Trout

Brown Trout

Rainbow Trout

CoarseFish

AllAngling

Dumfries and Galloway

48,245 28,195 17,337 23,926 117,703

The Borders 43,000 17,884 10,942 315 72,141Highland 190,589 78,576 26,702 10,915 306,782

North East Scotland

190,853 54,715 108,894 11,402 365,864

Central Scotland 61,646 134,391 231,615 45,581 473,233Western Isles 10,715 12,606 <100 <100 23,321Orkney and Shetland

<100 27,000 <100 <100 27,000

Scotland Total 545,048 353,367 395,490 92,139 1,386,043

An internet based questionnaire and a self completion questionnaire distributed via proprietors and clubs enabled the construction of an angler database of 3,000 cases containing details of locations of angling, home, species, expenditure and constituents of that expenditure. The database also incorporated a substitution analysis. The seven regional economies were modelled using the Detailed Regional Economic Accounting Model (DREAM®) developed by CogentSI.30

Total angler expenditure was estimated by using the fisheries database to scale angler daily expenditure estimates. From the Table below, it is estimated that all anglers spend a total of £131m on angling in Scotland, with salmon and sea trout anglers accounting for over 65% (£86m) of this total.

30CogentSI Ltd, Killylung, Dumfries, DG2 0RL, Scotland. CogentSI.

45

Table 2.6.10 Freshwater Angler Expenditure Summary Table (£’000s) (Radford, 2004)Salmon and Sea Trout

Brown Trout

Rainbow Trout

CoarseFish

AllAngling

Dumfries and Galloway £3,456 £1,384 £1,407 £1,630 £7,878The Borders £7,782 £784 £708 £19 £9,294Highland £41,319 £5,937 £2,044 £834 £50,136North East Scotland £28,408 £1,854 £5,730 £962 £36,954Central Scotland £3,951 £6,108 £12,793 £2,252 £25,105Western Isles £839 £534 <£1 <£1 £1,373Orkney and Shetland <£1 £596 <£1 <£1 £596Scotland Total £85,757 £17,200 £22,683 £5,697 £131,336

Radford et al provide a detailed breakdown of angler days and daily expenditure by Local, Scottish Visiting and Non-Scottish visiting anglers for the four types of angling. The discussion hereafter is restricted to S&ST.

Table 2.6.11 Expenditure Loss Summary Table (£’000s) (Radford,2004)

Salmon and Sea Trout Brown Trout Rainbow Trout Coarse Fish

Dumfries and Galloway 1985.7 1031.4 661.2 957.8The Borders 5124.0 475.5 331.7 11.3Highland 23432.6 3174.5 1106.1 388.3North East Scotland 17346.3 1360.8 3278.6 281.9Central Scotland 2314.0 2650.3 5523.6 918.1Western Isles 183.4 278.5 <£1 <£1Orkney and Shetland <£1 364.5 <£1 <£1

From the table above, it can be seen that £3.2m of expenditure would be lost in the Highland region if brown trout were to cease. Feeding the expenditure changes through the DREAM® models produced the following estimated impact on regional income

Table 2.6.12 Regional Economic Impact: Household Income (Radford,2004)


Dumfries and Galloway 953.2 425.7 321.5 400.8The Borders 2795.2 199.3 154.0 4.5

Highland 14156.0 1725.3 605.7 211.7North East Scotland 10540.0 617.0 1682.3 155.1

Central Scotland 1418.5 1410.6 3154.1 429.1Western Isles 97.4 142.6 <£1 <£1

Orkney and Shetland <£1 137.0 <£1 <£1

The regional employment impacts are given in the Table below.

46

Table 2.6.13 Regional Economic Impact: Employment (Radford, 2004)


Dumfries and Galloway 88 38 34 38The Borders 136 11 10 0

Highland 781 122 37 12North East Scotland 688 34 171 27

Central Scotland 63 43 218 25Western Isles 20 14 N.A. N.A.

Orkney and Shetland N.A. 13 N.A. N.A.

The angler substitution analysis revealed how angler expenditure would change in circumstances where other types of angling are still available in the region, and the first choice type of angling is still available in other Scottish regions. Unfortunately, the angler questionnaires could not accommodate questions about angler alternatives if a type of angling ceased throughout Scotland, or indeed if all forms of angling ceased in Scotland.

The estimation of Scottish level impacts therefore had to rely on making assumptions and distinctions between locals and visitors to Scotland. With respect to Scotland as a whole, the best estimates of the economic activity supported by and the (post substitution) economic impact of freshwater angling are given in the Table below.

Table 2.6.14 Scottish economic impact of and activity supported by freshwater angling

(Radford,2004)

Activity Supported Economic Impact

Household Income (GVA) £87.17 £56.61FTE’s 4,418 2,800

2.6.1.7 Riddington et al (2004)

The aim of this study were to estimate the economic consequences of the introduction of Gyrodactylus salaris Gs into Scotland, and to identify the costs of prevention, eradication and containment. Gs is one of many salmonid infecting gyrodactylid species. It infests the skin, fins and gills where its grazing activity can lead to host death through salt and water imbalances. The study used both an economic value and an economic impact assessment.

The economic impact assessment utilised some of the results from Radford et al.(2004), supplemented with a survey of fishing proprietors to calibrate the model used to calculate the indirect and induced effects.

The estimation of the NEV of privately owned fisheries can differ from the estimation of an open access fishery such as sea angling. As outlined in Section 2.1, the NEV of (open-access) sea angling approximates to the anglers’ consumers’ surplus. With a private fishery, the proprietor can charge anglers for access and thus is able to capture what would otherwise be anglers’ consumers’ surplus. The captured surplus is called economic rent and the calculation of NEV thus involves the quantification of both economic rent and consumers’ surplus.

47

Anglers’ consumers’ surplus was estimated through a survey of anglers which ask them to reveal their net WTP for salmon angling. Economic rent was estimated through an analysis of the market value of salmon fishing rights, on the grounds that the market value of a fishery is a capitalisation of the annual income stream from fishery ownership (i.e. the fishing rents / captured consumers’ surplus). If the market value of fishing right is known, the implied annual income stream can be estimated (and vice-versa).

The prevalence of Gs throughout Scotland would destroy salmon angling. The economic impacts and the changes in NEV following the loss of all salmon angling are summarised in the Table below.

Table 2.6.15: Estimated Economic Impact and NEV (Riddington 2004)

Economic Impact (£million) Net Economic Value Lost (£million)

Annual Salmon Angler Expenditure in Scotland (£m) 69.9

Annual Capitalised

Expenditure Lost to the Scottish Economy Each Year (£m) 50.7

EconomicRent 18.7 622.7

Lost Scottish Household Income Each Year (£m) 39.1

Consumers’ Surplus 2.8 94.1

Lost Scottish Employment (FTE) 1,966 NEV Lost 21.5 716.7

2.6.1.8 Watersports and Leisure Participation Survey (2006)

Since 2002 Arkenford Ltd have undertaken an annual survey, jointly commissioned by British Marine Federation, Royal Yachting Association and Sunsail, to provide estimates of participation in watersport and water based leisure activities across the UK. The results are derived from a nationally representative sample of 12,000 respondents weighted for age, gender, socio economic grouping and origin. Each respondent is asked if they had participated in each of 21 water based or coastal activities in the past year and how often they had participated.

The participation rate for boat angling was 1.31% and 2.53% from the shore. Since the survey covers both inland and coastal waters, these are not sea angling participation rates. The quoted participation rates translate into 539,479 UK boat anglers and 1,094020 shore anglers, but since many respondents undertake both boat and shore angling, these estimates cannot be added to yield population totals for all angling. The average number of boat angling events undertaken per respondent was 7 trips,31 the comparable figure for shore trips was 13.1 events per annum.32

The survey also identified the proportion of events/trips taking place at coastal and inland locations. With respect to boat angling 39.2% of trips were at a coastal location; the comparable figure for shore angling was 43.5%.

Estimates of participation rates and population totals were also available for ITV regions. For Borders/Scotland ITV region boat angling participation was 2.15% (a population of 96,574) and 2.87% (a population of 128,924).

31 120 observations 32 250 obseravtions

48

2.6.1.9 Land Use Consultants (LUC) (2006)

In a review of Scottish marine and coastal recreation for Scottish Natural Heritage, LUC used an interactive Web based questionnaire with the details of the web questionnaire being distributed through organisations with an active involvement in coastal and marine recreation (clubs and associations). LUC recognise that there is probably over-representation of clubs whose activity is exclusively coastal (eg sea angling) compared with say horse riding. Similarly, more active members of the clubs are more likely to respond. A total of 490 responses were received, against a target response of 1,500.

Short walks were the most popular form of informal coastal recreation. When added together, sea angling from boats (11%) and from the shore (10%) was the most popular “specialist” activity. Coastal walks of more than 5 miles and sailing were the next most popular specialist activity with 17% and 10%, respectively.

The most popular boat areas were, in order of popularity were: Luce Bay, Oban and Loch Etive, Firth of Tay, Mull, the West Coast of the Rhins of Galloway, Berwickshire, Upper Firth of Clyde, Firth of Forth, East Grampian, Kircudbright. The most popular shore angling areas were; the Rhins of Galloway, Kircudbright area, East Grampian, Upper Firth of Clyde, Firth of Forth, Loch Etive.

Since population totals were not available for any of the activities, LUC were unable to estimate total expenditure. The activity with the highest annual expenditure was boat angling with an expenditure of £1,487. The next highest were sailing (£999), shore angling (£931) and Kayaking (£697). The study also provided information on the distribution of expenditure between; close to home, mail order and close to coast (see Table below)

Table 2.6.16 Average expenditure by activity and location (LUC,2006)

Close to home Mail order or Web Close to coast

Boat Angling £679 £508 £587

Shore Angling £425 £391 £383

2.6.1.10 Radford et al (2007)

This study sought to estimate the impact that angling has on employment and the income of households in the Kyle of Sutherland Fisheries Trust (KSFT) area. From a survey of fishing proprietors it was estimated that there were a total of 15,050 angler days for salmon, sea trout and brown trout across the KSFT area. A survey of anglers generated information on angler expenditure per day. Anglers’ gross expenditure was estimated by combining the information on expenditure per day from the anglers’ survey with the estimated number of days obtained from the owners’ survey. From Table the below, anglers and their companions annually spend nearly £4 million in the KFT area.

Table 2.6.17 (Radford 2007).

Type of Angling Gross Expenditure

Salmon and Sea Trout £3,739,938

Trout £192,026

Total £3,931,964

49

The indirect and induced effects of angler expenditure on income and employment, were captured using the Detailed Regional Economic Accounting Model (DREAM®) developed by CogentSI. These effects are summarised below

Table 2.6.18 Economic Activity Supported by Angler Gross Expenditure (Radford,2007)

Total GVA (£'000s)

Direct Employment (FTEs)

Total Employment (FTEs)

Local Expenditure £32 2 2

Visitor Expenditure £1,737 70 84

All Expenditure £1,769 72 86

The substitution analysis involved asking anglers what they would do under three scenarios: salmon and sea trout ceasing to exist, trout angling ceasing to exist and all freshwater angling ceasing to exist. Radford et al report that the area would loose £3.55 million of the £3.93 million of gross expenditure. This is a very dramatic loss and reflects that, for a great many KSFT anglers, their fishing it the primary reason for their expenditure in the KSFT area. This permanent loss of £3.55 million of angler expenditure will result in the economic impact described in the Table below.

Table 2.6.19 Economic Impact of the Net Expenditure Loss (Radford,2007)

Total GVA (£'000s)

Total Employment (FTEs)

Local Expenditure £19 1

Visitor Expenditure £1,572 75

All Expenditure £1,591 77

From the Table above, it can be seen that the area would permanently lose an annual income flow of £1.59 million and 77 FTE’s. It should be noted that relatively few of the direct angling jobs are full-time, all year positions with 100% of working activity devoted to angling. The 77 FTE’s probably accounts for around 100 to 120 employment positions in a relatively small core fishing area.

50

SECTION 3 AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS

Section 1 and 2 outlined the key considerations shaping the broad approach how population totals, key variables and economic impacts were estimated. It is necessary to provide an overview of how specific objectives were achieved.

3.0 Objective A (What is the economic impact of recreational sea angling in Scotland)

As previously explained, the assessment of economic impact requires the estimation of angler gross expenditure, a substitution analysis to estimate net expenditure followed by economic modelling to track the direct, indirect and induced effects. This process yields estimates of the economic activity (i.e. household income and jobs) supported by angler (gross) expenditure and the economic impact (on household income and jobs) of angler (net) expenditure.

3.0.0 The Geographical Boundaries

Objective A does not define the boundaries to be used. This is a highly significant issue, since an economic impact must relate to a defined geographical area. The most important area is Scotland as a whole, though it needs to be recognised that once substitution effects are taken into account, such a large geographical area will have more substitute activities within it, thereby generating large displacement effects. Indeed, if the majority of sea anglers would simply switch expenditure within Scotland and the net economic impact of sea angling could be quite small. In other words there will be large difference between gross and net economic impacts. On the other hand, such a large economic area will produce stronger induced and indirect effects.

In addition to Scotland as a whole, a number of smaller areas were considered including using Inshore Fisheries Group (IFG) areas, Freshwater Fisheries areas, new Visit Scotland areas and Tourism Survey areas. Whilst some thought IFG areas could help show the tradeoffs for fish resources in these areas, IFGs are primarily a management system for the commercial sector, they are not yet operational and that some of the boundaries could be revised. A close alignment with tourism areas might be useful to Tourism bodies when marketing sea angling.

The areas also needed to fit with NUTS 333 boundaries for modelling purposes and needed to be recognisable by anglers. There was no particular reason for choosing any existing set of areas instead, in consultation with members of the study’s Steering Group, areas were defined that were most useful for the study. The new VisitScotland areas, which are also those of the new divisions of Scottish Enterprise, provided the basis for eight Sea Regions identified, which were:

� Edinburgh and the East consisting of the Borders, Lothians, Fife and Perthshire

� The North East consisting of Grampian. Moray, Angus and Dundee-

� Orkney and Shetland

� Argyll and Lochaber: excluding Helensburgh and Lomond but including Arran

� Northern Highlands: the rest of Highland region including Skye,

33 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics

51

� Western Isles

� Glasgow and West: Glasgow, Inverclyde, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire excl Arran, Dumbartonshire incl Helensburgh and Lomond,

� Dumfries and Galloway.

3.0.1 Economic Modelling

The study team’s view was that that best approach to identifying the direct, indirect and induced effects of the sea angler expenditure was to utilise the Detailed Regional Economic Accounting Model (DREAM®) developed by CogentSI.34 The DREAM® system consists of

1. A Tourist Satellite Account to transform expenditure on tourist items into direct expenditure on commodities,

2. A trade model to identify external purchase by local industries and workers and 3. A local Input-Output table to trace these expenditures through the system

The theory and performance of the CogentSI approach is given in Riddington (2006), whilst an appendix discusses the application of the approach in this case.

3.0.2 Non-Specific Expenditure

In assessing economic impacts we need to know where sea angler expenditure is undertaken.Those expenditures which are trip related such as meals, refreshments overnight accommodation are quite straightforward. The amount spent on a commodity in a day is multiplied by the number of days to give the expenditure.

There are other categories of expenditure which are not specific to a particular trip, such a tackle, clothing magazines etc. This “non-specific or equipment/capital” complicates the assessment of economic impacts, because Radford at al 2007 showed the internet returns were significantly biased upward, as might be expected. However the relationship between the number of angler days and angler non-specific expenditure in the on-line survey was analysed and as expected there was a correlation. It is thus possible to obtain unbiased estimates of capital expenditure by calculating the capital expenditure per day from the internet survey and then multiplying by the unbiased angler day estimates levels obtained from the omnibus telephone survey35.

3.1 Objective B (Where are the important local centres for sea angling in Scotland?)

The combination of the omnibus telephone survey and the internet survey provide information on angler activity across the 8 broad regions outlined above. Within each of these regions there are one or more angling centres, or hot spots. Some centres will have a reputation for shore angling, whereas others will be noted for own boat and/or charter boat angling. There are also variations in the range of species caught and the times of the year when the fishing is at its best.

There are two issues relating to this objective. The first is the establishment of a list of sea angling centres and their categorisation according to various strata (eg shore v boat; catch biomass and its species composition; proportion of visitors etc). A survey of sea angling

34CogentSI Ltd, Killylung, Dumfries, DG2 0RL, Scotland. CogentSI

35 An alternative explanation is that, because of the upward bias in the internet survey, capital costs were adjusted

(down) by the ratio of the mean angler days in the omnibus survey to the mean angler days in the internet survey.

52

stakeholders (see 3.5, below) requested each respondent to identify a list of shore angling centres and a list of boat angling centres. These stakeholders were (sea) angling club secretaries, angling journalists, tackle shops proprietors, charter boat companies, fishery biologists etc. Moreover, they were asked to rank these centres in order of importance (using self-defined criteria).

Respondents to the internet questionnaire were also asked to identify the boat and shore centres they used. In addition to ticking suggested locations, respondents could “write in” centres not listed. These two procedures generated a reasonably comprehensive list of centres in Scotland with a measure of relative importance based on the number of users.

To provide some insight into characteristics and diversity of angling centres five case studies chosen to reflect very different species types, and differences in associated urban areas and local cultures. The case study areas were Luce Bay, Firth of Clyde, Loch Etive, Orkney, East Grampian between Stonehaven and Arbroath. Surveys were undertaken, involving key personnel and providers of angling services (eg tackle shops, tackle suppliers).The surveys were semi-structured and had section of common questioning. The purpose of these case studies was:

� To provide a basis for the development of an analysis for each of the case study areas.

� To provide further insight into the dependence of local suppliers in small areas on sea angling species, particularly when there is a significant dependency upon tourism

� To identify the origins of the sea anglers and to provide additional information to triangulate estimates obtained from the internet and telephone surveys and the Highland area research.

� To provide insight into the levels of youth (under 18) sea angling not recorded elsewhere.

3.2 Objective C. (What are the main competing areas both within and outwith Scotland?)

The angler internet survey generated information for each of the 8 regions and Objective B provided a list of sea angling centres located within each of the regions. The five cases studies identified in Objective B will highlight the variability between angling centres and their strength and weaknesses. An “important” centre for sea angling will have significant numbers of charterplaces available..

3.3 Objective D. (What are the principal characteristics of the recreational sea angling sector?)

This study lays great emphasis on the accurate assessment of the numbers of sea anglers, their characteristics and their expenditures. The omnibus telephone survey and the on-line survey generated large amounts of data from many anglers. In Sections 4 and 5, we have described the estimation of total angler effort, its regional distribution, its distribution between shore and boats, its distribution between home and visiting anglers and the species anglers are targeting.

53

3.4 Objective E. (What are the key trends in the sector?)

Given the absence of any consistent body of data on the past, a quantitative approach to explaining absolute and relative performance was difficult. The on-line angler survey, and the survey in the case study areas, presented anglers with a mixture of quantitative and qualitative questions. The quantitative questions asked anglers to compare their current angling with their effort levels 20 and 10 years ago. Respondents were then asked to select a main reason for this change. The internet survey also sought anglers’ estimation of their likely future sea angling effort levels and the likely reason for the change.

Qualitative questions asked anglers to compare levels of satisfaction between their past and current angling. Relative regional performance was evaluated, given that responses can be regionally differentiated.

In addition to angler surveys, semi structured telephone and face to face surveys were undertaken of key stakeholders (club secretaries, angling journalists, charter boat proprietors, tackle shops). Among other things, this survey focussed on the identification of: 1. angling centres which are predominantly shore based 2. angling centres which are predominantly boat based 3. mixed shore and boat centres

(1,2,and 3 are particularly relevant to Objective C 4. past trends in effort levels 5. past trends in stock abundance

(4 and 5 are relevant to Objective E) 6. principal opportunities for future expansion 7. constraints on future development

(6 and 7 are particularly relevant to Objective F, below)

3.5 Objective F. (What are the future prospect for the sector)

As described above, the survey of stakeholders provided some insight into future prospects.

54

SECTION 4 SURVEYS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES

4.0 The Omnibus Survey

The omnibus survey sought to identify the number and characteristics of sea anglers and the distribution of angler effort across shore, own boat and the regional distribution angler. Sea angling questions were incorporated into a household telephone survey undertaken by Progressive Ltd of Edinburgh. The sea angling questions were presented to 15,037 people. The Scottish omnibus survey sampling unit is adults, whereas other omnibus surveys have focussed on households (eg Drew Associates 2004). Two important issues are the number of under 18’s participating in sea angling and the number of non-Scottish visitors. We used a combination of published data and information from our other survey instruments to refine our estimation of the total population.

It was been necessary to align the omnibus survey results with the specifically devised regions agreed at the Steering Group. The sampling frame and “normal” output from the omnibussurvey is based on the 1991 Regions (Strathclyde, Lothians, Central etc). We therefore faced a problem of amending the omnibus results to comply with the RSA study’s specific regions36.Fortunately, at the initial specification stage (before the SG decision on regions), it had been decided to ask for postcode district information. A postcode district is the first part of the postcode e.g. G84 and there are some 480 districts in Scotland. The census provides data on standardised post code areas which are sub-divisions of districts. In most cases the number of divisions is quite limited (3 or 4) thus it is not too difficult to identify the characteristics of population in the post code district. The resulting spread of respondents is given below.

4.1 The Internet Survey

The Internet questionnaire was authored using SNAP software. An initial version was piloted among members of the SG and forwarded to selected anglers by the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network. We received comments and suggestions from 13 individuals. The questionnaire was amended as appropriate and piloted for a second time. Apart from some minor presentational tweaks, no further changes were made and the questionnaire went live in late May.

A significant effort went into promoting the questionnaire among the sea angling community.Thirty five thousand postcards, containing the message overleaf were distributed to tackle shops, angling clubs and charter boat proprietors.

36 These regions were Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles, Central and Northern Highlands, North East Scotland. Argyll, Arran and Lochaber, Glasgow and the West, Edinburgh and the East, Dumfries and Galloway

55

_____________________________________________________

An Appeal from the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network Policy towards Scottish sea angling has been hindered because little is known about it. The Scottish Government is now rectifying this by funding a team of economists to produce an economic assessment of sea angling in Scotland. When

completed, this study will help to ensure that policy makers are well informed about Scottish sea angling’s true significance and how best to realise its future potential. The Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network (www.ssacn.org) strongly supports this study and is appealing for sea anglers’ to provide information. We believe that it is absolutely essential that as many sea anglers as possible complete an on-line questionnaire. If you have fished for sea species anywhere in Scotland in the past three years we urge you to click on the address below and complete the questionnaire. Even if you fished once for a couple of hours, the study team would like information from you

.http://www.gcal.ac.uk/econsurv/seaangler3.htm ___________________________________________________________________

As can be seen, the appeal was from SSACN, rather than the Glasgow Caledonian University. It was felt that SSACN would carry more weight with sea anglers. Bundles of (200-400) post cards were sent to tackle shops around Scotland. Visits to tackle shops confirmed that they had been received. Some shops were actively encouraging anglers to take a card, whilst others were simply making them available. Similar sized bundles were also distributed to sea angling club secretaries and to charter boat proprietors. Contact with these confirmed that the postcards had been received and were being distributed, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Additional publicity was sought through the questionnaire’s URL being loaded onto websites and though general and specialist angling press. Both Sea Angler and Total Sea Angler carried editorial comment favourable and publicised the URL. The Glasgow Herald and the Scottish Sun also covered the appeal for anglers to complete the questionnaire.

4.2 Case Study Data Collection

The case studies were selected to reflect the diversity of sea angling activity and to explore particular themes and contemporary issues. We also sought to estimate rough magnitude of the economic activity supported by sea angling within these smaller geographical areas. One way of doing this is to estimate the total population of anglers (or angler days) and then to undertake on-site survey work, or to invite angler to complete questionnaires relating to their activity and expenditure within the case study area in question. Because of resource constraints and the demands of on-site interviewing a top-down approach was adopted. We focused our attention on the suppliers of angling services (tackle shops, charter vessels, self drive rentals, boat and outboard suppliers, hotels, B&B’s, caravan parks, camp sites, self-catering accommodation). From previous studies and from the modeling of the 8 sea regions, there are known relationships between angler expenditure, direct, indirect, and induced effects and FTE’s. Thus, if FTE’s can be established, the relative magnitude of the other effects can be determined.

56

4.3 Stakeholder Interviews

The list of key personnel within the wider sea angling community was established through initial recommendations from the Scottish National Federation of Sea Anglers and the Scottish Angling Conservation Network. The list was then expanded on the recommendation of those initially contacted. The questionnaire used as a framework for each interview is given in the appendices

Details of charter operators were obtained from a variety of sources, including Scottish National Federation of Sea Anglers and the Scottish Angling Conservation Network and various websites. The Marine and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is responsible for the coding of vessels taking paying passengers, but were not able to provide a complete list, as not all charter operators wish to be included in the MCA’s database made available to the public. The MCA are reasonably confident that they have a high level of compliance, since coded operators who have incurred significant expenditure to satisfy coding requirements have a strong incentive to report on un-coded vessels. The charter questionnaire is given in the appendices

4.4 GIS Analysis

The creation of new geographies for analysis, in this case the Sea Regions and the Coastal/Inland split presents major problems in trying to identify the population (and other characteristics of an area such as coastline) of these geographies. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide a set of tools to assist with these tasks. In this case we utilised the Arc-GIS software combined with data from the UKBorders map library and the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics database. For presentation purposes maps were also obtained from the DigiMap Ordnance Survey map library hosted by Edina at Edinburgh University.

GIS methods can be very technical and complex and the following is simply an outline of some of the procedures.

1. For the 8 Sea Regions a map for the statistically based “Intermediate Zones” (IZ) was loaded.

2. The land border of each Sea Region was “drawn” as a new feature and extended to cover any islands in the Region.

3. The Scottish Outline map (which shows the coastline) was added. 4. Data from Scottish Neighbourhood Satistics were added and “joined” to the IZ map. 5. The IZ’s within each Sea Region were extracted and the population over 18 and 8-18

calculated.6. The total length of coastline within each sea region was calculated. 7. A map of the post office regions (at the level XNN N ) was downloaded. 8. All coastal postcode areas (at the level XNN ) were identified by observation. 9. At case study level the Data Zone maps and population data were used. 10. The coastline of the case study area was drawn as a new feature (except for Orkney

where the area was extracted from the Scottish Outline map) 11. A buffer zone was established at 1km and 5km from this coastline and the populations

within the relevant data zones calculated. 12. The length of the coastline was calculated

57

4.5 Secondary Data Sources

4.5.0 UK Tourist Survey

The United Kingdom Tourism Survey (UKTS) is a national consumer survey measuring the volume and value of tourism trips taken by residents of the United Kingdom. It is jointly sponsored by VisitBritain, VisitScotland, VisitWales and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

The survey covers trips away from home lasting one night or more taken by UK residents for the purpose of holidays, visits to friends and relatives, business and conferences or any other purpose. Tourism is measured in terms of volume (trips taken, nights away) and value (expenditure on trips).

The target sample size is 100,000. Because of doubts in the reliability of the survey data being produced by the UKTS telephone survey, from 2005, a face-to-face survey instrument was used. Output from the survey is provided by the sponsors in the form of general and specific reports. VisitScotland kindly provided specific additional data on fishing, which is reported later. Unlike government surveys, the raw data set has not been made available to researchers.

4.5.1 Time Use Survey

The key objectives of the United Kingdom Time Use Survey (TUS) were stated thus:

� to carry out a large-scale household survey featuring self-completion diaries to measure the amount of time spent by the UK population on various activities

� to ensure that the TUS provides data for government departments' academic research requirements

� to carry out the TUS in a European framework with design and administration along the lines of the Eurostat specification, and to provide results comparable, as far as possible, with those envisaged by them, but with modifications taking account of UK government and academic needs

� to deposit a documented dataset in an understandable and accessible format with the UKDA and the Office for National Statistics (ONS), for analysis by academic and government users respectively

TUS(2000) is a multi-stage stratified covered of nearly 12,000 households. The way every individual both adult and child aged 8 and over, in the household used their time was identified. The main point of interest of this project was the angling participation rate of children compared to adults.

The main data collection instruments were a household questionnaire, individual questionnaire and self-completion diaries. Respondents were asked to complete two 24-hour diaries, which are broken down into ten minute slots. Topics covered in the questionnaires include employment, qualifications, care of dependants and children, leisure time activities and demographic details, such as age, gender, marital status, ethnicity and housing. Four data files are included in the dataset: diary, household, individual and worksheet files.

The original plan of a five yearly cycle was replaced in 2005 with a Time Use module in the government Omnibus survey. This module similarly measured how we choose to spend time,

58

which has important implications for public policy, affecting, for example, employment, childcare, the labour market, health, provision of culture, education and transport. Critically, however, it only concerned the time use of those over 16.

The data set for TUS(2000) was extracted from the UK Data Archive as four SPSS files. The “household” and “individual” files were merged to allow the identification of Scottish adults and children and to identify the respective angling participation rates.

4.5.2 The TNS Fishing Report (2007)

The TNS fishing report was a vital source of data for establishing the numbers of sea anglers visiting from the UK. TNS surveyed a group of 1452 anglers consisting of 1010 respondents from a postal questionnaire (20% response rate), 92 on line enquirers to the VisitScotland (20% response rate) and 350 members of the VisitScotland activities panel. Of those surveyed, 905 (62%) had been sea angling in the last 2 years and of these 46% had been Sea-Angling. This proportion is the key in taking the UKTS estimate of fishing trips and providing an estimate of sea angling trips.

The data in the TNS study also provides information on the number of trips per angler. This can also be obtained from the Internet Survey. However the Internet figures were expected to be biased upwards so the TNS data was used to identify the number of sea anglers. However the trip length (days per trip) for RUK visitors from the internet survey is unlikely to be biased and this gives a direct estimate of the angler days by RUK visitors. A check of the days per angler resulting from these two methods provides confirmation that the estimates were of the right order.

59

SECTION 5 PROCEDURES, ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELS

5.0 Introduction

This section records the main stages in generating estimates of the economic impact of sea angling. Some of the material here is included for completeness and to facilitate replication should this work be updated. Inevitably in this type of work some simplifying assumptions have to be made, and these are discussed here. We also discuss the reasons for and underlying statistical theory associated with our “best” and “robust” estimates. Finally we outline the economic models that transform our estimates of gross expenditure to estimates of loss of jobs and income should angling in a region cease.

We experienced a number of difficulties and these are discussed below. Three in particular need to be highlighted before the results are presented. The number of visitors to Scotland and their fishing effort had to rely on secondary data, and produced estimates of visitors to Scotland for sea angling to be greater than expected. Second the results are sensitive to the treatment of capital and equipment expenditure data from the internet survey. Third, there needed to be some reconciliation of the disparity between the regional estimates and observations at case study level. These issues are all discussed below.

5.1 Scottish Participation Rates, Angler Numbers and Angler Days

The Omnibus survey provided information on the following variables: � Anglers’ Home Region (Old Scottish Regions, e.g. Lothian, Strathclyde,

Grampian) � Sea Angler (Yes/No) � Number of days on charter vessel in home region � Number of days on own or friend’s boat in home region� Number of days shore angling in home region � Number of days on charter vessel away from home � Number of days on own or friend’s boat away from home � Number of days shore angling away from home � Post_Code (Region e.g. G84) � Age Class (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+) � Gender � Class (AB, C1, C2, D).

These were produced in Excel format and imported into the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS). Code values were added and ages classes were recoded to reflect class mid-points (for subsequent calculation of means). Total angler days at home (Home Total) and total angler days fished away from home (Away Total) were computed and used to classify anglers into 3 types; Anglers Fishing Home Only, Anglers Fishing Home and Away, and Anglers Fishing Away Only. The major pre-processing tasks were to:

a) Allocate respondents to the eight regions as defined for this project. b) Define postal regions as either coastal or inland

60

Using GIS, an SPSS file was created linking Post Code Regions to the 8 regions and to coastal/inland classification. Both survey and post code region files were then sorted by Post Code and merged using SPSS. Participation rates were then assessed by simply identifying the total number and number of sea anglers for any chosen category. These included:

a) By Home Region b) By distance from coast c) By Age and Gender d) By Type

For each angler the mean number spent on the following was calculated:

a) Days on Charter Boats at home b) Days on Own or friends boat at home c) Days on Shore at home d) Days on Charter Boats at home e) Days on Own or friends boat at home f) Days on Shore at home

The number of adults over 18 in each of the sea areas was determined using the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics and the boundaries of the regions using GIS techniques. This same approach was used for determining the numbers of young people (8-18).

The number of Scottish adult anglers was determined from the participation rate and the adult population figures and thence the number of angler days of each type in each sea region.

5.2 Visitor Angler Numbers and Angler Days

The main two sources of data for the estimation of anglers numbers from the Rest of the UK (RUK) was the UK Tourist Survey and the TNS Fishing Report detailed in Sections 4.5.0 and 4.5.2 for the. Tables 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 shows the basic data provided by VisitScotland.

It is important to recognise that, despite the very large initial sample size the sample size for households undertaking fishing visits to Scotland is small at around 50. After subtracting Scottish and freshwater anglers the households sampled will be less than 20 per year. The substantial changes in destination regions year on year reflect this sample size problem.

Table 5.2.1 Overnight Fishing Trips in Scotland

2006 2007 06-07 avg

Total Trips to Scotland (m) 13.28 13.12 13.2

Base: Total Trips (Activity – Fishing) Estimate (000s) 415 376 396

Source: VisitScotland: UKTourist Survey

61

Table 5.2.2 Origin of Overnight Fishing Trips to Scotland

Region of residence (% trips: Activity – Fishing) 2006 2007 06-07 avg

North East 3.1% 9.8% 6.5%

Yorks & Humberside 2.2% 0.0% 1.1%

East Midlands 4.6% 5.1% 4.8%

East of England 3.1% 4.8% 4.0%

London 1.9% 11.4% 6.7%

South East (excluding London) 5.3% 6.6% 6.0%

South West 4.6% 2.7% 3.6%

West Midlands 4.1% 2.9% 3.5%

North West 6.5% 8.0% 7.2%

England 35.2% 51.1% 43.1%

Scotland 63.1% 44.9% 54.0%

Wales 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

Northern Ireland 0.0% 2.1% 1.1%

RUK 37.1% 55.1% 46.1%


Table 5.2.3 Destination of Overnight Fishing Trips to Scotland

Region of overnight stay (% trips: Activity – Fishing) 2006 2007 06-07 avg

Shetland 0.0% 2.4% 1.20%

Orkney 0.0% 1.3% 0.65%

Western Isles 1.9% 0.0% 0.95%

Highlands 17.8% 39.9% 28.85%

Aberdeen/Grampian 11.8% 4.5% 8.15%

Angus & Dundee 2.9% 4.0% 3.45%

Perth 9.4% 7.2% 8.30%

Fife 0.0% 0.0% 0.00%

Argyll & Trossachs 31.8% 20.5% 26.15%

Glasgow & Clyde Valley 0.0% 7.7% 3.85%

Ayr 1.9% 1.9% 1.90%

Dumfries & Galloway 23.6% 15.2% 19.40%

Borders 1.7% 2.1% 1.90%

Edinburgh & Lothians 3.1% 1.6% 2.35%


An angler can have many trips (Visits) and a trip can last a number of days. It is possible to obtain estimates of the number of days per angler from the Internet Survey or by observing similar Scottish groups in the Omnibus survey. However to map the number of Visits to Sea Anglers requires

1. The number of trips undertaken by the average angler to provide an estimate of the number of anglers

2. The percentage of those anglers that fish in seawater.

The TNS study provided the data for an estimate of the trips /angler (1.431) and the percentage of those anglers who were sea anglers (46%). The result of these transformations are given in Table 5.2.4.

62

Table 5.2.4 The Number of Sea and Freshwater Anglers in Scotland

2006 2007 Average

Visits Scotland 262 169 214

RUK 154 207 182

Total 416 376 396

Anglers Scotland 183 118 150

1.431 RUK 108 145 128

Total 291 263 277

Sea Anglers Scotland 84 54 69

0.46 RUK 50 67 59

Total 134 121 127

Freshwater Scotland 125 80 102

0.68 RUK 73 98 87

Total 198 179 188

N 51 48 99

There are a number of assumptions underlying this approach. As an example it is believed that Rest of the UK visitors (RUK) might be more inclined to freshwater fishing than Scottish visitors and have fewer visits each. Both of these would reduce the number of RUK sea anglers. Whilst comparison of the freshwater figures with those calculated from Radford et al (2004) suggests that these estimates are of the right order of magnitude, the implication of on-site studies in Luce Bay and on Orkney is that RUK figures are overestimated and that decision makers could have more confidence in using the 2006 estimate of 50,000 anglers rather than mean figure of 59,000 In line with the rest of this report, therefore, we have used the conservative figure of 50,000 anglers in our estimates.

Unlike Scotland the only direct information we have about these anglers comes from the internet survey. The danger of self selection bias is demonstrated by the mean number of days in Scotland for this group being over 6 times the mean number of away days for Scottish visitors obtained from the omnibus survey. The mean number of away days per angler is 5.3 but that for the urban areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh is 7. The internet survey does provide an estimate of the number of days in each visit (4.39). When combined with the visits per angler obtained from the TNS (1.431) we obtain an estimate of the days per angler of 6.29. It is believed that this represents the best unbiased estimate of the number of days spent sea angling by visitors from RUK. The distribution by type (Charter, Own Boat, Shore) was obtained from the internet survey multiplied by the estimated number of anglers to give the number of angler days. Similarly the distribution of the destination of activity was obtained by analysis of the RUK respondents in the internet survey. By definition all visitors stay overnight and are away from home.

5.3 Angler Days and Numbers for those under 18.

As discussed in Section 4.6., for legal reasons the omnibus survey only covered those over 18 but some site observations, particularly on piers, show a large proportion of young people under 18. The initial research methodology suggested “on site” surveys as a possible approach. In practice, for geographical and resource reasons, it became clear that there was no possibility of getting an unbiased sample. Instead it was decided to try and establish a participation rate from published sources.

63

Although slightly dated the complete data set for the 2000 Leisure and Time Use survey was available via the UK Data Archive. This was downloaded as an SPSS .sav file and Scottish data (8762 observations) extracted. Age groups were recoded into two age groups, Child for those 9-18 and Adult for those over 18. The resulting cross tabulation of participation against age is shown in Table 5.3.1.

Table 5.3.1 Participation In Angling in last 4 weeks by age group

age

Total Adult Child

Q31 Sports/ physical activities took part in over last 4 weeks - ANGLING/ FISHING?

Yes Count 122 76 198

% within p_age 1.7% 4.8% 2.3%

No Count 7062 1502 8564

% within p_age 98.3% 95.2% 97.7%

Total Count 7184 1578 8762

% within p_age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The participation rate relates “all” angling in the last 4 weeks whilst a rate for sea angling in the last year is required. The assumption made here is that if the participation rate for young people is say 2.7 times for “all” in 4 weeks, it will also be 2.7 times the participation rate for sea angling in a year. Since the adult rates have been established, to calculate the child rate we simply multiplied the adult rates in each region by 4.8/1.7. Although it is likely that the mean number of days per annum per young angler is different from the adult rate there is no data source that provides such data and consequently equality had to be assumed. Errors here are expected to be small but it was believed that there will be very substantial but unknown difference between the home/away proportion that makes any further analysis for children invalid.

5.4 Daily Expenditure

The internet survey (Appendix 1) consisted of 31 general questions and 8 sets of 9 questions, 1 set for each region which were to be completed only if the respondent had fished in the region. Close attention was paid to questionnaire design and question routing to minimize the time and effort of the respondent.

Within the 31 basic variables Q26 sought expenditure for days at home in five categories, Fuel & Transport; Food & Drink from Shop; Food and Drink from café/pub; Pub and Other. Q28 sought the same. There were a minimum of 5 response classes (e.g. Nothing, 0-£2.50, £2.50-£5, £5-£10 and >£10). These were recoded to class midpoints and the means home and away by category for each region estimated.

5.5 Accommodation Costs

Not all away visits are overnight visits and, because of the size of the regions, a number of angling visits in the home region involve overnight stays. Questions 12, 13, 15 &16 sought this information and after recoding the mean percentage of angler days that involve overnight stays calculated for each region.

After recoding (Q31) mean daily accommodation costs per night were estimated and the relevant percentage of this cost added to the daily cost per angler home & away per region.

64

5.6 Charter Costs

Charter costs per day were sought in Q27 and after recoding the mean cost in each region estimated and applied to all angler days that involved charter (identified in the Omnibus survey).

5.7 Non Specific/Capital Costs

The cost of obtaining equipment can be substantial. It is lumpy, i.e. in some years it may run into thousands and in other years could be zero and consequently the survey sought cost for capital equipment over 3 years and then calculated used the average capital spending per year. Allowances were made for the proportion of an own boats use was devoted to sea angling..

Because the internet survey was more likely to attract the keener angler, capital expenditure was thought to be biased upwards. One approach considered was to simply utilize the costs per angler identified by the internet survey but, on reflection, it appeared possible to correct for the bias by considering the number of days found in the internet and omnibus survey. In essence the logic is that the keen angler spends more on capital items because the better equipment will last for more days; the capital cost per angler day between the internet and omnibus respondents should be similar. Thus an unbiased estimate of capital expenditure can be obtained by calculating the cost per angler day in the internet survey and then using the angler days based on the omnibus survey .The mean expenditure on rods, nets etc (Q9); on clothing (Q10) and on books etc (Q11) was calculated in this manner. The mean expenditure for boats was estimated on the basis of angler days using a non charter boat combined with the use percentage found in Q7. This is then applied to the days where own boat has been used.

5.8 Activity at Destination Region

Economic Impact Analysis is concerned not with the outflow of expenditure from a region but the inflow to that region. To establish this, the expenditure from each region to every other region is required. This was established by taking the distribution of away days from each origin region to each destination region as estimated by the internet survey and applying it to the away days obtained from the omnibus survey.

5.9 Identifying Substitution and Displacement

At the end of each regional section respondents were asked how they would react to a hypothetical closure of the region to sea angling. There were three identified responses

1. Fish in another Scottish Region 2. Fish outside Scotland 3. Would not fish

The impact on the region and on Scotland associated with the response will vary depending upon the type of angler; i.e. if they are fishing in their home region, a Scot fishing in another region or someone from the RUK. For all of these groups, answer 2 would mean a loss of expenditure for both the region and Scotland as a whole. If the respondent said they would not fish it can be reasonably assumed that the expenditure would be retained in the region, that angling was not the primary purpose of the visit.

The difficulty comes at Scottish level where a response that they would fish elsewhere in Scotland could well mean that they would travel outside Scotland as well if sea angling were not

65

available. This is certainly valid for visitors from the RUK. However it seems an extreme assumption for Scottish anglers who may well be happy to move from say Lochaber to Skye but would be unhappy to travel hundreds of miles to England. In the past we have assumed that roughly half will make the journey to outside Scotland in pursuit of their sport but that the others will simply divert their expenditure to other Scottish based activities. The outcomes are summarized in Table 5.9.1 and 5.9.2.

Table 5. 9.1 Impact in Region by Angler Type

Response Home Scot Away Visitor

Fish elsewhere in Scotland Loss Loss LossFish outside Scotland Loss Loss Loss

Would not Fish No Loss No Loss No Loss

Table 5.9.2. Impact on Scotland by Angler Type

Response Home Scot Away Visitor

Fish elsewhere in Scotland Half Loss Half loss LossFish outside Scotland Loss Loss Loss

Would not Fish No Loss No Loss No Loss

The mix of the angler types varies from region to region and from activity (charter etc) to activity. As a result the substitution effects are unique to regions and types.

There is some problem with identifying what will happen to capital spend away from the home region since these are “one-off” expenditures. In the absence of alternatives we have assumed that this expenditure is in proportion to the away days spent in the region by visitors and that substitution occurs in a similar fashion.

5.10 “Best” and “Robust” Estimates

One of the problems identified in other studies of sea angling (and indeed freshwater angling) has been the reconciliation of figures generated by survey of anglers with observations obtained at a micro level from suppliers. As an obvious example the study by Mawle and Simpson (2005) estimated 3.5m freshwater anglers despite a known total of only 1m angling licences. Similar problems occurred with the Nautilus study and unfortunately could be present in this study too.

The most concrete of these is the estimates on use of charters. A comprehensive trawl of suppliers found 52 charterers, many of whom also carry dive parties and some of whom have or are vanishing from the business. Sea and weather conditions put a limit on the number of days it is physically possible to operate and lack of demand in off periods (Tuesdays in November) effectively limit effort to 100 days. Average client numbers are less than 10 which implies a maximum of around 52,000 angler days.

The omnibus survey generates a demand of 236,000 from Scots alone, with another 66,000 from UK Visitors giving a total of 303,251 angler days. The sample size is sufficient to take these estimates seriously (66 home charters, 44 charters) but the variance is very wide. However even using the 95% lower bounds we obtain 111,378 Scots plus 43,000 RUK.

Possible reasons for this discrepancy are:

66

a) Our comprehensive list is not comprehensive. Fishing is occurring from other boats where the angler makes a payment to someone who is not a direct friend. This could simply be a contribution to fuel costs to a friend of a friend or even a self drive boat hire, but the anglers have regarded any payment as constituting a charter.

b) Charter owners are not reporting all their charters. c) Boat owners are not reporting charters d) The omnibus survey is over-estimating the numbers of anglers (at all levels). e) Omnibus respondents are over-estimating the number of days. f) Internet respondents are overestimating expenditures.

We can think of no good reason why the omnibus might overestimate except that there exists a gap between our estimates and the “on-site” estimates in all areas i.e. Orkney within Orkney and Shetland, East Grampian within Grampian, Luce Bay within Dumfries and Galloway and the Upper Clyde within Glasgow and West. We also have trouble reconciling expenditure on angling equipment with turnover in tackle shops.

Because of the extreme difficulty of estimating numbers and expenditure from the “bottom up” even in a small area like Loch Etive, this approach is likely to contain more (and larger) errors. Thus our decision in the past has been to always publish the survey based estimates even if they seem too high. However examining the data it is clear that the distribution is often extremely skewed and that the means may be biased upwards by a small number (possibly just 1) declaration by a respondent that may be frivolous or erroneous.

There are three areas where we feel classical approaches to the statistics might be generating problems

1. The number of angling days on charter boats 2. Expenditures (because the self selecting nature of the sample might attract a limited

number of atypical respondents) 3. RUK Estimates from the UKTS (because of the small numbers and significant year on

year fluctuations).

Modern research (see Appendix 6.1) has shown that better estimates for the centre of a distribution can be obtained by using a robust estimator such as a trimmed mean. Ideally we would like to utilise robust estimation techniques on all estimates but unfortunately we do not have access to the UKTS data. Where we are able, all the estimates in this report are based on this robust estimator not on the arithmetic mean. Estimates for all critical tables based on the simple mean are given in the appendix. We are confident that these robust estimators represent true lower bounds to the estimates.

5.11 Analysis of Non-Quantitative Data

The internet survey provided respondents with the opportunity to “write in “ information in three areas

1. Other locations for shore fishing or boat launching in each region 2. Other species fished for in a region 3. Comments about sea angling and its future, and the survey.

Analysis of these followed the same general pattern 1. A list of all the responses was generated 2. The list was read by the analyst to identify any common elements. It should be noted

that there was a huge diversity of spelling, capitalisation and association e.g. in Dumfries

67

and Galloway there were 13 different strings used by the 18 anglers who indicated they had fished for Wrasse. This meant the cost of constructing rules for machine based search outweighed any benefit.

3. The answers were then reread and common elements were counted e.g. the number of times something indicating declining stocks was mentioned.

5.12 Estimation of Economic Impact

The discussion above has detailed how estimates of expenditure by major category by sea anglers in the regions of Scotland were obtained. As discussed in section 2.3 from these figures, estimates of direct, indirect and induced expenditure have to be generated and then turned into estimates of employment and income. As explained earlier, these estimates are dependent upon the structure of the economy in each of these regions and the extent to which the regions will supply the increased demands from within the local economy. This process is not easy and is data hungry, and many previous studies have simply used crude national multipliers sometimes incorrectly applied to gross expenditures. This study used the Detailed Regional Economic Accounting Models (DREAM) developed by Cogentsi which trace, in detail, the interactions in the local economy. The procedures are detailed in Appendix 2.

68

SECTION 6 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SEA ANGLING

6.0 Introduction

This section is largely based on the information generated by the omnibus and internet surveys. It looks at, inter alia, the numbers of anglers in each of the regions and Scotland as a whole, where they come from and what they do. It estimates the number of sea angler days activity undertaken, where it is undertaken and what they fish for. Finally, it looks at the contribution sea angling makes to the regional and national economy and the economic impact of a complete collapse in sea angling.

6.1 Dumfries and Galloway

6.1.0 Introduction

The region of Dumfries and Galloway defined for this project is the Local Authority Area of the same name. Most of the coastline forms the north edge of the Solway Firth and there are large areas of sandy shallows. Even at the western end there are still large sand areas such as that at Luce Bay and in Wigtown Bay between headlands such as The Rhinns of Galloway and Burrow Head, on the Isle of Whithorn. The west end of the region faces the North Channel and is far more rugged.

From the southern shore the land rises gently to the Galloway Hills to the West and the Southern Uplands to the East. A series of excellent fishing rivers (Annan, Nith, Ken, Fleet, Trool and Luce) run across the area. Most of the major towns Dumfries, Kirkudbright, Castle Douglas and Newton Stewart lie at the head of an estuary or at the lowest crossing point on a river. Stranraer on the west coast at the head of Loch Ryan developed as the major ferry point for Northern Ireland. By area (6,426 km sq) it is the third largest local authority, but only twelfth by population (148,300).

Because of the population distribution and the excellent freshwater angling, local participation in sea angling is lower than might be expected from a rural area at 2.2% (compared to the national average of 1.7%). However the region is close to both the central belt and the industrial regions of Northern England and with its extensive coastline there is a substantial inflow into the region.

69

Fig 6.1.1 Map of Dumfries and Galloway Sea Region

6.1.1 Locations

Table 6.1.1 shows the areas used by responding anglers and their relative popularity. Whilst Luce Bay is famous as a sea angling “hot-spot”, the popularity of the west side of the Rhinns is slightly unexpected. The “write-in” locations are indicated in italics. Within the questionnaire Girvan was located in Glasgow and West but was still thought by some to be in Dumfries and Galloway.


Luce Bay 153 73.6%Mull of Galloway to Stranraer 151 72.6%Wigton Bay 95 45.7%Inner Solway 89 42.8%Loch Ryan 5 2.4%Kirkudbright 4 1.9%Girvan ! 3 1.4%

Table 6.1.2 shows the popularity of launch sites. Again the italicised figures relate to write-in, which will inevitably understate the true popularity of the site. The dominance of the Rhinns (Drumore, PortPatrick and Port Logan) is notable.

70

Table 6.1.2 Popularity of launch sites in Dumfries and Galloway

Drumore/Portpatrick 115 71.4%Luce Bay 112 69.6%Whithorn 51 31.7%Stranraer 49 30.4%Port Logan 12 7.5%Brighouse Bay 6 3.7%Gairlieston 5 3.1%

6.1.2 Sea Anglers and Angling Activity

Table 6.1.3 summarises the angler days by residents of Dumfries and Galloway and Table 6.1.4 angler days in Dumfries and Galloway by type of angling.

Table 6.1.3 Angler Days by Dumfries and Galloway Residents

PopParticipation

Rate % Anglers

Angler Days By Residents

Home Away Total

Adults 146,550 2.2 3,224 18,758 2,638 21,396Young 15,608 6.2 975 nk nk nk

Table 6.1.4 Angler Days in Dumfries and Galloway by origin and type

Shore Boat Charter Total Percent

Argyll & Lochaber 6,014 746 881 7,641 3.3%

Dumfries & Galloway 11,245 0 3,767 15,012 6.4%

Glasgow & West 20,873 15,610 9,764 46,247 19.8%

North East 912 468 667 2,048 0.9%

Northern Scotland 1,213 916 61 2,190 0.9%

Edinburgh & East 5,347 21,972 2,991 30,310 13.0%

Western Isles 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Orkney & Shetland 0 0 0 0 0.0%

RUK Visitors 73,779 27,405 28,447 129,631 55.6%

Total 119,384 67,117 46,579 233,080 100.0%

Figs 6.1.2 & 6.1.3 illustrate the activity by type and by origin of anglers

71

Activity by Type

Shore

49%

Boat

32%

Charter

19%

Fig 6.1.2 Angler Days in Dumfries and Galloway by Type of Sea Angling

Activity by Origin

Scottish

35%

Home

6%

RUK

59%

Fig 6.1.3 Angler Days in Dumfries and Galloway by Origin of Anglers

The importance of visitors from south of the Border is particularly noticeable. Only 6% of the angler days are by Dumfries and Galloway locals.

6.1.3 Target Species

Fig 6.1.4 shows the species fished for in Dumfries and Galloway.

72

Fig 6.1.4 What anglers fished for in Dumfries and Galloway

Mackerel and pollock are the most important species but the popularity of sea angling in the region is illustrated by the range of other species as regular targets, notably bass and tope. Flatfish are particularly popular targets in the upper Solway. The species identified by sea anglers not provided in the survey checklist is given in Table 6.1.5

Table 6.1.5 Extra Species Specified by Anglers

WRASSE 18 6.5%

SMOOTHHOUND 13 4.7%

HUSS 7 2.5%

GURNARD 7 2.5%

BREAM 5 1.8%

SPURDOG 2 0.7%

LING 2 0.7%

Wrasse is featured in all regions and appears to be an important species throughout Scotland. Smoothhound, although popular south of the Border make its only appearance as a species in this region. However where anglers write in there may well be a problem of terminology; elsewhere it may simply be classified as a Dogfish.

6.1.4 Expenditure

Tables produced for this project provide estimates of expenditure by type, by origin and by category. Table 6.1.6 shows total expenditure by major category.

73

Table 6.1.6: Expenditure in D&G by Category

Category Expenditure Percentof Total

Fuel £3,675,945 14.5%Food Shops £1,886,955 7.5%Food Pub £1,459,512 5.8%Bait £2,263,359 8.9%Other £1,729,449 6.8%Charter £820,527 3.2%Accommodation £4,410,890 17.4%Sub-Total £16,246,638 64.2%

Boats £2,283,835 9.0%Rods £3,438,391 13.6%Clothing £1,630,150 6.4%

Books £1,695,353 6.7%

Total £25,294,366 100.0%

Fig 6.1.5 show the breakdown of that expenditure by origin of anglers.

Expenditure by Origin (D&G)

Home

4% Scottish

17%

RUK

79%

Fig 6.1.5 Expenditure in Dumfries and Galloway by Origin of Anglers

As might be expected the expenditure of visiting sea anglers is even more important as accommodation enters the calculus.

Fig 6.1.6 shows the relative importance by type of angling. The importance of the privately owned boat is clearly shown in this chart.

74

Expenditure by Type (D&G)

Shore

47%

Boat

29%

Charter

24%

Fig 6.1.6 Expenditure in Dumfries and Galloway by Origin of Anglers

The importance of charter and shore fishing in expenditure terms, compared to activity, reflects the importance of RUK visitors in expenditure terms. They are less likely to trail boats and consequently more likely to charter or fish from the shore.

6.1.5 Economic Contribution

Table 6.1.7 shows the contribution to the local economy from the three types of anglers.

Table 6.1.7 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Dumfries and Galloway

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

Indirect Expenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £1,177,476 £303,894 £335,632 £639,526 14 £214,361

Scottish Visitors £5,178,570 £3,022,505 £3,252,326 £6,274,831 160 £2,270,686

RUK Visitors £18,938,321 £6,678,331 £6,872,885 £13,551,216 360 £5,228,759

Total £25,294,366 £10,004,731 £10,460,843 £20,465,574 534 £7,713,806

6.1.6 Economic Impact

Table 6.1.8 shows the responses to questions from the 275 anglers who visited Dumfries and Galloway about likely action if there was no sea angling in a region and the percentage of the current expenditure that would leave the region as a result.

Table 6.1.8 Responses of Dumfries and Galloway Anglers to Closure

Home Scottish Away RUK Total

Fish elsewhere in Scotland 7 110 15 132

Fish outside Scotland 11 23 50 84

Would not Fish 22 30 7 59

Total 40 163 72 275

% Loss to Region 45.0% 81.6% 90.3%

Table 6.1.9 summarizes the impact on jobs and incomes of a loss of sea angling in the region.

75

Table 6.1.9 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Dumfries and Galloway

Loss to Region Percentage Loss Jobs Lost Income Lost

Home 45.0% 6 £96,462

Scottish Visitors 81.6% 130 £1,852,768

RUK Visitors 90.3% 325 £4,720,408

Total 462 £6,669,638

In summary, if Sea Angling disappeared from Dumfries and Galloway we believe at least 460 jobs would be lost, with an associated loss of income of £6.7m.

6.1.7 Key Ratios

Table 6.1.10 gives the key ratios discussed in Section 2.4

Table 6.1.10 Key Ratios for Dumfries and Galloway

£GVA/£Expend £GVA/ Day

Expend£'000/ Job

FTE/ 000 Angler Days

Local 0.18 £11.43 £82.23 0.76

Scot Visitor 0.44 £25.53 £32.39 1.80

RUK Visitor 0.28 £30.26 £52.61 2.08

Total 0.30 £27.50 £47.35 1.90

These are much as expected with the RUK visitor making a far greater contribution to the economy than the local angler.

6.2 Argyll and Lochaber

6.2.0 Introduction

The region of Argyll and Lochaber defined for this project consists of the southern part of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Area. The area and the main features discussed here are shown in Fig 6.2.1. The Argyll section is the Argyll and Bute Local Authority area less the area of Dumbartonshire, Helensburgh and Lomond, transferred to the council in 1996. Arran, which was never part of the old County of Argyll, was added to the HIE to reflect the island status and is also part of the HITrans , transport planning area. The Lochaber section is defined by the boundaries of the old District Council (in the then Highland region) and includes the Small Isles (Eigg, Rhum and Canna) but not Skye.

As a result of extensive glaciation, the area is characterised by mountain blocks cut by deep fiord like lochs such as Loch Long, Loch Etive, Loch Linhe and Loch Sunart running roughly from the North East to the South West. Sometimes the resulting peninsulas are cut East West to form island chains (Lunga, Scarba, Jura, Islay) or narrow isthmuses such as those at Tarbert, Loch Fyne and Tarbert, Loch Lomond. Some of the fiord like lochs e.g. Loch Awe, Loch Shiel and Loch Morar (and just outside the area, Loch Lomond and the Great Glen) have been cut off from the sea by the glacial moraine and form extremely long and deep bodies of freshwater.

The result of this physical geography is a coastline, including islands of over 13,600km, far larger than, for example, France. Inland routes are blocked by high inhospitable mountain areas, which results in an almost exclusively coastal based population and a very sparse population of only 127,442 (105,993 adults). There are some 23 inhabited islands, often termed,

76

with Skye, the Inner Hebrides. Table 6.2. shows the size and population of the islands with populations over 100.37

Table 6.2.1 The Main Islands in Argyll and Lochaber

Island Area (Sq Miles) Population Rank of Size in Scotland

Mull 338 2,667 4Islay 239 3,457 5Arran 167 5,058 7Jura 142 188 8Tiree 30.2 770 17Coll 29.7 164 18Colonsay 15.7 108 26Lismore 9.1 146 33Luing 5.5 212 40Gigha 5.4 110 41Iona 3.4 125 55

As might be expected the sea angling participation rate is high at 5.5% (exceeded only by Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland) but the low population means the number of activity days generated at home is relatively small. However the region is close to the central belt and with its extensive coastline a substantial inflow into the region might be expected.

37 Rhum, Ulva, Eigg , Kerrera and Canna are larger than Iona but have populations of less than 100.

77

Fig 6.2.1 Map of Argyll and Lochaber Sea Region

78

6.2.1 Locations

Table 6.2.2 shows the areas used by responding anglers and their relative popularity. Whilst Loch Etive is well known as a sea angling “hot-spot”, the popularity of Loch Fyne is slightlysurprising. The “write-in” locations are indicated in italics. Within the questionnaire Loch Long was located in Glasgow and West but strictly the west side, which requires a walk in, is also in Argyll and Lochaber.


Fyne 132 45.2%Etive 120 41.1%West Kintyre/Oban 96 32.9%Lorne/Linhe 79 27.1%Morvern-Mallaig 51 17.5%Cowal/Bute 49 16.8%Inner Hebrides 30 10.3%East Kintyre 26 8.9%Loch Long 4 1.4%

Table 6.2.3 shows the popularity of launch sites. Again the italicised figures relate to write-in, which will inevitably understate the true popularity of the site. The importance of Oban is worth noting as is the importance of the Sound of Mull (Lochaline, Tobermory) and Loch Sunart. Further north it appears there is little angling in the popular holiday areas around Arisaig.

Table 6.2.3 Popularity of launch sites in Argyll and Lochaber

Oban 82 68.9%Sunart 40 33.6%Taynuilt/Bonawe 25 21.0%Rothesay 23 19.3%Ardrishaig 22 18.5%Lochgilp 19 16.0%Tobermory 19 16.0%Loch Aline 18 15.1%Crinan 12 10.1%Mallaig 9 7.6%Inner Hebrides 5 4.2%Furnace 5 4.2%Arisaig 4 3.4%Croabh 2 1.7%


Table 6.2.4 summarises the angler days by residents of Argyll & Lochaber and Table 6.2.5 angler days in Argyll and Bute by type of angling.

Table 6.2.4 Angler Days by Argyll & Lochaber Residents

PopulationParticipation

Rate % Anglers


Home Away Total

Adults 105,903 5.5 5,825 134,245 140,075 274,319Young 10,770 15.6 1,682 nk nk nk

79

Table 6.2.5 Angler Days in Argyll & Bute by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 41,621 42,103 21,201 104,925 41.5%

Dumfries & Galloway 459 140 249 848 0.3%

Glasgow & West 32,505 14,682 14,143 61,330 24.3%

North East 8,371 3,311 2,928 14,609 5.8%

Northern Scotland 365 0 304 669 0.3%

Edinburgh & East 8,316 18,302 3,118 29,736 11.8%



RUK Visitors 23,638 9,491 7,370 40,499 16.0%

Total 115,275 88,028 49,312 252,615 100.0%


Activity by Type

Shore

47%

Boat

41%

Charter

12%

Fig 6.2.2 Fishing Activity in Argyll and Lochaber by Type of Angling

Angler Days by Origin

Argyll &

Lochaber

42%

Scottish

40%

RUK

18%

Fig 6.2.3 Fishing Activity in Argyll and Lochaber by Origin of Anglers

The most important feature is that the majority of fishing in Argyll and Lochaber, both in terms of angler days, and by implication anglers is undertaken by visitors.

80


Fig 6.2.4 shows the species fished for in Argyll and Lochaber.

Fig 6.2.4 What anglers fished for in Argyll and Lochaber

Mackerel and pollack are again the most important species but for the sport anglers dogfish and skate are preferred over cod. This may reflect collapsed cod stocks or good stocks of the alternative “large” species. Table 6.2.6 gives details of the two key other species specified by the anglers

Table 6.2.6 Other Species specified by Argyll and Lochaber Anglers

SPURDOG 37 13.0%

WRASSE 6 2.1%

This table is important in bringing into focus the popularity of spurdog perceived as being under threat. Argyll and Lochaber is the only region where it is a significant target.

6.2.4 Expenditure


MackerelPollack

Dogfish

Rays/

Skate

Cod

Coley

Conger

Flatfish

WhitingHaddock

Sea Trout

Tope

Bass

Hake

Eel

Halibut

Porbeagle0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

81

Table 6.2.7: Expenditure in A&L by Category

Category Expenditure

Fuel £3,784,407 16.7%

Food Shops £2,140,389 9.5%

Food Pub £2,393,401 10.6%

Bait £2,289,408 10.1%

Other £1,856,947 8.2%

Charter £1,113,817 4.9%

Accommodation £3,165,640 14.0%

Sub-Total £16,744,009 74.0%

Boats £1,589,202 7.0%

Rods £2,436,413 10.8%

Clothing £1,022,991 4.5%

Books £830,690 3.7%

Total £22,623,306 100.0%

Fig 6.2.5 shows the breakdown of that expenditure by origin of anglers.

Expenditure by Angler Origin

Home

38%

Scottish

27%

RUK

35%

Fig 6.2.5 Expenditure in Argyll and Lochaber by Origin of Anglers

The importance of sea anglers from south of the border is noteworthy. Fig 6.2.6 shows the relative importance by type of angling. The importance of the privately owned boat is clearly shown in this chart.

82

Expenditure by Type

Shore

40%

Boat

34%

Charter

26%

Fig 6.2.6 Expenditure in Argyll and Lochaber by Type of Angling

Finally it is worth noting that just about 6% of the expenditure in Argyll and Bute is attributable to visitors using their own or a friend’s boat.


Table 6.2.8 shows the contribution to the local economy from the three types of anglers

Table 6.2.8Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Argyll and Lochaber

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure


TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £9,663,851 £3,381,306 £3,030,765 £6,412,071 200 £3,081,455


RUK Visitors £6,684,469 £2,187,623 £1,883,710 £4,071,333 129 £2,057,319

Total £22,623,306 £9,050,463 £7,847,546 £16,898,009 524 £8,445,564


Table 6.2.9 shows the responses to questions from the 283 anglers who visited Argyll and Lochaber about likely action if there was no sea angling in a region and the percentage of the current expenditure that would leave the region as a result.

Table 6.2.9 Responses of Argyll and Lochaber Anglers to Closure





Total 10 248 25 283

% Loss to Region 60.0% 78.6% 92.0%

Table 6.2.10 summarizes the impact on jobs and incomes of a loss of sea angling in the region .

83

Table 6.2.10 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Argyll and Lochaber

Loss to Region Percentage Loss Jobs Lost IncomeLost

Home 60.0% 120 £1,848,873


RUK Visitors 92.0% 119 £1,892,733

Total 392 £6,341,704

In summary we believe that a loss of sea angling in Argyll and Bute would lead to a loss of at least 390 jobs and income of about £6.3m

6.2.7 Key Ratios

Table 6.2.11 gives the key ratios.

Table 6.2.11 Key Ratios for Argyll and Lochaber


Expend£'000/ Job


Local 0.32 £22.95 £48.27 1.49

Scot Visitor 0.53 £25.97 £32.14 1.53

RUK Visitor 0.31 £37.01 £51.87 2.32

Total 0.37 £26.63 £43.15 1.65

These are much as expected with the RUK visitor making a far greater contribution to the economy than the local angler but Scottish visitors having the biggest impact overall The GVA per day reflects the distances travelled, the ratio of overnights to day trips and the type of fishing (Boat v shore) pursued. In this area the size and distances are large.

6.3 Northern Scotland

6.3.0 Introduction

Northern Scotland covers the Highland local authority area less Lochaber. It includes Skye, Raasay and a number of small islands. The North-West is mountainous and infertile. Caithness in the extreme north east is lower but largely infertile moor and peat bog. On the east there is a narrow coastal area that widens towards the south and includes the fertile and quite heavily populated Easter Ross and Cromarty (Black Isle) areas

Overall it is a huge, sparsely populated area with a coastline that runs for 12,000 km. As might be expected the coastline varies dramatically from huge sea cliffs such as Cape Wrath to sand dune areas such as Dornoch.

To the North and West, particularly in Wester Ross and Sutherland, population centres are small and very scattered and all are on the coast. Thurso (popn 4500), Portree (2,491), Ullapool (500), Durness (400) and Kyle of Lochalsh (350) are the largest settlements along this coast . On the east coast there are a number of towns and villages such as Wick (7791), Brora (1140), Golspie,(1,600), Dornoch (1206), Dingwall (5026) and Tain (3972) with populations in excess of 1000.

84

Because of an improved road network, Inverness is increasingly dominant in retail and all services both public and private. It is not unusual in this area to drive 250 miles for the weekly shopping trip. Inverness is not directly on the coast. There is excellent freshwater fishing in the area and together with the position of Inverness this results in a participation rate of 4.3%; lower than the Northern and Western Isles and Argyll but higher than Dumfries and the other regions.

Fig 6.3.1 Map of North Scotland Region

85

6.3.1 Locations

Table 6.3.1 shows the areas used by responding anglers and their relative importance. No site is particularly popular, although it appears the west coast and Skye have relatively more visits.


Skye 45 47%Kyle -Ullapool 43 45%Ullapool-Durness 37 39%Moray Coast 23 24%Durness-Wick 22 23%Dornoch-Beauly 14 15%Wick-Dornoch 10 11%

Table 6.3.2 shows the popularity of launch sites. In this case Thurso is clearly the most popular site identified.

Table 6.3.2 Popularity of launch sites in Northern Scotland

Thurso 43 86%Lochinver 11 22%Wick 9 18%Tain 1 2%


Table 6.3.3 summarises the angler days by residents in Northern Scotland and Table 6.3.4 angler days by type of angling.



Rate % Anglers


Home Away Total

Adults 183,577 4.3 7,894 128,693 14,113 142,806Young 20,328 12.2 2,482 nk nk Nk

Table 6.3.4 Angler Days in Northern Scotland by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 840 137 24 1,001 0.7%


Glasgow & West 2,776 1,024 1,387 5,187 3.6%

North East 11,450 3,795 4,583 19,827 13.7%

Northern Scotland 41,809 51,766 8,899 102,475 71.0%

Edinburgh & East 3,345 2,517 3,057 8,919 6.2%



RUK Visitors 5,163 821 502 6,487 4.5%

Total 65,834 60,059 18,453 144,346 100.0%

86


Activity by Type

Shore

43%

Boat

44%

Charter

13%

Fig 6.3.2 Fishing Activity in Northern Scotland by Type of Angling

The distribution of activity by type is not dissimilar to Scotland as a whole.

Activity by Origin

Home

72%

Scottish

23%

RUK

5%

Fig 6.3.3 Fishing Activity in Northern Scotland by Origin of Anglers

This figure illustrates the importance of Scottish as opposed to RUK anglers. It appears that the latter tend to go to areas like Dumfries and Galloway and Argyll, whilst Scottish anglers are more likely to be tempted over the Great Glen.


Fig 6.3.4 shows the species fished for in the North

87

Fig 6.3.4 What anglers fished for in Northern Scotland

Cod, pollack and mackerel, are the most popular target species. There is some evidence, however, of more attention on the rarer species such as porbeagle. This is much to be expected as the more distant locations in the North of Scotland will attract the keener fishermen. The major additional species identified by anglers are given in table 6.3.7. Wrasse and Ling are again a nominated species. Spurdog is one of the third level of targets.

Table 6.3.5 Other Species specified by Northern Anglers WRASSE 9 6.9%

LING 6 4.6%

SPURDOG 3 2.3%

6.3.4 Expenditure


88

Table 6.3.6 Expenditure in Northern Scotland by Category

Category Expenditure Percent

Fuel £2,414,866 21.6%

Food Shops £1,052,982 9.4%

Food Pub £1,524,791 13.7%

Bait £1,044,406 9.4%

Other £952,489 8.5%

Charter £460,683 4.1%


Sub-Total £8,909,211 79.8%

Boats £345,002 3.1%

Rods £1,226,811 11.0%

Clothing £294,554 2.6%

Books £384,232 3.4%

Total £11,159,809 100.0%


Expenditure by Origin (North)

Home

68%

Scottish

19%

RUK

13%

Fig 6.3.5 Expenditure in Northern Scotland by Origin of Anglers

Although spending by home anglers dominates, sea angling clearly contributes significantly into the economy

Fig 6.3.6 shows the relative importance by type of angling. The importance of the privately owned boat is, once again, clearly shown in this chart.

89

Expenditure by Type (North)

Shore

41%

Boat

41%

Charter

18%

Fig 6.3.6 Expenditure in Northern Scotland by Type of Angling



Table 6.3.7 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Northern Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure


TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £7,996,892 £3,510,256 £3,242,404 £6,752,660 201 £3,353,894

Scottish Visitors £1,953,443 £1,054,348 £927,419 £1,981,768 60 £1,021,885

RUK Visitors £1,209,474 £522,164 £465,522 £987,686 30 £506,547

Total £11,159,809 £5,215,002 £4,742,756 £9,957,758 299 £5,009,375


Table 6.3.8 shows the responses to questions from the 130 anglers who visited Northern Scotland about likely action if there was no sea angling in a region and the percentage of the current expenditure that would leave the region as a result.

Table 6.3.8 Responses of Anglers in Northern Scotland to Closure





Total 16 96 18 130

% Loss to Region 68.8% 81.3% 88.9%

Tables 6.3.9 summarise our estimate of the impact on jobs and incomes of a loss of sea angling in the region

90

Table 6.3.9 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Northern Scotland

Loss to Region Percentage Loss Jobs Lost IncomeLost

Home 68.8% 91 £1,509,252

Scottish Visitors 81.3% 49 £833,808

RUK Visitors 88.9% 27 £457,300

Total 167 £2,800,360

6.3.7 Key Ratios


Table 6.3.10 Key Ratios for Northern Scotland


Expend£'000/ Job


Local 0.42 £26.06 £39.70 1.57

Scot Visitor 0.52 £23.46 £32.66 1.37

RUK Visitor 0.42 £54.26 £39.84 3.25

Total 0.45 £27.59 £37.31 1.65

The economic impact per day of local and Scottish anglers is surprisingly similar whilst the RUK visitor makes a huge contribution to the economy compared to the local angler. This is not of course the case in total terms where the impact of locals and Scottish visitors is much greater than RUK .

91

6.4 North East Scotland

6.4.0 Introduction

North East Scotland covers Grampian Region and Perthshire. It includes Aberdeen, Dundee and Perth, the third, fourth and sixth largest towns in Scotland. As can be seen from the map fig 6.4.1 there is a large, fertile but rural hinterland which gradually rises to the mountainous areas of the Grampians. The coast is a mix of cliff and long sand beaches. Commercial fishing is an important industry, with towns like Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Buckie largely dependent upon the deep sea fishing fleet.

Fig 6.4.1 Map of North East Scotland Region

92

6.4.1 Locations

Table 6.4.1 shows the areas used by responding anglers and their relative popularity. Angling in the Stonehaven to Arbroath is discussed in detail in section 7.4 and this is clearly an important section of the region for sea angling. There is no indication from the write ins or elsewhere of any specific marks on the north coast of the region.


St Cyrus to Montrose 102 60.4%Peterhead to Cruden Bay 68 40.2%Nigg to St Cyrus 68 40.2%Nairn to Peterhead 61 36.1%Cruden Bay to Nigg Bay 55 32.5%Arbroath 31 18.3%Aberdeen 6 3.6%Dundee 5 3.0%

Table 6.4.2 shows the popularity of launch sites. Again it is clear that the south of the coast is the most popular, with Arbroath in particular, identified as a “hot spot” for boat fishing. The lack of popularity of the north coast towns is thought to reflect the distance from the major population centres of the country compared to Arbroath (Dundee 20 mins, Edinburgh 1hr 30 mins, Glasgow under 2 hours).

Table 6.4.2 Popularity of launch sites in North East Scotland

Arbroath 65 78.3%Stonehaven 27 32.5%Peterhead 21 25.3%Macduff 9 10.8%Montrose 7 8.4%Portknockie 4 4.8%Gourdon 3 3.6%Findhorn 2 2.4%Hopeman 2 2.4%


Table 6.4.3 summarises the angler days by residents in the North East and Table 6.4.4 angler days by type of angling.

Table 6.4.3 Angler Days by Residents in North East Scotland

North East


Rate % Anglers

Angler Days by Residents

Home Away Total

Adults 809,459 1.1 8,904 102,561 62,328 164,890Young 88,153 3.1 2,754 nk nk nk

The most obvious feature is the very low participation rate in sea angling. It is not clear why the cities of Aberdeen and Dundee, which both have extensive seashores, should not generate large numbers of fishermen. There is extensive excellent river fishing available in the area, the

93

climate can be very hostile and there is a lack of sheltered water for boat fishing, but perhaps the defining factor is fish stock. This is discussed further in Section 7.

Table 6.4.4 Angler Days in the North East by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 1,968 8 0 1,976 1.1%


Glasgow & West 11,483 1,584 6,322 19,389 11.1%

North East 38,239 31,832 11,377 81,449 46.7%

Northern Scotland 1,286 0 608 1,894 1.1%

Edinburgh & East 17,543 9,974 5,512 33,030 19.0%



RUK Visitors 29,807 3,859 2,429 36,094 20.7%

Total 100,721 47,258 26,249 174,228 100.0%


Activity by Type

Shore

55%Boat

29%

Charter

16%

Fig 6.4.2 Sea Angling in North East Scotland by Type

The North East is peculiar in having most of its sea angling from the shore. This tends to confirm the view discussed earlier that lack of quality sheltered areas for boat fishing substantially restricts the appeal of sea angling.

94

Activity by Origin

Home

48%

Scottish

30%

RUK

22%

Fig 6.4.3 Sea Angling in North East Scotland by Origin of Anglers

Again the surprising feature is that, in a region with three large cities, visiting anglers outnumber those from the home region. .


Fig 6.4.4 shows the species fished for in the North East

Fig 6.4.4 What anglers fished for in North Eastern Scotland

Cod is by far the most popular target species for sea anglers in North East Scotland.

Table 6.4.5 Other Target Species

WRASSE 14 6.1%

LING 5 2.2%

95

6.4.4 Expenditure


Table 6.4.6: Expenditure in North East Scotland by Category


Fuel £2,401,175 15.5%

Food Shops £1,274,406 8.2%

Food Pub £1,279,746 8.3%

Bait £1,421,202 9.2%

Other £947,179 6.1%

Charter £432,958 2.8%


Sub-Total £9,817,520 63.4%

Boats £1,602,122 10.4%

Rods £2,052,262 13.3%

Clothing £783,569 5.1%

Books £1,221,297 7.9%

Total £15,476,771 100.0%


Expenditure by Origin (NE)

Home

34%

Scottish

22%

RUK

44%

Fig 6.4.4 Expenditure in the North East by Angler Origin

Like North East sea angling this figure is very different from the norm. Fig 6.4.5 shows the relative importance by type of angling. The importance of shore fishing in the North East is clearly shown in this chart.

96

Expenditure by Type (NE)

Shore

57%Boat

24%

Charter

19%

Fig 6.4.5 Expenditure in the North East by Type of Angling

If we look at both together, the largest sub-group is RUK visitors undertaking shore fishing which is estimated to be worth just over £4m and constitutes 28% of the generated daily expenditure.



Table 6.4.7 Contribution of Sea Angling to North East Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure


TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £6,421,305 £2,683,701 £3,131,608 £5,815,309 116 £2,551,690


RUK Visitors £5,631,269 £2,365,255 £2,684,296 £5,049,551 108 £2,284,976

Total £15,476,771 £7,612,851 £8,695,311 £16,308,163 343 £7,318,743


Table 6.4.8 shows the responses to questions from the 229 anglers who visited North East Scotland about likely action if there was no sea angling in a region and the percentage of the current expenditure that would leave the region as a result.

Table 6.4.8 Responses of Anglers in North East Scotland to Closure

HomeScottishAway RUK Total




Total 48 147 34 229

% Loss to Region 75.0% 81.0% 88.2%

97

Table 6.4.9 summarises the estimate of the impact on jobs and incomes of a loss of sea angling in the region

Table 6.4.9 The Impact of Sea Angling in North East Scotland


Home 75.0% 52 £1,148,261


RUK Visitors 88.2% 98 £2,062,825

Total 226 £4,821,523

6.4.7 Key Ratios


Table 6.4.10 Key Ratios for North East

£GVA/£Expend

£GVA/Day

Expend£'000/Job

FTE/ 000 AnglerDays

Local 0.40 £24.88 £55.19 1.13

Scot Visitor 0.58 £24.84 £36.69 1.17

RUK Visitor 0.41 £43.71 £52.00 2.07

Total 0.47 £31.24 £45.14 1.46

Although the progression is as expected, the importance of visitors from south of the border is once again apparent in both ratio and, in this region, absolute terms..

98

6.5 Edinburgh and East

6.5.0 Introduction

The Edinburgh and the East region covers the old regions of Lothians, Fife, Central and the Borders. The result is that it includes Stirling Local Authority Area and thus, as can be seen from the map (Fig 6.5.1) has an extended hinterland that runs a long way west to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The coastline however all faces the North Sea. It includes the south side of the Firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth. There are a number of significant conurbations in addition to Edinburgh including Stirling, Falkirk and Dunfermline but these are noticeably inland. There are a significant number of holiday/fishing towns in Fife including Tayport, St Andrews, Crail, Anstruther, Pitenweem and Elie/Earlsferry. On the south side of the Forth, North Berwick, Dunbar , St Abbs and Eyemouth are the largest of a series of villages on the road/rail from Edinburgh south. Edinburgh itself has coastal suburbs in Portobello, Musselburgh Leith, Granton and on both sides of the Forth Bridge at Queensferry/Dalgety Bay.

Fig 6.5.1 Map of Edinburgh and East Region

99

6.5.1 Locations

Table 6.5.1 shows the areas used by responding anglers and their relative popularity. Angling seems to be spread fairly equally along the coast and does not reflect the population distribution in Edinburgh and south Fife. Whilst there is an archetypal picture of a lonely angler on a disused pier amongst industrial dereliction, the reality appears to be that an attractive environment is important.


N.Berwick-St Abbs 90 57.7%South Queensferry - North Berwick 75 48.1%St.Andrews –Earlsferry 56 35.9%Inner Forth 53 34.0%South Tay 42 26.9%Newport-St Andrews 38 24.4%EarlsFerry-Inverkeithig 34 21.8%

Table 6.5.2 shows the popularity of launch sites. It is clear that the south east of Edinburgh is the most popular area, dominated by Dunbar. It would be interesting to identify why there is apparently so little boat based angling in the Firth of Forth.

Table 6.5.2 Popularity of launch sites in Edinburgh and East

Dunbar 47 82.5%N. Berwick 23 14.7%Eyemouth 7 4.5%St Abbs 7 4.5%Anstruther 4 2.6%


Table 6.5.3 summarises the angler days by residents in the East and Table 6.5.4 angler days by type of angling.


Edinburghand East


Rate % Anglers


Home Away Total

Adults 1,363,693 1.5 20,455 257,497 150,107 407,604Young 149,364 4.3 6,363 nk nk nk

The low participation rate might be expected from an area with significant inland conurbations located on the east coast. Equally there is a significant number of angler days moving out of the area to west coast and Dumfries and Galloway with relatively few coming in to the area, most of these coming from the North East of England to the adjacent St Abbs to Dunbar area.

100

Table 6.5.4 Angler Days in the Edinburgh and East by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 354 746 60 1,160 0.5%


Glasgow & West 3,021 1,014 3,252 7,287 2.9%

North East 3,915 0 347 4,263 1.7%


Edinburgh & East 100,282 98,584 8,953 207,819 82.8%



RUK Visitors 22,694 2,463 4,104 29,261 11.7%

Total 130,931 102,807 17,130 250,868 100.0%


Activity by Type

Shore

50%Boat

43%

Charter

7%

Fig 6.5.2 Sea Angling in Eastern Scotland by Type

On the east coast, shore angling is clearly important. The reasons are discussed in section 6.5.2 on the North East and largely reflect physical considerations namely lack of shelter and availability of sand beaches.

101

Activity by Origin

Home

83%

Scottish

5%

RUK

12%

Fig 6.5.3 Sea Angling in North East Scotland by Origin With little of particular attraction and a relatively large population the domination of home anglers is not surprising.


Fig 6.5.4 shows the species fished for in the North East

Fig 6.5.4 What anglers fished for in Eastern Scotland

Cod is by far the most popular target species for sea anglers in Eastern Scotland. Table 6.5.5 shows the other species identified by anglers. In common with all regions Wrasse is a fished for species, and Ling a very minor target.

Table 6.5.5 Other Nominated Species by East of Scotland Anglers

WRASSE 18 9.7%

LING 9 4.9%

6.5.4 Expenditure


102

Table 6.5.6: Expenditure in Eastern Scotland by Category


Fuel £4,697,489 17.5%

Food Shops £1,824,675 6.8%

Food Pub £1,374,074 5.1%

Bait £2,227,811 8.3%

Other £1,386,328 5.2%

Charter £418,254 1.6%


Sub-Total £13,901,672 51.7%

Boats £5,100,402 19.0%

Rods £4,244,344 15.8%

Clothing £1,287,757 4.8%

Books £2,361,914 8.8%

Total £26,896,089 100.0%


Expenditure by Origin (EE)

Home

68%

Scottish

11%

RUK

21%

Fig 6.5.5 Expenditure in Edinburgh and the East by Angler Origin This simply reflects a) the dominance of home anglers and b) the larger expenditures form visitors.

103

Expenditure by Type (EE)

Shore

51%Boat

38%

Charter

11%

Fig 6.5.6 Expenditure in Edinburgh and the East by Angler Type

It is slightly surprising that shore angling makes a larger contribution in terms of expenditure than angler days. This reflects the fact that visitors to the east tend to go for shore angling whilst locals prefer boat angling.



Table 6.5.7 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Eastern Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £21,040,369 £8,795,146 £11,302,285 £20,097,430 377 £8,919,600ScottishVisitors £1,555,989 £677,024 £846,860 £1,523,883 30 £696,280RUK Visitors £4,299,690 £1,761,668 £2,197,334 £3,959,001 77 £1,801,291Total £26,896,049 £11,660,247 £14,837,573 £26,497,820 504 £11,866,354


Table 6.5.8 shows the responses to questions about likely action if there was no sea angling in a region and the percentage of the current expenditure that would leave the region as a result.

Table 6.5.8 Responses of Anglers in Eastern Scotland to Closure


Fish elsewhere in Scotland 53 42 8 103Fish outside Scotland 6.5 6.5 23 46Would not Fish 15 17 4 36Total 80 70 35 185% Loss to Region 81.3% 75.7% 88.6%

Table 6.5.9 summarises the impact on jobs and incomes of a loss of sea angling in the region

104

Table 6.5.9 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Eastern Scotland


Home 81.3% 306 £7,247,175Scottish Visitors 75.7% 23 £527,184RUK Visitors 88.6% 68 £1,595,429Total 397 £9,369,787

About 400 jobs and £9.4m in income would be lost if sea angling disappeared.

6.5.7 Key Ratios


Table 6.5.10 Key Ratios for Edinburgh and East


Expend£'000/ Job

FTE/ 000 AnglerDays

Local 0.42 £34.64 £55.81 1.46

Scot Visitor 0.45 £42.65 £51.54 1.85

RUK Visitor 0.42 £43.94 £55.78 1.88

Total 0.44 £37.69 £53.32 1.60

This table needs explanation. The contribution per day from RUK is high but not unexpected. Anglers from the rest of Scotland have the smallest share of any region (5% of all anglers, 6% of home anglers) and are only 40% of those coming from the South. The small number may imply specialist high value anglers or a statistical artefact.

6.6 Glasgow and West

6.6.0 Introduction

Glasgow and West is a composite region similar to the old Strathclyde Region less Argyll. It is mapped by, inter alia, The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive and the Glasgow and West area of the Scottish Enterprise Network (and consequently VisitScotland). The coastline consists of the Upper Clyde estuary, including Gareloch and east Loch Long, and the east side of the lower Clyde. It also includes the small island of Cumbrae. This report examines in depth the Upper Clyde in the case study section.

The area, including much of the coast, is heavily industrialised with the population centred on Glasgow and the industrial towns that surround (or are even part) of it, such as Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Coatbridge, Dumbarton and Paisley. Although the area is relatively small is has the largest population of all the regions at 2.2m Along the coast there are traditional resorts such as Helensburgh, Largs, Troon, Ayr and Girvan. As might be expected with the major population centres some distance from open attractive coast, the participation rate is low at 1.3%.

105

Fig 6.6.1 Map of Glasgow and West Sea Region

106

6.6.1 Locations

Table 6.6.1 shows the areas used by responding anglers and their relative popularity. Loch Long and the north of the Clyde are still surprisingly popular destinations .


Gareloch/Loch Long 108 74.5%

Ballantrae to Wemys Bay 84 57.9%

Inverclyde 75 51.7%

N.Clyde 68 46.9%

Cumbrae 41 28.3%

Table 6.6.2 shows the popularity of launch sites. Again the italicised figures relate to write-in, which will inevitably understate the true popularity of the site. In this case the majority of boat activity seems to take place on the south side of the Clyde, which is reflected in the case study (section 7.1)

Table 6.6.2 Popularity of launch sites in Glasgow and West

Girvan 43 67.2%Inverclyde 30 46.9%Ayr 17 26.6%Troon 6 9.4%Dunure 4 6.3%


Table 6.6.3 summarises the angler days by residents in Glasgow and West and Table 6.6.4 angler days, by type of angling. Although the participation rate is low, the size of the population leads to large numbers sea angling, most of whom are local.

Table 6.6.3 Angler Days by Glasgow and West Residents


Rate % Anglers


Home Away Total

Adults 1,811,383 1.3 20,455 326,901 174,878 501,780

Young 202,095 3.1 6,363 nk nk nk

Table 6.6.4 Angler Days in Glasgow and West by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 0 783 16 800 0.3%


Glasgow & West 103,633 108,367 44,740 256,740 95.2%

North East 1,338 164 427 1,929 0.7%


Edinburgh & East 2,002 3,435 243 5,680 2.1%



RUK Visitors 3,869 246 140 4,255 1.6%

Total 111,104 113,112 45,567 269,783 100.0%

107

As discussed in 7.1. sea angling in the area has significantly declined in quality over the last twenty years and now has little attraction to visiting anglers. As a consequence over 95% of nglers are local.


Activity by Type

Shore

38%

Boat

42%

Charter

20%

Fig 6.6.2 Activity in Glasgow and West by Type of Angling

This figure illustrates the importance of boat fishing on the Clyde.

Activity by Origin

Home

95%

Scottish

3%

RUK

2%

Fig 6.6.3 Activity in Glasgow and West by Origin of Anglers

AS discussed earlier this figure shows quite dramatically how fishing on the upper and east Clyde is almost wholly by local fisherman, many using boats.


Fig 6.6.4 shows the species fished for in Glasgow and West

108

Fig 6.6.4 What anglers fished for in Glasgow and West

Mackerel is by far the most important species with 92% fishing for it. Cod is the next most popular, which may cause some surprise given complaints about the stock. Pollack appears to be the normal non-mackerel alternative. Wrasse was mentioned by just over 5% of anglers as a target species.

6.6.4 Expenditure


Table 6.6.5: Expenditure in G&W by Category


Fuel £5,352,918 22.2%

Food Shops £2,210,958 9.2%

Food Pub £1,881,836 7.8%

Bait £2,736,031 11.3%

Other £1,969,042 8.2%

Charter £1,223,569 5.1%


Sub-Total £16,481,354 68.3%

Boats £2,104,304 6.7%

Rods £3,327,190 13.8%

Clothing £1,166,635 4.8%

Books £1,046,803 4.3%

Total £24,126,286 100.0%


109

Expenditure by Origin (G&W)

Home

87%

Scottish

8%

RUK

5%

Fig 6.6.5 Expenditure in Glasgow and West by Angler Origin

As might be expected expenditure by home anglers dominates. Fig 6.6.5 shows the relative importance by type of angling. The importance of the privately owned boat is clearly shown in this chart.

Expenditure by Type (G & W)

Shore

36%

Boat

39%

Charter

25%

Fig 6.6.6 Expenditure in Glasgow and West by Type of Angling

The importance of boat fishing is reflected in this figure. The cost of undertaking that from a charter boat is equally identified.



110

.Table 6.6.6 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Western Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £22,325,021 £10,338,396 £15,001,407 £25,339,803 478 £10,912,528

ScottishVisitors £936,074 £445,569 £606,227 £1,051,795 21 £466,564

RUK Visitors £865,191 £385,790 £518,741 £904,530 18 £405,551

Total £24,126,286 £11,276,683 £16,209,435 £27,486,118 523 £11,892,342



Table 6.6.7 Responses of Anglers in Western Scotland to Closure





Total 124 41 11 176

% Loss to Region 66.1% 82.9% 90.9%


Table 6.6.8 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Western Scotland Loss to Region Percentage Loss Jobs Lost Income Lost Home 66.1% 215 £4,910,638


RUK Visitors 90.9% 17 £366,123

Total 249 £5,657,454

Our estimates suggest that at least 250 jobs and probably more will be lost in West Central Scotland if sea angling disappears.

6.6.7 Key Ratios


Table 6.6.9 Key Ratios for Glasgow and West


Expend£'000/ Job


Local 0.49 £33.38 £46.74 1.46

Scot Visitor 0.50 £44.93 £44.24 2.04

RUK Visitor 0.47 £64.52 £47.27 2.91

Total 0.49 £34.61 £46.13 1.52

The vast majority of angling in this region is by local anglers. However the few visitors from both north and south of the border appear to have high expenditure per day.

111

6.7 Western Isles

6.7.0 Introduction

The Western Isles (officially known for local government purposes by the Gaelic name, Na h-Eileanan Siar) is the chain of islands that form the Outer Hebrides. The major islands include Lewis and Harris, North Uist, Benbecula, South Uist, and Barra. (see Fig 6.7.1 ) Much of the western coastline of the islands is machair, a fertile low-lying dune pastureland. The population of 26,300 is spread over 3071 sq km, giving a density of less than 9 per sq km, the lowest in the UK.The main town of Stornoway is located in the north on Lewis and realistically air is the only means of return in a day from the southernmost island of Barra. Sea angling and boat launching can occur in a multiplicity of locations throughout the islands. For reference the questionnaire identified two locations, Stornoway and Barra, and invited suggestions for other locations. Of the 135 who had fished in the Western Isles only 30 responded on the question on locations of whom 5 had fished from Barra alone, 23 Stornoway alone and 2 both locations. None of the others identified regular sea angling from any other location.

Fig 11.1 Map of Western Isles

112


Table 6.7.1 summarises the angler days by residents in the Western Isles and Table 6.7.2 angler days by type of angling.


Edinburghand East


Rate % Anglers


Home Away Total

Adults 21,684 11.6 2,515 42,481 559 43,040Young 2,333 32.9 769 nk nk nk

The participation rate of 11.6% is almost 10 times that of Eastern Scotland and reflects excellent locations, coastal communities, numerous small boats from crofting communities and the embedded culture. Sea angling however appears to be a pastime rather than a sport, with little undertaken away from home.

Table 6.7.2 Angler Days in the Western Isles by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 3,294 1,712 4,403 9,409 11.7%


Glasgow & West 4,138 787 4,252 9,177 11.4%

North East 3,627 476 365 4,468 5.5%

Northern Scotland 1,122 1,113 875 3,110 3.9%

Edinburgh & East 6,306 2,823 1,460 10,588 13.1%

Western Isles 12,391 21,538 189 34,119 42.3%


RUK Visitors 5,346 1,429 1,898 8,673 10.8%

Total 37,055 30,060 13,452 80,567 100.0%

The tables show the importance of boat fishing for locals with 66% of angling days afloat. Figs 6.7.2 & 6.7.3 illustrate the activity by type and by origin of anglers

Activity by Type

Shore

44%

Boat

40%

Charter

16%

113

Fig 6.7.2 Sea Angling Activity in the Western Isles by Angling Type

The aggregated figures make the division less clear. Trailing boats to the Western Isles is expensive and thus visitors either fish from the shore or charter. Boat fishing however is still clearly very important.

Fig 6.7.3 Sea Angling Activity in the Western Isles by Angler Origin

Despite the participation rate, visitor activity still exceeds that of home anglers. When calculating impact, population size is extraordinarily important.


Fig 6.7.4 shows the species fished for in the Western Isles.

Fig 6.7.4 What anglers fished for in the Western Isles

Uniquely pollack is the most popular target, followed by mackerel and cod. The second level targets include dogfish, coley, rays, flatfish and haddock. The other species mentioned by anglers included Wrasse (4.3%), Ling (4.3%) and Spurdog (2.2%).

114

6.7.3 Expenditure


Table 6.7.3: Expenditure in the Western Isles by Category


Fuel £1,218,993 13.3%

Food Shops £948,041 10.3%

Food Pub £991,141 10.8%

Bait £479,880 5.2%

Other £616,118 6.7%

Charter £224,987 2.4%


Sub-Total £5,518,160 60.0%

Boats £2,510,860 27.3%

Rods £665,766 7.2%

Clothing £223,636 2.4%

Books £271,362 3.0%

Total £9,189,783 100.0%


Expenditure by Origin (WI)

Home

46%

Scottish

32%

RUK

22%

Fig 6.7.5 Sea Angling Expenditure in the Western Isles by Origin of Angler

This reflects the number of boat based home anglers. The costs reflect the assumption that the total costs of a leisure boat should be divided between uses. In reality it is likely that for many of the home sea anglers who utilise their boats for work based activities, sea angling costs should be based on the marginal (additional) cost, which will be much lower. This may result in an over-estimation of the importance of sea angling. In practice this potential bias will have minimal effect on economic impact, because the substitution analysis will reveal that these boats will continue to be used and maintained even if sea angling ceased. In other words, the expenditure associated with work based boats will not register as lost.expenditure.

115

Expenditure by Type (WI)

Shore

42%

Boat

36%

Charter

22%

Fig 6.7.6 Sea Angling Expenditure in the Western Isles by Type



Table 6.7.4 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to the Western Isles

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £4,765,608 £1,192,084 £1,065,608 £2,257,692 66 £1,052,043


RUK Visitors £1,883,302 £660,035 £555,811 £1,215,846 35 £609,407

Total £9,189,783 £3,472,263 £2,965,980 £6,438,243 184 £3,172,487



Table 6.7.5 Responses of Anglers in Western Isles





Total 7 103 24 134

% Loss to Region 28.6% 77.7% 87.5%

Tables 6.7.6 provides estimates of the impact on jobs and incomes of a loss of sea angling in the region

116

Table 6.7.6 The Impact of Sea Angling in Western Isles


Home 28.6% 30 £473,420Scottish Visitors 77.7% 56 £1,004,525RUK Visitors 87.5% 31 £550,159Total 117 £2,028,103

In summary we believe that 117 jobs would be lost if sea angling ceased in the Western Isles and their would be a drop in income into the area of some £2m and £2.8m.

6.7.6 Key Ratios


Table 6.7.7 Key Ratios for Western Isles


Expend£'000/ Job

FTE/ 000 AnglerDays

Local 0.22 £24.76 £72.29 1.55

Scot Visitor 0.49 £23.91 £37.07 1.33

RUK Visitor 0.38 £52.50 £45.81 2.98

Total 0.36 £30.05 £48.36 1.74

Once again the value of the RUK tourist is noted. It is possible that the relatively low impact per angler day from non locals reflects the number of family visits that are characteristic of the islands.

117

6.8 Orkney and Shetland

6.8.0 Introduction

Orkney and Shetland together form what are sometimes known as the Northern Isles. Orkney has some 60 islands, 20 of which are inhabited. The population of 19,900 however are almost all on the central island known as Mainland, and the majority of these in the two major towns of Kirkwall and Stromness. Orkney is the subject of a separate case study, found in section 7.3. Further north, Shetland has some 29 islands, 11 of which are inhabited, and a population of 22,000. The only sizeable town is Lerwick on Mainland. Some 3,400 people are scattered on the other 10 islands. In general Shetland has a harsher climate and poorer fertility compared to its southern neighbour.


Table 6.8.1 summarises the angler days by residents in Orkney and Shetland and Table 6.8.2 the estimate of angler days by type of angling and angler origin .

Table 6.8.1 Angler Days by Residents in Orkney and Shetland


Rate % Anglers


Home Away Total

Adults 33,611 8.4 2,823 33,434 892 34,326Young 4,020 23.9 959 nk nk nk

Table 6.8.2 Angler Days in Orkney & Shetland by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 332 21 24 377 0.6%


Glasgow & West 727 43 788 1558 2.4%

North East 2,319 3,638 623 6580 9.9%

Northern Scotland 365 1,374 1,556 3295 5.0%

Edinburgh & East 151 1,341 3,085 4577 6.9%


Orkney & Shetland 18,497 8,675 402 27574 41.6%

RUK Visitors 7,692 4,811 5,611 18114 27.3%

Total 30,083 19,903 12,089 62,075 100.0%


118

Activity by Type

Shore

46%

Boat

35%

Charter

19%

Fig 6.8.1 Activity in Orkney and Shetland by Type

The distribution of activity by type is not dissimilar to Scotland as a whole.

Activity by Origin

Home

43%

Scottish

25%

RUK

32%

Fig 6.8.2 Activity in Orkney and Shetland by Origin

This figure illustrates the importance of RUK as opposed to Scottish anglers. Getting to the islands from Manchester is only marginally more difficult and expensive than from Glasgow and this breakdown reflects that.


Fig 6.8.3 shows why anglers travel so far to fish in Orkney and Shetland.

119

Fig 6.8.3 What anglers fished for in Orkney and Shetland

Conger Eel is found amongst the wrecks of Scapa Flow and Porbeagle, a member of the shark family, is a highly prized sport fish. Table 6.8.3 shows the other species mentioned by anglers. Ling is clearly an important target in this area.

Table 6.8.3 Other Target Species in Orkney and Shetland

LING 6 10.3%

WRASSE 3 5.2%

TORSK 2 3.4%

6.8.3 Expenditure


Table 6.8.4: Expenditure in Orkney and Shetland by Category


Fuel £1,131,133 18.5%

Food Shops £441,538 7.2%

Food Pub £421,746 6.9%

Bait £465,763 7.6%

Other £443,547 7.3%

Charter £208,848 3.4%

Accommodation £836,344 13.7%

Sub-Total £3,948,918 64.7%

Boats £776,461 12.7%

Rods £744,666 12.2%

Clothing £315,386 5.2%

Books £316,514 5.2%

Total £6,101,945 100.0%

Conger

Coley

Mackerel

Bass

Porbeagle

Flatfish

Eel

Haddock

Rays/

Skate

Cod

Sea Trout

Tope

Halibut

Dogfish

Pollack

Hake

Whiting0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

120


Expenditure by Origin (O&S)

Home

31%

Scottish

16%

RUK

53%

Fig 6.8.4 Expenditure in Orkney and Shetland by Origin

Expenditure by RUK reflects both the number of angler days and the “assumed” distribution of the capital spend in Scotland by RUK anglers (which reflects the distribution of angler days). Analysis of the Orkney case study suggests that this assumption probably leads to an overestimation of capital expenditure in remote areas such as Orkney and Shetland.

Fig 6.8.5 shows the relative importance by type of angling. The importance of the privately owned boat is, once again, clearly shown in this chart.

Expenditure by Type (O&S)

Shore

42%

Boat

32%

Charter

26%

Fig 6.8.5 Expenditure in Orkney and Shetland by Type of Angling


Table 6.8.5 gives the contribution to the local economy from the three types of anglers.

121

Table 6.8.5 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Orkney and Shetland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £2,368,785 £858,422 £772,384 £1,630,806 46 £781,857

Scottish Visitors £982,834 £544,572 £453,157 £997,729 28 £514,690

RUK Visitors £2,750,326 £1,058,449 £919,858 £1,978,307 58 £981,010

Total £6,101,945 £2,696,653 £2,344,209 £5,040,862 145 £2,498,470



Table 6.8.6 Responses of Anglers in Orkney and Shetland





Total 10 41 7 58

% Loss to Region 50.0% 87.8% 100.0%


Table 6.8.7 The Impact of Sea Angling in Orkney and Shetland


Home 50.0% 21 £351,836


RUK Visitors 100.0% 52 £885,634

Total 96 £1,657,431

In summary almost 100 jobs and £1.6m in income would be lost if Sea Angling ceased in the Northern Isles.

6.8.6 Key Ratios


Table 6.8.11 Key Ratios for Orkney and Shetland

£GVA/£Expend

£GVA/Day

Expend£'000/ Job


Local 0.33 £23.39 £51.46 1.38

Scot Visitor 0.52 £28.14 £35.02 1.53

RUK Visitor 0.36 £42.81 £47.72 2.51

Total 0.41 £33.47 £42.19 1.94

This result is not dissimilar to the findings for the Western Isles.

122

6.9 SCOTLAND

6.9.0 Introduction

This section aggregates the results from each of the regions to enable the development of a picture of Sea Angling in the whole country and its economic impact. Scotland is traditionally seen as a land of mountains, glens and lochs with an industrial heartland. But it is also both a country of islands and part of an island, with a coastline in excess of many thousands of km for its 5.46m population. As shown in table 6.9.1, 23.4% the population lives on the coast or on an island and a vast majority (93.1%) live within 30 minutes travel of the coast.

Table 6.9.1 Population and Distance from Coast

All Persons Young 10-18

Area Number Mainland

%Population

% Number Mainland

%Population

%

Scotland All 5,461,197 100.0% 492,669 100.0%of which Mainland 5,241,887 100.0% 96.0% 473,483 100.0% 96.1%

of which within 1km 1,060,733 20.2% 19.4% 91,298 19.3% 18.5%within 2km 1,478,857 28.2% 27.1% 128,742 27.2% 26.1%within 5km 2,238,872 42.7% 41.0% 196,475 41.5% 39.9%within 10km 3,076,644 58.7% 56.3% 273,653 57.8% 56.9.5%within 25km 4,669,730 89.1% 86.9.5% 430,210 90.9% 87.3%

of which Islands 219,310 4.3% 19,186 3.0%Source: See appendix A

In this section we examine sea angling in Scotland as a whole and the flow of anglers and expenditure between the regions. Section 5 discusses the assumptions and processes underlying these estimates.

6.9.1 Activity Rates and Sea Angler Numbers

As discussed in section 2 the main source of information on activity rates is the Omnibus Telephone Survey of 15,000 Scots and the UK Tourist Survey of 100,000 persons throughout the United Kingdom. The latter survey however combined sea and freshwater fishing and was supplemented by information from the TNS survey of 1457 anglers. The results are shown in table 6.9.2

Table 6.9.2 Number of Sea Anglers in Scotland

Adult Young

Population 4,475,860 492,669Activity Rate 1.7 4.8Sea Anglers 75,189 23,445RUK Visitors 50,000 nkTotal 125,189 23,445

123

Note that, as discussed in section 5.10 the estimates utilise the 2006 figure of 50,000 RUK sea anglers.

The number of adult anglers in each region varies significantly from 2,500 in the Western Isles to 23,550 in Glasgow and the West. The proportion of each is shown in Fig 6.9.1

Fig 6.9.1 Origin of Sea Anglers in Scotland

Source: Omnibus This shows quite clearly the importance of population size in determining where sea anglers come from (rather than activity rates) with visitors from south of the border being dominant. The participation rate (as a percentage of the RUK population) for the RUK group is only 0.11%. For the whole of the UK (RUK plus Scotland) the rate is 0.21% compared to the 0.17% found in the HIE study for Highlands alone. This appears surprising until it is recognised that the HIE study excludes both Dumfries and Argyll, the two most popular visitor areas.

Because most Scottish anglers fish both at home and outside their region it makes little sense to talk of angler numbers or visitors in absolute terms. Fig 6.9.2 shows, therefore, the angler days accumulated in each sea region.

124

Fig 6.9.2 Angler Days by Destination

Source: Omnibus & Internet

The most important feature is that these are much more equal and reflect, at least in part, the area of a region and the distance from the main population centres both north and south of the border, rather than only the population.

The next figure (6.9.3) shows the breakdown by activity pursued. Since anglers can theoretically be recorded in all 6 categories and most will be recorded in 2 or 3, the distribution by angler days is much more useful than by angler. Not unexpectedly sea angling in the local area dominates but what is surprising is the importance of boat fishing, both in the home region and away.

125

.

Fig 6.9.3 Angler Days by Type of Angling

Source: Omnibus & Internet (Visitors)

The final table shows the impact of distance from the sea on participation rates as discussed in section 6.9.1

Table 6.9.3 : Participation Rates in Coastal and Inland Areas

Sea_Angler

TotalNo Yes

Inland 9426 122 9548Percent 98.70% 1.30% 100.00%Coastal 5319 139 5458Percent 97.50% 2.50% 100.00%Total 14745 261 15006Percent 98.30% 1.70% 100.00%

Source: Omnibus This table shows quite clearly that post code regions that are on the coast have participation rates that are almost double those inland.

126

6.9.2 Angler Days

Table 6.9.4 shows the mean days per angler in each region and the mean overall.

Table 6.9.4: Means by Region: Active Anglers Only

Region Home Total Away Total Total

Argyll & Lochaber 28.43 2.36 30.79

Dumfries and Galloway 6.00 0.90 50

Glasgow and West 13.88 7.43 21.31

North East Scotland 11.96 7.00 18.96Northern Scotland 16.30 1.79 18.09

Edinburgh, Fife and South East 12.59 7.34 19.93Western Isles 16.89 0.22 17.11Orkney 6.00 6.00 12.00Shetland 12.17 0.00 12.17Total 14.11 5.24 19.35

Source: Omnibus

The mean of 19.4 days is high which eventually leads to substantial expenditures.

Table 6.9.5 shows that the mean days by location. The difference is not statistically significant. although it might be argued that it shows that the inland angler are actually more committed.

Table 6.9.5 Mean Days per angler by Location

Coastal HomeTotal AwayTotal Total

Inland 13.28 7.88 21.17Coastal 14.80 3.01 17.81

Total 14.11 5.24 19.35Source: Omnibus

Finally table 6.9.6 shows the estimated number of days by origin and destination and the net flow into the regions.

127

Table 6.9.6 Number of Angler Days by Origin and Destination

Origin >Destination ٧

A&L D&G G&W NE NORTH E&E WI OS Total

Argyll & Lochaber 104,925 7,641 800 1,976 1,001 1,160 9,409 377 127,288

Dumfries & Galloway 848 15,012 379 124 22 131 786 0 17,303

Glasgow & West 61,330 46,247 256,740 19,389 5,187 7,287 9,177 1,559 406,917

North East 14,609 2,048 1,929 81,449 19,827 4,263 4,468 6,580 135,173

NorthernScotland 669 2,190 0 1,894 102,475 824 3,110 3,295 114,457

Edinburgh & East 29,736 30,310 5,680 33,030 8,919 207,819 10,588 4,577 330,660

Western Isles 0 0 0 123 7 123 34,119 0 34,371

Orkney & Shetland 0 0 0 149 421 0 237 27,575 28,382

Visitors 40,499 129,631 4,255 36,094 6,487 29,261 8,673 377 127,288

Total 252,615 233,080 269,783 234,307 144,346 250,868 80,567 74,640 1,540,206

Flow IN 125,327 215,777-

137,134 99,134 29,889 -79,792 46,196 46,258 345,655

Source: Omnibus & Internet

As might be expected the industrialised central belt, Glasgow & West and Edinburgh & East are substantial exporters predominantly to the adjacent regions, Argyll & Lochaber and Dumfries & Galloway. The substantial flow of visitors into the Western and Northern Isles is also worth noting.

6.9.3 Types of Fishing

Fig 6.9.3 showed the basic distribution of Sea Angling days by Type. Surprisingly fishing from a boat is actually more popular than fishing from the shore, despite the difficulties of transport and launch or the costs of charter. As discussed in the case study section, considerable numbers of sea anglers have holiday homes/caravans with a boat attached that is used for angling. The other factor determining the use of boats is the physical geography of the region; specifically how easy it is to cast clear into deep water against the relative probability of finding safe calm water for fishing. Shore fishing is, as a consequence, relatively more popular on the beaches of the East Coast compared to the deep sea lochs of the West.

Table 6.9.7 Shore v Boat Angling (Scottish Anglers)

Shore Boat

Argyll & Lochaber 42.5% 57.5%Dumfries & Galloway 48.8% 51.2%Glasgow & West 38.0% 62.0%North East 55.4% 44.6%Northern Scotland 42.9% 57.1%Edinburgh & East 50.0% 50.0%Western Isles 46.1% 53.9%Orkney & Shetland 46.1% 53.9%

Source Omnibus

128

6.9.4 Species

Respondents to the internet survey were asked to record the species they fished for in each region. Fig 6.9.4 shows the simple aggregation of the returns to each region

Fig 6.9.4 Target Species in Scotland

Table 6.9.8 summarises the species fished in order of popularity

Table 6.9.8 Popularity of Fish Species.

Species % Mentioned Species Percent Mentioned

Mackerel 73.6% Bass 24.5%

Cod 70.5% Tope 17.6%

Pollack 69.6% Sea Trout 13.2%

Coley 47.5% Common Eel 5.6%

Flatfish 46.1% Wrasse 5.2%38

Dogfish 44.9% Halibut 3.6%

Rays/Skate 30.8% Hake 3.5%

Conger 27.0% Spurdog 3.0%Whiting 26.8% Porbeagle 2.9%

Haddock 25.8% Ling 2.3%Source: Internet

There appear to be three groups:

1. Popular: Mackerel, Cod and Pollack (Around 70%) 2. Alternatives: Coley, Flatfish and Dogfish (Around 45% ) 3. More Specialist: Rays/Skate, Conger, Whiting, Haddock, Bass ,Tope and Sea Trout

38 Wrasse, Spurdog and Ling were suggested by anglers in the other category and the popularity may, as a

consequence, be underestimated.

Mackerel

Cod Pollack

ColeyFlatfish

Dogfish

Rays/

SkateConger

Whiting

Haddock

Bass

Tope

Sea Trout

Eel

Wrasse

Halibut

Hake

Spurdog

Porbeagle

Ling

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

129

4. The Rest (Less than 10% )

Of course this will vary from region to region e.g. Sea Trout is more important in the Clyde. This is discussed in the region and case study sections.

6.9.5 Expenditure

Table 6.9.9 and Fig 6.9.5 show the expenditure profile for the typical angler.

Table 6.9.9 Mean Expenditure when Sea Angling by Category

Category Per Angler Per Angler Day

Fuel £264 £19Food Shops £126 £9

Food Pub £121 £9Bait £139 £10

Other £107 £8Charter £53 £4

Accommodation £178 £13Boats £172 £13Rods £195 £14

Clothing £73 £5Books £88 £6Total £1,516 £110

Fig 6.9.5 Distribution of Expenditure on Sea Angling Trips

The estimation of these figures was discussed in section 5. It is important, however to note that these figures combine day and overnight trips in both home and other regions. In addition the charter figure is not the normal charter price but reflects the percentage of the trips that

130

involve a charter (multiplied by the charter cost). An important assumption is that the fuel and purchased food and drink (from a shop) is obtained in the region where the fishing occurs. This is realistic for visitors who are staying overnight and have travelled long distances but may be totally unrealistic for someone from Glasgow who travels 20 km to a mark in Argyll. As far as Scotland as a whole is concerned there is no difference in economic impact, but for the region the dominance of the fuel bill is likely to exaggerate the impact.

A further possible point of overestimation is the cost of fuel. The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2008 when petrol and diesel prices reached record levels. These have now shrunk by up to 20%. However, as was discussed in section 3.2, because of the tax and duty element of fuel plus the imported nature of the material the economic impact of the overestimation will not be large.

The researchers were surprised at the apparent level of expense of over £100 per day. As far as the angler is concerned, the marginal cost is the cost he faces when deciding to go sea angling. Assuming he (the sea angler is almost invariably a male) would “go out” for a leisure trip of some sort and has already purchased the capital items such as rods and clothing, the incremental cost of the trip will be only the bait and extra fuel i.e. less than £30. This project, however is concerned with the total impact of the trip on the regions where fishing takes place, with the allowance for displacement dealing with alternative uses for the expenditure.

Table 6.9.10 summarise the daily expenditure flows between regions. As might be expected this reflects the pattern of angler days with substantial financial flows from the industrial central belt and south of the border to the more rural areas of Scotland. In addition there is a flow of capital expenditure between regions that is not recorded in this table. In order to allow eventual calculation of economic impact the assumption made is that this flow is directly proportionate to the angler flow (and daily expenditure flow).

Table 6.9.10 Daily Expenditure Flows when Sea Angling (£000’s)

Origin >Destination ٧

A&L D&G G&W NE NORTH E&E WI OS Total

Argyll & Lochaber

£8,886 £649 £93 £188 £82 £167 £1,216 £35 £11,315

Dumfries & Galloway

£58 £1,245 £28 £9 £1 £12 £68 £0 £1,422

Glasgow & West

£4,571 £3,528 £22,733 £1,706 £385 £884 £981 £136 £34,923

North East £810 £119 £125 £5,114 £1,097 £341 £323 £425 £8,355

NorthernScotland

£51 £165 £0 £165 £7,844 £99 £337 £306 £8,967

Edinburgh & East

£1,974 £2,069 £442 £2,497 £592 £19,639 £923 £378 £28,514

Western Isles £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £3,205 £0 £3,205

Orkney & Shetland

£0 £0 £0 £12 £28 £0 £22 £1,941 £2,003

Visitors £6,274 £17,520 £705 £5,787 £1,129 £5,754 £2,116 £2,880 £42,164

Total £22,623 £25,294 £24,126 £15,477 £11,160 £26,896 £9,190 £6,102 £140,868

Flow IN £11,308 £23,873 -£10,797 £7,121 £2,193 -£1,618 £5,985 £7,187 £42,164

131

Figs 6.9.6 and 6.9.7 illustrate the expenditure by Origin and by Type of Fishing.

Expenditure by Origin

Home

46%

Scottish

18%

RUK

36%

Fig 6.9.6 Expenditure by Origin of Anglers

This figure graphically illustrates the economic importance of visitors from south of the border, and, critically, the importance of an accurate estimate of the number of such visitors. However, as a counterbalance, 64% of the expenditure is still generated by Scots.

Expenditure by Type

Shore

44%

Boat

34%

Charter

22%

Fig 6.9.7 Expenditure by Type of Sea Angling

Again the importance of boat based angling is shown in this figure. The final table 6.9.11 shows all expenditure, including capital in each region. There are significantly different patterns in each region, reflecting the proportion of visitors in each region. In summary just over £140m is spent when on a sea angling trip in Scotland. Much of this would be spent in the region even if not sea angling and, alternatively, the expenditure will induce further economic activity. It is these effects that are the subject of the next sections

132

Table 6.9.11 Expenditure in all Regions by Category (£000’s

Expenditure A&L D&G G&W NE NORTH E&E WI OS Total

Fuel £3,784 £3,676 £5,353 £2,401 £2,415 £4,697 £1,219 £1,131 £24,677

Food Shops £2,140 £1,887 £2,211 £1,274 £1,053 £1,825 £948 £442 £11,780

Food Pub £2,393 £1,460 £1,882 £1,280 £1,525 £1,374 £991 £422 £11,326

Bait £2,289 £2,263 £2,736 £1,421 £1,044 £2,228 £480 £466 £12,928

Other £1,857 £1,729 £1,969 £947 £952 £1,386 £616 £444 £9,901

Charter £1,114 £821 £1,224 £433 £461 £418 £225 £209 £4,904

Accommodation £3,166 £4,411 £1,107 £2,061 £1,459 £1,973 £1,039 £836 £16,052

Boats £1,589 £2,284 £2,104 £1,602 £345 £5,100 £2,511 £776 £16,312

Rods £2,436 £3,438 £3,327 £2,052 £1,227 £4,244 £666 £745 £18,136

Clothing £1,023 £1,630 £1,167 £784 £295 £1,288 £224 £315 £6,725

Books £831 £1,695 £1,047 £1,221 £384 £2,362 £271 £317 £8,128

Total £22,623 £25,294 £24,126 £15,477 £11,160 £26,896 £9,190 £6,102 £140,868


Table 6.9.12 shows the contribution to the Scottish economy by the three types of anglers.

Table 6.9.12 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £76,494,022 £34,464,647 £42,698,262 £77,162,908 1,500 £33,590,219

ScottishVisitors £22,821,680 £13,819,162 £16,120,155 £29,939,317 618 £13,637,558

RUK Visitors £42,041,458 £18,398,781 £21,924,937 £40,323,718 830 £18,167,500

Total £141,357,161 £70,945,986 £85,545,600 £156,491,587 3,148 £69,670,793

It is apparent that sea angling is an important element in the rural economy sustaining over 3000 jobs.


Table 6.9.13 shows the estimated percentage loss of the expenditure to Scotland if Sea Angling ceased, based on the questions posed about alternative actions. In essence the losses reflect the degree of loyalty to the location compared to the sport and we would expect the losses associated with Home anglers to be far less than with visitors from the RUK. The difference between Home and Scottish Visitors in the North East and Eastern Scotland is worth comment. As discussed in the relevant sections, the participation rate and boat use are low in these areas. Thus the Home angler appears to be more committed and have less difficulty in moving than anglers from elsewhere. Visiting anglers would appear more likely to be on a general holiday.

133

Table 6.9.13 Loss to Scotland if Sea Angling ceases by Region

Home Scottish Away RUK

Argyll & Lochaber 30.0% 48.4% 92.0%

Dumfries & Galloway 36.3% 47.9% 90.3%

Glasgow & West 37.9% 48.8% 90.9%

North East 44.8% 47.3% 88.2%

Northern Scotland 56.3% 47.4% 88.9%

Edinburgh & East 48.1% 45.7% 88.6%

Western Isles 28.6% 46.1% 87.5%

Orkney & Shetland 35.0% 56.1% 100.0%

Weighted Mean 41.8% 47.9% 90.5%

The weighted mean was obtained using the angler days in each category.

Table 6.9.14 summarises the estimate of the impact on jobs and incomes of a loss of sea angling in the region using the assumption that half of those Scottish anglers who would shift region would shift outside Scotland.

Table 6.9.14 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Scotland

Loss to Region PercentageLoss

JobsLost

IncomeLost

Home 41.8% 628 £14,054,777


RUK Visitors 90.5% 751 £16,449,880

Total 1675 £37,042,075

6.9.8 Key Ratios


Table 6.9.15 Key Ratios for Scotland as a whole

£GVA/£Expend

£GVA/Day

Expend£'000/ Job


Local 0.44 £32.16 £51.00 1.44

Scot Visitor 0.60 £31.30 £36.92 1.42

RUK Visitor 0.43 £48.87 £50.68 2.23

Total 0.49 £37.62 £44.91 1.70

The message is once again clear; the visitor from the south is extremely valuable to the local economy but also the easiest to lose.

6.9.9 Summary Conclusion on Scotland

The number of estimates reflects the degree of uncertainty associated with a forecast where, despite substantial survey sizes (15,000 in the Omnibus, 100,000 in the UKTS), the numbers

134

of sea anglers surveyed is relatively small and very heterogeneous and where assumptions about their future actions in very hypothetical situations have to be obtained. However, despite the number and variability we are confident that

1. There are around 100,000 Scottish Sea Anglers 2. There are around 50,000 Sea Anglers from the Rest of the UK 3. At least £140m is spent in Scotland when undertaking the Sport 4. Around 3000 jobs and £70m of income are supported by the activity 5. If the activity ceased there would be at least 1600 fewer jobs and £37m less

income in Scotland.

135

SECTION 7 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

7.0 Introduction

It is clear that sea angling is an extremely diverse activity and in terms of the variety of species, locations and participants probably more so than either coarse, game or rainbow trout angling.

Some participants can equip themselves with the necessary sea angling equipment for a few pounds and, not having to seek permission from any proprietor, are free to fish from any location providing access to the sea. Not only can the equipment be relatively inexpensive, some forms of sea angling require fairly modest skills. Thus, families holidaying at seaside locations will often while away a few hours fishing for mackerel. Similarly, groups of youngsters at very little cost, using very basic equipment, can productively fish from piers and other promontory locations.

At the other extreme, there are anglers whose sea angling requires expensive equipment,

specialist skills and a highly detailed knowledge. These specialists may test their angling ability by

competing in club, national and international competitions. All sea angling clubs will have an annual

calendar of competitions which may see their members fishing local waters or travelling further

afield. Clubs will also have open competitions attracting visiting anglers. Some sea anglers target

particular species (e.g. bass or tope), or particular locations (beach casting or boat fishing). These

specialists may spend thousands of pounds in pursuing their sport. For instance, a reliable sea

boat, with a main and auxiliary engine, designed for fishing wrecks or rough ground can cost tens

of thousands and require 10% of the capital cost in storage and annual maintenance.

The larger the geographical area under consideration the greater is the possibility that sea

angling’s diverse characteristics are obscured. Given this, in recognition that splitting Scotland into

only 8 regions could have resulted in lost detail, a layer of 5 case study areas were identified. The

case study areas were therefore selected not only to reflect the diversity of characteristics but also

contemporary issues relating to sea angling in Scotland.

The Upper Clyde is alleged to have experienced a significant decline. Rightly or wrongly, at one

time it had the reputation as one of the finest sea angling areas, not just in Scotland but in the UK

as a whole. Since the 1980s, the Firth of Clyde has experienced a reduction in both boat and shore

angling. We have sought to examine this alleged decline. Luce Bay continues to offer a wide

range of species, both from the shore and from boats. The area is able to support both commercial

charter boats and a significant amount of own boats activity with many anglers travelling from

England and a significant proportion of these maintaining holiday caravans in the area. The area is

therefore able to retain enough angler expenditure to support many local jobs. Orkney is included

as an example of a Scottish island community which has both resident and visitor anglers. EastGrampian (from Stonehaven to Arbroath), supports a charter fleet based in Arbroath and to a

lesser extent Stonehaven, but has a reputation for shore angling, particularly for cod in the winter

months. Anglers travel to the area from elsewhere in Scotland and from further afield, but, given the

exposed coastline, there is less own boats activity, and less long term holiday accommodation

being occupied. Loch Etive is a more remote location which does not have extensive range of

local services and is more reliant on anglers making day trips or shorter overnight trips where they

bivouac, camp or sleep in vehicles.

136

As stated earlier, one aim was to estimate rough magnitude of the economic activity supported by

sea angling within these smaller geographical areas. Because of resource constraints, it was not

feasible to undertake on-site surveys of anglers, or to invite angler to complete questionnaires

relating to their activity and expenditure. Rather, the focus of attention was the key local experts

and suppliers of angling services to establish direct employment. There are known relationships

between angler expenditure, direct, indirect, and induced effects and FTEs. An estimate of direct

employment therefore provides an insight to these other variables.

7.1 The Upper Clyde

7.1.0 Description of area

The case study area is defined by the sea water area north of an imaginary line drawn east from Toward Point on the Cowal peninsular to west at Wemyss Bay on the opposite bank of the Firth of Clyde. The case study area therefore includes that part of main stem of the Firth of Clyde plus all the lochs situated north of the imaginary line.

137

Situated on the “north bank” of this area are the lochs; Holy Loch, Loch Long, Loch Goil, the Gair Loch and the towns of; Innellan, Dunoon, Sandbank, Kilmun, Lochgoilhead, Arrochar, Kilcreggan, Rosneath, Garelochhead, Helensburgh, Cardross, Dumbarton and Bowling. The larger settlements are on the “south bank” and include Wemyss Bay, Inverkip, Gourock, Greenock, Port Glasgow and Langbank. There is therefore a large population of potential resident local anglers. The area has very good transport links to the major conurbations in West Central Scotland, and onwards to population centres further afield and is thus potentially an option for anglers willing to undertake day and overnight trips in pursuit of good sea angling.

The Clyde Coast was a very popular holiday destination with holiday makers and day-trippers being transported by Clyde steamships. As a consequence, the area inherited a network of piers. At one time almost every coastal settlement had at least one pier which provided a relatively safe mark for both locals and holiday makers to enjoy sea angling. Many of these are in a state of disrepair or have been completely removed, or angling from them has now been prohibited.

7.1.1 Species

Mackerel are plentiful during the summer months. Pollock, Dogfish, Coalfish and occasionally cod and flatfish are caught by boat anglers and from some shore marks, though they are relatively small. Larger conger, ling and wrasse are caught by boat anglers at a small number of locations. Sea trout are available from the shore and close in from boats throughout many part of the area.

7.1.2 Shore angling

During on-site visits to shore angling marks, the majority of sea angling were targeting mackerel. When mackerel were not available, the number of anglers was much reduced. Keener anglers with better tackle and expertise are able to catch Pollock, Dogfish, Coalfish and occasionally Cod and flatfish although these were relatively small compared to catches in other areas. A very popular target in some locations is sea trout which can be caught from the shore. A licence is required, but there is little information about the level of compliance.

On the south bank of the Firth, from Port Glasgow to Wemyss Bay, the recognised shore angling spots are Parklea shore, the pier at Kelburn, Garvell Point, Custom House Quay, Greenock Waterfront Development, either end of Greenock Esplanade, Gamble Steps, the derelict sections of Gourock Pier, Gourock swimming pool, Maybank Ponds, Gourock Yacht Club, McInroy’s Point, Cloch Point, Lunderson Bay, Skelmorie rocks. Historically, Gourock and Weymss Bay piers and McInroy’s Point were important areas for shore angling, but in recent years the sea angling areas have been fenced off because of because of conflict with the activities of ferry operators Caledonian MacBraynes and Western Ferries.

During the course of one evening with fine weather conditions, 68 anglers were counted fishing from Port Glasgow to Weymss Bay, almost exclusively targeting mackerel. Only 8 successful anglers were counted. The total who fished during that one evening would greatly exceed the 68 observed, as there was a regular flow of anglers arriving and leaving.

On the north bank, the main marks are Ardmore Point, the Craigendoran Pier Area, Helesnburgh Pier, Rhu Spit, Roseneath Caravan Park, Kilcreggan Pier, Cove Sailing Club, Knockderry, Coulport, Portincaple , East Loch Long to Arrochar and Arrochar Caravan Park.

138

An on-site survey of anglers on the entire stretch of the “south “bank, contacted 98 anglers39. Of the 98 anglers 43 were under eighteen and 20 were from outside the immediate area, some travelling from as far away as Lennoxtown .

7.1.3 Boat angling

Within the case study area there are large Marinas at Inverkip, Rhu and Holy Loch. Just outside the case study area there is a large marina at Largs. The number of berths is anticipated to increase with expansion at Holy Loch and new marina development at, Bowling, Gourock and two new marinas at Greenock. In addition, outside the area, new marina facilities are in development or are planned for Port Bannantyne, Ardyne and Portavadie.

There are considerable numbers of swinging moorings, accessible by dingy launched from the shore or slipways, at Port Glasgow, Gourock, Inverkip, Rhu, Garelochhead, Arrocher, Lochgoilhead, Roseneath and Holy Loch. The area has an excellent infrastructure for pleasure craft.

On the “south bank” slipways for launch and retrieval of smaller angling vessels on road trailers, exist at Newark Castle and Coronation Park in Port Glasgow, Cardwell Bay and Ashton in Gourock, and at Inverkip Marina. None of these access points support vehicular launching irrespective of the state of the tide. There are some other smaller slipways which do not have reliable vehicular access.

On the “north bank” there are good public slipways at Helensburgh, Shandon and Roseneath. There are also slipways at the Helensburgh Sailing Club, Rhu Marina, Roseneath Caravan Park and Cove Sailing Club. The naval facilities at Faslane and Coulport have facilities that are used by those working in the bases. These include a converted fishing vessel that is used by both fishing and dive parties. There are no longer any angler charter vessels on the North Bank of the study area, though there are self drive boat hire operations at Arrochar and Lochgoilhead.

7.1.4 Estimated Angler Activity, Expenditure and Employment.

The interviewees were very unsure of the number of anglers in the area. On the south bank there were an estimated 13,000 to 14,000 angler days. Of these 1,300 would be competition anglers and 5,000 own boat angler days. On the north bank 10,000 to 11,000 sea anglers days would be a reasonable estimate. The total number of angler days is estimated to be 24,000 to 26,000 angler days. The consensus was that currently around 1000 angers fished from the shore. This, it was claimed was about 5% of the number 20 years ago.

Some were optimistic that this level could return if commercial fishing was stopped; others did not believe stock recovery on this scale was possible. Importantly, unlike mackerel, cod angling was an off peak activity, spreading the season for the guest houses in Arrochar

7.1.5 The Suppliers

Potential suppliers whose business might be dependent on sea angling would include; charter boats, suppliers of boats, suppliers of outboards, bait suppliers, tackle shops, café’s and pubs, hotels, bed and breakfast, caravan and camping sites. The area was visited and we contacted all businesses which might have some dependency on the direct expenditure of sea anglers.

39 A Totalof 120 anglers were interviewed on the north and south bank of the Upper Clyde area.

139

Tackle shops:The Fishing Shop (Greenock)Castle Dive (Port Glasgow) F & G Ironmongery (Gourock) Rosneath Castle Angling Supplies (Rosneath) Tickler’s Tackle Angling Supplies (Helensburgh

Marinas and Berthing:Inverkip MarinaRhu MarinaHoly Loch MarinaDRB Marine

Outboards and Boats Clyde Outboard Services

Self-drive Vessel HireArrocher Boats Lochgoil Cruisers D.M Auto Marine

Retailers Braeside Stores, Arrochar

Caravan and Camping Ardgarten Caravan SiteCloch Caravan Park(Gourock)Weymss Bay Caravan Park

7.1.6 Direct Employment

On the “north bank” the largest tackle shop in the area in Helensburgh, was manned on an ad hoc basis by two individuals. The proprietor of the much smaller Rosneath store ran it on an ad hoc basis together with other duties on the site. Many caravans at Rosneath contained rods and it was thought that around 20% of the vans would contain active anglers. 10% of the vans (50) had boats to launch for sea angling. It was believed however that the loss of angling would have a minimal impact. Although a number of boats at Rhu Marina and Holy Loch were used for sea angling they were thought to be rarely used and then only as trailing lines for mackerel. It was believed that a fishing ban/recovery would have minimal effect on economic activity in the marina. Braeside Store in Arrochar sells angling equipment. The shop has a manager and 3 PT staff. The other two shops in Arrochar are smaller and carry less stock.

Sea angling is still extremely important to customers at Ardgarten caravan and camping site. TheArdgarten manager evidenced currently a group of twenty from Warrington who come up every year for the sea angling. The boat hirer stated that his boat at Arrochar hire was almost 100% for sea angling and that the job was in reality part time. The two hirers at Lochgoilhead were also heavily dependent on sea angling. The total direct employment in Arrochar, Helensburgh, Rosneath and Lochgoilhead was estimated to be 8 FTE’s.

On the south bank, there are three shops selling tackle. In Greenock there is a dedicated angling shop with sea angling accounting for over 70%. The other two outlets have fishing tackle as an ancillary activity, accounting for about 20% of their turnover. Kip Marina were aware of sea anglers resident in some berths, but their impact on turnover was insignificant. Similarly the large caravan parks at Weymss bay and Cloch did not recognise sea anglers as a client group. There are two Outboard business, one of whom felt that sea anglers provided 10-20% of turnover. Taken together the direct employment in these suppliers would be would 4 FTE’s.

Taken together we can only identify, at most 12 FTEs. This is because some of the local angler expenditure on magazines and clothing will be spread thinly across a number of local suppliers.

140

Visitors, who are almost exclusively day trippers, will spread their expenditure in the local across outlets such as fast food outlets, cafes and general stores.

Jobs in the sector are low wage and we might expect expenditure of something in the order of £200,000 and dependent income of around £90,000. This makes an angler estimate of between one and two thousand anglers not unreasonable.

7.1.7 History

The Upper Clyde has experienced a significant decline in sea angling. At one time it had a reputation as one of the finest sea angling areas, not just in Scotland but in the UK as a whole. Large number of anglers were attracted and fished from both boat and the shore and there is evidence that some travelled on a fairly regular basis from as far afield as the English Midlands. The evidence for this popularity is anecdotal but is worth recording.

A 1987 guide to angling in Scotland stated “the coastline from Largs to Greenock is probably the most popular area in Scotland for shore angling, with many anglers from the Midlands and beyond making regular trips north.”40 The area attracted major shore and boat competitions. The European Federation of Sea Angler's (EFSA) Scotland organised the European Cod Festival on some 4 or 5 occasions in the 1970’s and1980's and, as the name suggests, attracted anglers from continental Europe as well as the home nations. In the late 1960’s, theNational Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA) fished one of their annual boat championship matches at Gourock. This is surprising since NFSA was primarily English based. The now defunct Firth of Clyde Sea Angling Federation based at Gourock was one of Scotland's foremost Sea Angling Clubs and regularly organised sea angling competitions, including the Scottish Open Shore, which could attract over 500 anglers with a large contingent coming from the North-East of England.

The largest Scottish sea angling festival was the White Horse Whisky Sea Angling Competition based at Saltcoats which could attract daily entries in excess of 1,300. The northern limit for this roving shore event was Greenock Esplanade. Between 1970 and 1981 over 15,000 sea anglers participated in this event41. Saltcoats Sea Angling Club who organised the competition folded a few years ago.

There is also strong evidence of a very healthy, though at the time unregulated charter market. In conversation with a former charter skipper we were provided with a list of 51 charter boats which had operated in the case study area since the early 1980’s. Not all of these were full-time charter vessels, and some only operated during peak periods.

At weekends, many of these vessels collected sea anglers at the Gamble Steps on Gourock Pier, and there was considerable on-water competition as charter boats jostled for access to board their angler queued along the pier. It is worth noting that, of the fifty one boats listed below, none is still involved in sea angling chartering. Some have been scrapped, but a reasonable number are still around, having been converted for private pleasure use, and in some cases diving charters.

40 Scotland 1987 For Fishing page 103. Produced by Pastime Publications (Edinburgh) and distributed by the British

Tourist Authority 41 Scottish Angling News, December 1981 page 36

141

Gourock:AppacheBountyCutterClaire GailCity of Glasgow Golden Quest Golden WestGranny Kempock KirstyLadoraLady JaneMingulayNimrodPolarisPort StarProviderSea Ang

StrikerSunbeamTight Lines VidasWestering Home

Clynder:Bairns PrideGalmaGilmarHeatherAnnJudithMarianNew DawnOceanicOrisisSea ArrowSilver Searcher

Bowling:ArdmoreCordiveGolden WestKelpieStack RockZuleika

Arrochar:Two vessels by Stuart Cordiner

Greenock:ArtemisBramblewick

Inverkip:Emmy Leigh

DumbartonTwo vessels by Charlie Woods

Port Glasgow:Mandy Deeney x 1

Toward QuayPentland

Carrick Castle31ft. Mitchell

TOTAL 51 Vessels

In addition to charter vessels, there were a number of self drive boat rentals operating in sheltered bays and at the head of sea lochs. Only the operators marked (*) in Lochgoilhead and Arrochar remain.

Gourock:Louise Vandenberg Ashton Boating Station

Clynder:Charlie MoarJohn Allison Modern Charters

Lochgoilhead:Loch Goil Cruisers*D.M Auto Marine*

Arrochar:Arrochar Boats*Rossmay Dinghy Hire

We obtained the records of 24 trips taken by a charter vessel in the upper Clyde during 1981. The average weight of fish per angler trip was 10lb of mixed species including plaice, cod, pouting, whiting, dab, saith, lythe, mackerel, dogfish, wrasse. A contemporary article in “Scottish Angling”42 reports that it was possible for an ordinary eight hour charter trip to amass over 1,000 pounds of fish.

The best years in terms of catches were probably 1963 to1973, before serious numbers of anglers came and made the Inner Clyde popular as an important venue. With respect to angler numbers, particularly visiting anglers, the peak years were the early 1980’s. Unfortunately, manyof the hotels that accommodated anglers, such as the Bay Hotel, the Gantock Hotel and the Ashton Hotel have been demolished. Many of the small B&B businesses are no longer in existence, making it hard now to quantify numbers who had stayed overnight.

42 December 1981, pages 17-19.

142

As outlined in the literature review, in response to sharp falls in angler number, and the poor catches in the 1988 White Horse Whisky competition, the Scottish Tourist Board commissionedthe Clyde Sea Angling Study (CSAS).

In 1988, CSAS estimated that the annual impact on household income of sea angling was £8.9m per annum with 200 FTE’s being supported. They further estimated that from the early 1980’s up to 1988, sea angling had declined by at least 30%, with some charter firms reporting declines of up to 85% compared with the early 1980’s. With respect to the resulting economic loss, CSAS estimate that up to 1988, the decline in sea angling resulted in the Firth of Clyde losing 90 jobs and annual household income of £3m per annum.

After reviewing the available evidence, the CSAS study concluded that the Clyde fish stocks declined as a result of the increased commercial fishing effort, much of which resulted directly from the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 which, in broad terms, opened up the zero to three mile zone to all mobile gear fishing activity). Prior to the 1984 Act, large areas of the upper Clyde had been used almost exclusively by anglers.

They also warned that, even in 1988, conditions had become so unfavourable that, in the absence of improved catches, continual decline in sea angling activity was likely, risking all the remaining 200 jobs and £8.9m of annual household income. This seems to have been a prophetic warning. However, at the time, CSAS evaluated a more positive outlook and stated that an improvement in sea angling conditions might be expected to: (i) prevent the anticipated decline, (ii) regain the lost jobs and income and, (iii) create the potential for new jobs and income. After assessing the potential of the Clyde to attract additional visiting anglers, CSAS estimated that the total benefit from sea angling improvement was 370 FTEs and £17.8m of household income. These impacts are the sum of effects (i), (ii) and (iii).

With respect to the policy initiatives that might deliver these benefits, CSAS recommended: � closure of all mobile gear of the area north of a point from Cloch Point to Dunoon43

� a weekend ban on fishing with mobile gear throughout the Clyde � an increase in mesh size for nephrops trawls to 80mm codend and possibly: � changes in the maximum size of otter boards

CSAS argued that restrictions on commercial fishing would result in a net increase in local jobs and income. This is because more jobs and income would be created by sea angling development than would be lost by restricting commercial trawling.

There was, however, no policy response and a great many sea angling dependent jobs were subsequently lost, as CSAS had predicted. The angling charter fleet has now gone and angler numbers are much reduced. The remaining anglers are heavily reliant on small(ish) cod, pollack, coalfish and flatfish plus migratory stocks such as mackerel, sea trout and occasional herring.The area does have some small, isolated resident populations of species such as conger, dogfish and wrasse. Local anglers with detailed knowledge fish these, usually on a catch and release basis. However, these stocks are not sufficient to support anything like the numbers of anglers who previously fished the upper Clyde.

43 This area, is the greater part of this study’s Upper Firth of Clyde case study area.

143

If the CSAS conclusions are correct, the post 1984 expansion of commercial mobile effort in the Firth of Clyde seems to have resulted in overfishing of the commercial finfish fishery. In this instance, it was not just long term commercial jobs that were lost, the area seems also to have sacrificed £8.9m of annual household income and 200 FTEs that were dependent on sea angling.

It is worth noting that angling (and commercial fishing) is capable of supporting not only large numbers of FTE’s, but crucially FTEs which can be very long lived. In this context, 4 FTEs which lasts 25 years are possible equivalent to 10 FTE’s which span 10 years44. In an increasingly globalised world, FTE’s immune from the vagaries of international competition are probably longer lived and should be more highly valued. Since the early 1980’s, many FTE’s in the upper Clydeeconomy have been relatively short lived, such as those in electronic assembly. With rational management, FTEs predicated on sea angling are potentially sustainable over the very long time periods and the loss associated with their demise is that much greater. If the CSAS conclusions are correct, the Clyde economy, as well as the anglers who fished the area, experienced significant negative impacts as a result of the 1984 Act which enabled additional commercial exploitation within 3 miles of the shore.

7.1.8 Future Prospects

As stated above, the recreational fishery is now heavily reliant on small sized cod, pollack, coalfish and migratory stocks. Within the case study area, the main commercial fishing activity is for nephrops, using either creels or trawls. The fact that nephrops are abundant could be because mobile gear eliminated much of the predation by larger cod and pollack.

Since there is no longer any commercial exploitation for anything other than nephrops and shellfish, one would expect to see some recovery in populations of previously abundant finfish. Why this not happened is essentially a biological question, but is fundamental to the future prospects of sea angling in the upper Clyde.

The CSAS concluded that discards of finfish were probably a significant source of pre-recruit mortality. Local stakeholders advanced the argument that through discarding trawling for nephrops is still preventing sufficient recruitment to the finfish fishery. Others speculated that the physical disruption to the sea bed destroys habitat adding to the recruitment problem.

If CSAS estimates are accurate, and if current trawling for nephrops is now constraining the recovery of sea angling, the cost of using mobile gear rather than creels could be the 200 jobs and £8.9m of annual household income that otherwise might be created through development of sea angling. It is therefore possible that local income and employment could be increased through restrictions on mobile gear if more jobs and income would be created by sea angling development than would be lost by restricting the use of mobile gear.

7.1.9 Conclusion

There is evidence from the CSAS to support the view that the expansion of commercial fishing in the upper Clyde, as enabled by the 1984 Act, resulted in adverse consequences for sea angling and local income and employment. There is no general understanding on why finfish do not appear to be recovering. This issue is key to the future prospects of sea angling in the case study area.

44 Ignoring time preference issues.

144

7.2 Luce Bay


Luce Bay is a large inlet on the southern shore of Dumfries and Galloway, with The Rhinns of Galloway on the west coast of the bay and the The Machars peninsular to the east. The Bay is nearly 19 miles wide at its entrance, is 16 miles to its head and has a total area of 160 square miles. The River Luce drains into the bay at the head of the bay where half a mile of sandy beach is exposed at low tide. The remaining shore of the bay has some sandy stretches but is largely rocky and indented with fissures and small bays.

The principal settlements on the Rhinns are Portpatrick, Sandhead, Ardwell, Port Loggan, Kilstay, Drummore and Kikmaiden. Port Patrick and Port Logan are located on the Rhinns’ North Channel coast. The town of Glenluce is at the head of the bay. The main settlements on The Machars are Port William, Isle of Whithorn and Whithorn.

7.2.1 Species

Pollack are to be had from some of the excellent rock marks especially at areas such as Portlogan and Ardwell shore rocks. These areas regularly produce double figure pollack as well as other species such as wrasse, cod, lesser spotted dogfish and coalfish.

Thornback ray are caught in Luce Bay and there is first class tope around the Mull of Galloway or Luce Bay where the shark congregate in numbers during the summer months, feeding on the shoals of mackerel and herring peaking around September when they are most prolific

145

The Rhinns Peninsula boasts a wide variety of species for the visiting sea angler including bass, bullhuss, conger, tope, thornback ray, pollack, plaice, cod, wrasse, tub gurnard, coalfish, lesser spotted dogfish, whiting and dabs -

7.2.2 Shore angling

On the Rhinns; the main shore fishing marks are Terrally Bay, Ardwell Bay, Mull of Galloway. On The Machars; the main marks are Stair Haven the beach at Auchenmalg bay, Monreith Beach, and rock marks at Burrow Head and Isle of Whithorn. The most important species are pollack, wrasse, bass and dogfish

7.2.3 Boat angling

There are opportunities to launch and retrieve small vessels on at Sandhead, Drummore and East Tarbet Bay. Some own boat anglers take the opportunity to fish the west cost of The Rhinns when inclement conditions prevail in Luce Bay. They are also able to launch and retrieve at Port Logan and Portpatrick. The most important boat species are tope, pollock, and haddock out of Port Logan

There are two charter businesses at Drummore on The Rhinns. One of these has launch and retrieve operation and is thus able to launch at Port Logan when wind and weather conditions are poor in Luce Bay itself. There are two charter operators in Portpatrick and one in Stranraer, but these fish exclusively in the North Channel or Loch Ryan. Presently, there are no charter operators based on The Machars

7.2.4 Estimated Angler Activity

Interviews indicated that one may find 100 to 200 shore anglers fishing when conditions are good.If we assume 200 angling days, the total shore angling effort could be between 20,000 and 40,000 angler days. Interviewees estimated that over 80% of shore anglers are visitors to Wigtownshire and almost all of these would be specialist anglers, rather than opportunist holiday makers.

On good days, particularly at weekend, 40 to 60 boats could be fishing various marks around Luce Bay and on the West side of The Rhinns. The own boat “season” lasts about five months, though some will fish all year round. Assuming a minimum of two person on each boat and 100 days over the five month period, there could be 10,000 sea angler days. Given the capital cost of sea worthy boat and fuel costs, the notional average expenditure per day would be significantly greater than shore angling expenditure per day. Charter boat angler days are estimated to be 2,000. Over 90% of both the charter boat anglers and own boat anglers are believed to come from outside Wigtownshire

7.2.5 Expenditure and Employment

Potential suppliers whose business might be dependent on sea angling would include; charter boats, suppliers of boats, suppliers of outboards, bait suppliers, tackle shops, café’s and pubs, hotels, bed and breakfast, caravan and camping sites. The area was visited and all businesses which might have some dependency on sea angler expenditure were contacted during the visit or later by telephone to determine the dependency on sea angling and the origins of these anglers.In the interests of confidentiality we have combined suppliers to ensure that individual business are not identifiable

146

It is clear that for many holiday visitors, sea angling is an important factor is the decision to purchase or rent a residential caravan in the local area. One possibility is that owners or renters of caravans become sea anglers through association with Luce Bay. Whilst this is true for some individuals, discussions with caravan park owners confirm that that sea anglers are attracted to the area and become owners or renters of static caravans. There are 16 caravan parks around Luce Bay, and their customers’ spending in pubs, restaurants and grocery shops will be making a significant contribution to the local economy.

The Sixteen caravan parks were visited45. The dependence on sea angling varied considerably.One caravan park’s business had a 90% dependency on sea angling. Even some relatively large caravan parks indicated that sea anglers accounted for as much as 70% of their business. The number of angling boats parked along side caravans provided strong supportive visual evidence of the importance of sea angling to these parks. Not only were there many boats, almost all had large and expensive outboard motors, were well equipped and mounted on good quality road trailers. The advice given was that the average value of boating equipment was around £10,000. There were 14 identifiable FTEs in caravan parks dependent on sea angling. The majority of these were on The Rhins.

There is one boat and outboard supplier on the The Rhinns whose business is almost wholly dependent on local sea angling and there are two charter boat operations at Drummore. These are wholly dependent on sea angling, one of these employs four individuals. With respect to tackle shops, there is one tackle shop on The Rhinns; the tackle shop in Stranraer indicated that many of his customers were sea anglers fishing in Luce Bay and sea fishing tackle was a significant part of a hardware store in Port William. Some hotels on The Machers were heavily dependant on sea angling (The Steam Packet Hotel and the Queens Arms Hotel). On The Rhins the Queens Hotel and the Port Logan Inn had some dependency on sea angling, and almost all other hotels and B &Bs were aware of visiting anglers. A total of 22 FTEs dependent on sea angling were identifiable across boating supplies, charter boats, tackle shops and hotels.

We also contacted a number of B&Bs, self catering accommodation providers, café’s and bars. One café, a restaurant and two self catering accommodation providers indicted a significant dependency on sea angling. There are another 4 FTE’s across these suppliers.

The total number of identifiable direct FTEs in Luce Bay is over 40. Much visiting angler expenditure will be thinly spread across many outlets such as pubs, grocer shops, cafes and the full extent of its impact may not be fully appreciated. Indeed, some individuals who own caravans are in the area primarily for sea angling, but would be regarded as caravan residents.

7.2.6 History

A 1975 guide to sea angling in Britain noted that:

“Luce Bay abounds in fish such as shark, skate, cod, coalfish, tope and spurdog as well as the smaller species including bass, pollack, flatties, mullet, mackerel and cod.”46

45Mull of Galloway Caravan Park, Clashwhannon Caravan Site and Public House, Muldaddie Farm

Caravan park, Ardwell caravan park and chalets, New England Bay Caravan Site, Sands of Luce Holiday Park, Luce bay Holiday Park, Whitecairn Caravan Park, Glenluce Caravan Park, Westbarr Holiday Park, King Green Caravan Site, Drumneil Holidays, Knock School Caravan Park, Monreith Sands Holiday park, Castlewigg Caravan Park, Burrowhead Holiday Village.46 Page 86, The Sea Angler’s Guide to Britain, by Jonathan Webb 1975. Macdonald and Jane’s, London.

147

When discussing tope fishing, a 1987 guide to angling in Scotland stated,

“Reasonably abundant all up the west coast, there are places which have become known –indeed famous – as hotspots for this medium-sized shark. Luce Bay and the Mull of Galloway…..have grown to prominence as one of Britain’s premier tope areas…..hugh catches have been recorded…..One boat-load of anglers form Irvine boasted 77 tope in one day”47

The peak years in terms of fishing quality were around the late 1980’s when a number of charter vessels were operating out of Isle of Whithorn and Drummore. Whilst only Drummore has any charter operators, the number of shore anglers has not declined, but the composition has changed with many more visitors. It is believed that while in absolute terms angling has deteriorated, in relative terms, it has become relatively better, largely due to the serious decline in other areas such as the Firth of Clyde.

Own boat angling has expanded significantly. There are a number of explanations for this. First, the relative cost of specialist angling boats and engines has declined and they have become more reliable. Second Luce Bay is one of the better areas to fish; largely because sea angling in other areas has declined to a greater extent than Luce Bay.


There is a substantial economic infrastructure predicated on good quality angling; charter operators, caravan parks, hotels and tackle shops being the most obvious. The notable characteristic of the area is that unlike Orkney, or the Firth of Clyde, the local economy is heavily dependent on attracting visiting anglers. Given the importance of visiting own boat anglers to the local economy, the absence of good public slipways and parking for trailers is surprising.

One concern is that visitors have more alternatives than locals and are more likely to switch locations and the relative quality of sea angling is particularly important. Thus far, the area has done well, particularly with respect to shore and own boat angling, but it needs to be recognised that the area has benefited from declines in other areas. Despite the expansion in shore and down boat angling, there is a perception that angling in Luce Bay has deteriorated and future growth cannot be guaranteed.

Understandably, interviewees were concerned to see measure in place to protect stocks and habitats. Sea angling is not in direct competition with the local commercial fishermen, simply because the stocks of finfish are not sufficient to support commercial trawling. Commercial activity principally targets shellfish such as lobster, crab, scallops, whelks and cockles. The majority of the activity is carried out by locals in 16-20 ft boats. It is alleged that the area is facing increasing problems with large crabbers from outside Scotland and more seriously from scallop dredgers from outside the area fishing during the winter months. It is the physical disruption to the sea bed and discarding of small finfish which are alleged to damage sea angling.

Luce Bay has an enviable reputation and an angling infrastructure in place. There is a very strong case for an assessment of the need for management to ensure the appropriate balance between recreational and commercial exploitation.

47 Scotland 1987 For Fishing page 10. Produced by Pastime Publications (Edinburgh) and distributed by the British

Tourist Authority

148

7.3 Orkney


Orkney comprises over 70 islands; around 20 are inhabited. The largest island, known as "Mainland," has an area of 202 sq mi (523 km²), making it the sixth-largest Scottish island and the tenth-largest island in the British Isles. The largest settlement and administrative centre is Kirkwall and almost the whole population of 19,900 lives within 5km of the sea.

There are two population centres, the capital Kirkwall in the centre of Mainland and Stromness to the west of Mainland (Fig 1). Stromness has been the traditional entry point with the ferry service from Scrabster (Thurso). Over the last two decades an alternative (shorter) car ferry service from Gills Bay to St Margaret’s Hope has been developed. For foot passengers, the seasonal “Orkney Bus” service combines coach services from Inverness to John o’Groats and from Burwick to Kirkwall, with a passenger launch between John o’Groats to Burwick. This offers a faster, cheaper alternative to the traditional rail to Thurso and Scrabster- Stromness service. The re-invigorated NorthLink service from Aberdeen direct to Kirkwall (and on to Shetland) also offers a popular alternative.

The outer islands are served by both a regular car ferry and air services as shown in Fig 2. The Westray-Papa Westray service regularly features as the shortest scheduled air service in the world.

7.3.1 Species

Sea angling in Orkney consists mostly of rough ground fishing for cod and ling with pollack caught closer to the shore. Over sand and gravel areas there is fishing for flat fish such as dab and skate and where lesser spotted dogfish and spur-dog may also appear. Wreck fishing in the shelter of Scapa Flow which can produce sizeable cod, ling, pollack, and coalfish. There are also large conger on the wrecks in Scapa Flow but these have to be specifically rigged and fished for, with best results at anchor rather than drifting. Orkney has also produced large common skate,

149

porbeagle sharks and the rare halibut. The current British halibut and common skate records are from Orcadian waters.

7.3.2 Shore angling

There is a shore sea angling club which holds 16 competitions annually. Members of the club and other shore anglers enjoy very good fishing in part because there are a great number of good shore marks. Indeed, those with good local knowledge are spoilt for choice. Sea trout are plentiful and excellent mixed fishing is available from rocks. Flatfish, particularly dabs, are caught in the many sandy bays around the islands. From interviews, few visiting anglers are believed to travel to Orkney specifically for shore angling. The monetary and travel time costs of the journey to Orkney are probably an important explanatory factor. Those that do travel for shore angling would require local advice to locate the best marks. Many holiday makers take the opportunity to fish from piers and causeways, but the primary purpose for being on the islands is the family holiday rather than sea angling. In the summer months the majority of anglers fishing from the shore will be visitors and on some days 90% will be visitors

We were informed that the shore angler could try almost anywhere. The best marks for flatfish are the sandy areas around the barriers between the mainland , Burray and South Ronaldsay, as well as; Waulkmill Bay, Swarbister Bay, Bay of Skail, Sands of Elvie, South Links on Burray, but almost any of the sandy areas can be productive. Good mixed fishing for pollack, cod, ling, coalfish and wrasse can be found on the mainland from St Mary’s to Rose Ness, at Brough Head and at Rerwick Head, Similarly on South Ronaldsay at Harrabrough Head, Uppertown and along the south coast; on Flotta at Stanger Head; on Hoy at Cantick Head and along the south west coast of Hoy. Sea trout are caught between St Mary’s to Bay of Cornquoy, the coasts of Rysa Sound and Celestrain Sound and On Hoy at Green Head.

7.3.3 Boat angling

Own boat anglers have good launch and retrieval opportunities. Many of the ferry services use concrete slipways and landing craft type vessels and locals use these. Several beaches also offer opportunities for launching using four wheel drive vehicles or tractors The topography of the islands means that a lee shore can usually be found, significantly enhancing the potential angler days.

The boat fishing is on the west coast from Brough Head on the mainland down to the south west coast of Hoy, though if strong westerly winds prevail wreck fishing is available at many locations. On the west coast, and elsewhere, there is excellent mixed fishing for pollack, ling, cod plus herring and mackerel in the summer months. Wreck fishing is not regarded as a good substitute, because of the amount of tackle lost in drifting over wrecks in strong tides. Because the best fishing is in the west, Kirkwall harbour is not used and Stromness is the centre of the sea angling charter boat activity, bringing good business to local hotels during the major competitions such as the open boat championship and

When the boat fishing is good on Orkney it compares with the best in the UK, but as with elsewhere the angling experience fluctuates with weather and the availability of fish. In addition to the direct influence of the wind, low pressure systems passing over Iceland can generate swells which adversely affect angling in otherwise relatively peaceful Orkney coast. Anglers may travel from England and the rest of the UK, incurring significant expense only to be disappointed, whilst others, are booking for the following year having experienced a good first day in their week long trip.

150

The current season 2008/9 has been the worst on record both for boat and shore angling and if repeated into the longer term would be a significant cause for concern.

Generally sea angling is well developed and supported. The Orkney Islands Sea Angling Association (OISSA) is a strong club with its own 12 person boat the MV “Welcome Home” operating from Stromness. The club runs no less than 8 competitions per annum, with the biggest being the Scottish Open Boat Championship which is held in September. Next year, the European Boat and Line Class Championships will be held in Stromness 1st to 8th August 2009.

In addition to the OISAA boat there are four other charter boats available for sea angling. None of these is a dedicated angler vessel, and some take anglers only rarely. They all offer charters for diving and wildlife observation. Three of these vessels are in Stromness, one operates out of Shapinsay.

7.3.4 The Suppliers

There are 3 shops supplying tackle; 2 in Kirkwall and 1 in Stromness. One of the Kirkwall shops is a general sports shop, the other has been changed to a jewellery retailer, but still sells some tackle and will continue to do so. The Stromness shop has two floors, the upper floor being dedicated to fishing tackle. The hotels in Stromness are busy when big competitions are held, but otherwise do not regard visiting anglers as a major part of their business. Similarly, the hotels contacted in Kirkwall did not recognise visiting anglers as a major client group.


The estimation of angler numbers is inevitably difficult. The two key sources are the 2004 Orkney Visitor Survey (TNS 2005) for visiting anglers and the Omnibus survey for local anglers. Two further studies on freshwater fishing by SQW(2006) and Radford et al (2003) also provide some limited information as does the main internet survey.

Tourism is an extremely important part of the local economy with around 120,000 visitors per annum. The mean length of stay in 1994 was 5.7 giving some 684,000 visitor days. The Visitor Survey identified just under 2% of 1273 visitors surveyed went angling with slightly more undertaking loch compared to sea. Depending upon the proportion of the visit spent fishing, the absolute maximum is something less than 6,800 days for inland and for sea angling, possibly of the order of 3000 days for each activity.

SQW(2006) carried out a study of freshwater fishing for SNH, which include surveys of anglers from lists provided by OTFA (Orkney Trout Fishing Association) and the Merkister Hotel that established typical expenditures and lengths of stay. OFTA reported 277 visiting anglers and whilst not all visiting anglers will join OFTA it seems unlikely that visiting freshwater angler days will exceed 2000. Radford et al (2003) estimated total freshwater visitor numbers for both Orkney and Shetland of 1,863 angler days (compared to 25,137 local freshwater angler days). It is clear that sea angling activity by visitors is unlikely to exceed 4500 angler days (1000 visitors) and may well be considerably less.

The post code data in the omnibus survey allows the identification of Orkney locals. Some 88 were contacted of whom 5 (5.7%) were sea anglers. Although the sample and response size limits the reliability, as might be expected for an island community this is relatively high and would imply 1,134 local sea anglers. The mean number of activity days was 22.2. Only one of these anglers fished outside Orkney (for 15 days per year). The identified anglers had a higher than the

151

Scottish usage of boats. At some time during the past three years 80% had used a friends boat 60% fished from the shore. 76% of sea angling days were from boats.

The omnibus survey indicated that 60% fished from a chartered boat. This would suggest that local charter days would be at most 700 days. Charter boat operators estimated that between 50% and 80% of their customers were visitors to Orkney. Applying this to the estimated 700 local days would suggest that the total number of charter angler days was between 1,500 to 2,000 angler days. Discussions with charter boat operators revealed a total of only 1,200 angler days, with between 600 and 950 being visitor days. This is the more reliable total. Table 1 summarizes these estimates.

7.3.6 Direct Employment

Local anglers’ expenditure will create direct employment in the sale, repair and maintenance of anglers’ own boats and engines, tackle shops, charter vessels, petrol stations, magazine retailers and specialist clothing suppliers. Though in the case of magazine, petrol and clothing retailers local angler expenditure will be having only a marginal impact.

If the thousand local anglers spent the same as other Scottish sea anglers (£1,500) then Orkney anglers will be spending about £1.5m per annum, with most of this directed at the outlets listed above with a proportion (eg petrol, magazines, clothing) thinly spread across many outlets and thus not fully recognised. A significant percentage will be spent on tackle purchased directly through the internet or mail order and will have no impact locally. New vessels, outboards and chandlery will be imported but there is a significant retail margin on these items. There are three or four couple of companies on Orkney supplying, servicing and repairing small boats, outboards (Yamaha and Suzuki) and providing chandlery supplies. Local angler expenditure would support 7 identifiable jobs in these activities.

The direct effect of visiting anglers will be experienced by charter vessels, tackle shops, accommodation suppliers, car hire, taxis, food outlets, pubs, ferry and air services. Apart for charter companies and tackle shops, visiting angler expenditure will also be thinly spread across many outlets and the full extent of its impact may not be fully appreciated. The indirect and induced effect cannot be readily observed, though they are important, and it would seem that significant proportions of the direct effect may also be obscured.

As a result of discussions with charter vessel proprietors, tackle shops and hotels in Stromness and Kirkwall, we could identify a minimum of 10 FTE’s in Orkney. Including the seven FTEs dependent on local angler expenditure, there are 17 observable FTEs dependent on sea angling. Unobserved FTEs will increase the number of direct jobs. indirect effects of charter vessels will be quite strong as they utilise local repair and maintenance facilities.

7.3.7 History

The interviewees were agreed that the 1980’s were the best years for sea angling. In the early 1990’s from 1991 to 1995 the fishing was relatively poor, but recovered in late 1996 and by early 2000 to 2003 was relatively good, though never producing the specimen sizes and variety of

Number Days Charter Days Own/Friends Boat

Local 1,134 25,000 400 9,459Visitors 1,000 4,500 800 500

152

species of the 1980’s. There has been some decline since 2003 and this year was the worst that anyone can remember with stocks of sandeels poor and anglers reporting that coalfish and pollack were turning cannibal. There would be real concern if this year’s experience was anything more than a blip. Angling for particular species (eg sea trout) or at particular locations may not always follow these fluctuations. The number of own boat anglers has probably increased as a result of the decline in the relative cost of small boat ownership.


The angling opportunities for shore, own boat and charter boat angling are excellent, and given the high participation rates, sea angling is an important influence on the quality of life of over a thousand Orcadians. In addition, sea angling makes a significant on-going economic impact, but there is some concern about long term stock abundance of some species. The interviewees felt that unless some measures were taken, sea angling for some species would probably continue to decline, largely as a result of the pressure from commercial fishing, both directly, and indirectly through the effects of discarding on recruitment to the fishery. Because of the travel costs, Orkney is competing with the South of England, Norway and Ireland and will have to continue to work hard to persuade anglers to travel to Orkney, particularly when inclement weather can compromise the angling charter experience.

153

7.4 Stonehaven to Arbroath

Situated in the North East of Scotland, the case study area is a 40 mile stretch of coast from Stonehaven in Aberdeenshire to Arbroath in Angus. This stretch of coast is dominated by cliffs but is generally diverse with rocky shores, long sandy beaches, estuaries, and salt marsh. Part of the coast is protected for its nature conservation value including the nature reserve St Cyrus. The main land use in the North East coastal zone is agriculture with arable farming and the livestock grazing. Apart from Stonehaven, Montose and Arbroath the area is sparsly populated. The small coastal villages which were traditional fishing villages such as Catterline, Inverbervies, Gourdon, Johnshaven provide a coastal infrastructure of harbours and slipways and enable easy access to the coast.


7.4.1 Species

The area is particularly noted for cod, but in general offers reasonable mixed fishing, with flatfish and mackerel in summer and reasonable prospects of coleys, wrasse and ling.

7.4.2 Shore angling

In places, deep water runs very close to the shore and angles can catch fish without having to cast long distances. From Stonehaven to Arbroath, the main fishing areas are Stonehaven Bay, Strathlethan Bay, Catterline Bay, Bervie Beach, Gourdon, Johnshaven, St Cyrus Beach, Montrose Beach, Boddin Point, Lunan Bay and Arbroath. In addition, there are numerous much more isolated marks accessed by scrambling over rocks. Some of these isolated marks will only ever be fished by one or two anglers.

154

In the summer months, there is good mixed fishing with a resident population of cod which have a reddish colour. In the winter months (October to March), migrating cod come in closer to the shore and anglers travel significant distances to fish the beaches and rock marks between Stonehaven to Arbroath. Many angling clubs from across Scotland make regular trips to compete in their own and local club’s open competitions. This winter shore angling requires good technical skills, is expensive in terms of lost gear and bait, requires quality tackle and specialist clothing appropriate for fishing an exposed North Sea beaches in winter conditions. Many shore anglers camp and fish throughout the night. Not surprisingly very few of these anglers are under 18 years of age.

In addition to the specialist cod angler, in the summer many anglers target general species, and these will be visiting anglers and holiday makers taking the opportunity to fish because they happen to be in the area. A greater proportion of these summer shore anglers will be under 18 years old.

7.4.3 Boat angling

Compared with shore angling effort, own boat angling is less popular, reflecting the difficult sea condition that smaller vessels encounter in the North Sea. Whilst harbour facilities are available in Stonehaven, Catterline, Goudon, Johnshaven, Montrose and Arbroath, local sea anglers complain of a shortage of slipways for own boat launch and retrieve that can be used irrespective of the state of the tide.

With respect to charter vessels there has been a gradual decline in the number of operators. From next year, there will be only one operator in Stonehaven. Almost all the charterers of this vessel are locals. The other charter port is Arbroath, from where three vessels are currently operating. An additional operator is believed to be preparing a vessel for next season.


Local experts calculated 8,000 angler days over the winter months with 85% of these being visitors to Angus and a significant percentage of these are visitors to Scotland, particularly from the North East of England. Another 3,000 angler days of fishing effort is estimated to be expended during the summer months targeting general species, as many as 50% of these days will be visitor angling effort.

7.4.5 Suppliers and Direct Employment

The obvious suppliers are the tackle shops of which there are two in Arbroath, one in Montrose and a supplier in Stonehaven who sells hardware and tackle. There are five charter businesses who will be operating next year. The suppliers of accommodation are more difficult to identify. The following caravan and camping sites were visited: Stonehaven, Queen Elizabeth, Inverbervie, Johnshaven Caravan Park, Miltonhaven, St Cyrus, Tayock Montrose, South Links Montrose, Red Lion Arbroath, Woodley Arbroath. The majority of caravan and camp sites have noticed anglers, but believed that if sea angling ceased there would only be a minimal impact of around 1-2% of turnover. From our interviews with suppliers we can identify 8 FTE’s. As with all the case study areas the direct impact on employment will not be observable because it will be spread over many outlets. If all anglers stayed in the same caravan park, hotel or guesthouse the direct impact would be fully appreciated. In the case of Luce Bay, anglers seem to use particular caravan parks, probably because of the availability of launch and retrieve facilities cafes. The Luce Bay communities are relatively small, offering few alternative hotels, B&Bs and cafes. In contrast, anglers would not be noticed in the larger towns such as Stonehaven, Montrose and Arbroath.

155


With respect to charter vessels there has been a gradual decline in the number of operators. A Scottish Tourist Board publication in 1973 listed 6 charter vessel in Stonehaven. We were informed that in the 1980’s, there were eight full-time and part-time charter vessels working out of Stonehaven and a similar number in Arbroath. Undoubtedly the peak years in terms of angler effort was the 1980’s. Interviewees estimated that, compared with the peak years there are 50% fewer shore and boat anglers. It is asserted that the principal reason for the decline is deteriorating catches, though the failure to attract young anglers could be a contributory factor. More recently higher travel costs are believed to have discouraged anglers in making the journey to the North East.

If nothing is done, the expectation is of continual slow decline as the angling population ages and becomes smaller through the disillusioned sea anglers ceasing to fish and a failure to attract new anglers. Since catches are believed to be the primary reason for the decline, interviewees felt that measures to improve stock abundance were a priority. In the short term, facilities could be improved, as there are very few toilet or parking facilities for shore anglers at key locations.

156

7.5 Loch Etive


Loch Etive is one of the most distinctive sea lochs in Scotland. It is approx. 20 miles from the head of the loch to Connel Bridge, where it joins the Firth of Lorn forming the spectacular Falls of Lora, the only two-way tidal falls in Europe. Due to the two sets of narrows, at Bonawe and Connel, the loch has an extraordinary tidal system which gives a two hour difference between high water at Connel, and Bonawe, a distance of only 5 miles. This also has an effect on the salt content in the water - the surface layer of the water at the head of the loch can be almost fresh. The loch is over 400ft deep in places. The length of shore in the case study area is 73.2 km.

The two largest communities are Taynuilt on the south shore to the east and Connel, on both shores, to the west. The Glasgow-Oban railway has stations at both villages and there are good bus services along the A 85.The population within 1km of the shore in the case study area is 2,786. The upper loch, running northeast-southwest, is fiord like with high walls formed by Ben Starav on the east and Beinn Trilleachan on the west, fronted by the near vertical Trilleachan slabs, a well known rock climbing area.

The only habitation in the upper loch is a small group of cottages at the head of the loch at Gualachulain (which has no services). This hamlet is at the end of a 20 mile single track road from Kingshouse on the A82 in Glencoe. There are a couple of farms towards the southern end of this stretch but otherwise the area is wild and inhospitable. The lower loch running east-west is much wider and fertile with a scatter of villages and farms.

7.5.1 Species

This environment attracts a very wide range of fish. It is one of the few places where you can catch brown trout and pollack on the same tackle at the same mark. It is a good place to catch a wide range of species and it is relatively easy to catch half a dozen different types of fish in one session. During summer months the northern end of the loch can produce brown trout, sea trout and the odd rainbow trout.

157

The spurdog fishing in Loch Etive is excellent. The Scottish shore record of 15lb 3oz was caught here in 1991 and specimen size fish are still caught (as can be seen from the angling reports). There are some excellent shore marks for pollack with fish around the 6lb mark fairly common. Bottom fishing from the shore will produce a wide variety of sea species but boat fishing will yield an even larger choice.

7.5.2 Shore angling

Footpaths run down both sides of the loch from the head but are of poor quality. The fords can be impassable in wet weather without rope protection and chest high wading. Access is better fromBonawe and Inverawe where land rover tracks run almost half way up the loch to Barrs on the west shore and Glen Kinglass on the west. Because of these access difficulties most shore angling in the upper loch is either close to Bonawe and Taynuilt or from a boat.

The bottom end of the loch is easily accessible from the A85 and the B845. The most popular marks on the northern shore are Ardchattan Priory and Bonawe Quarry. There are also another two or three marks along the forestry road past the Quarry. Popular southern shore marks include Connel Bridge, the bays west of Achnacloich, Airds Bay and Taynuilt Pier.

7.5.3 Boat angling

There are slipways at Connel, Bonawe and Taynuilt. Hire boats are available at Taynuilt Boat-Hire which rents 4 x 16 foot boats with cabins or cuddies. These Orkney Longliners are suitable and safe for the sheltered waters of Loch Etive. The company has a link with the Taynuilt Hotel for angling packages, Fish ‘n’ Trips. There is a sea angling charter boat based at Bonawe. In summer it tends to operate outside the loch from Oban, but in winter it operates from Taynuilt on Loch Etive.

Inevitably Oban being only 7 miles from Connel, dominates the supply of services, with three Fishing Tackle shops. Gillaroo, based in Oban, produces and supplies midge nets, regarded as an angling accessory in this part of Scotland. Oban also has a number of sea charter boats. There are no tackle or bait suppliers in the case study area. Accommodation in the case study area includes 4 B&Bs, 5 hotels/inns, 4 self catering locations and a chalet/caravan park

7.5.4 Estimated Angler Activity, Expenditure and Employment.

Anglers in the loch can broadly be classified into two groups; Visitors to the area who happen to enjoy angling and take the opportunity to go fishing and sea anglers from the central belt and further afield, who visit the loch specifically for the size and range of species. The loch is particularly important to this group in the winter months when it may well be too rough to fish “outside”. The best guess is that around 50% of the anglers are “tourists” and 50% anglers.

One clear identifier of the dedicated sea angler is a willingness to fish in the late evening and at night. In addition the loch is the location for a number of competitions. For example the Inverclyde Angling Club is thought to hold six club competitions a year, some of which have transferred from the Clyde due to a dearth of fish.

It is thought that around 20% of the angling is from boats, with 80% being conducted from the numerous marks, particularly on the north shore. It was estimated that there are as many as 10,000 anglers and somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 activity days. Table 7.5.1 shows a “best guess” break down .

158

Table 7.5.1 Loch Etive Angler Effort

Number Days

Visitors Own Boat 650 2,000Hire Boat 350 1,000Shore 4,000 12,000Total 5,000 15,000

Anglers Own Boat 900 5,000Hire Boat 100 300Shore 4,000 24,000Total 5,000 29,300

All Own Boat 1,550 7,000Hire Boat 450 1,300Shore 8,000 36,000Total 10,000 44,300

Spend in the area will be widely variable. The “norm” for outdoor activity is £40 which would suggest expenditure by participants of the order of £1.7m.(around 40 plus jobs) However only a small fraction of this expenditure is likely to be lost to this small area; most of the boat hire, the winter charters and some accommodation and food. Again a best guess is of the order of 6 FTEs in total.


Despite its popularity and high reputation among anglers, the immediate local area does not have an economic infrastructure to ensure that it benefits from angling activity. The anglers interviewed spend very little in the local area. They travel from the central belt and will be largely self-sufficient, stocking their vehicles with all they need. Many sleep in the vehicles, with some purchasing vans to provide transport and temporary accommodation Loch Etive is interesting as it demonstrates anglers’ willingness to travel and endure discomfort if there is the prospect of catching fish. This was also evident on the East Grampian coast.

As with all the case study areas, the viability of fish stocks is the key determinant of future angling activity. As a sea angling location, Loch Etive seems to benefit from the access difficulties faced by commercial vessels. Barring naturally induced adverse changes in fish stock abundance, the fishery should have a future, provided that anglers continue to practice catch and release, and commercial effort continues to be constrained.

159

SECTION 8 TRENDS AND PROSPECTS

8.0 Profile of the Sea Angler

Figures 8.1.1, 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 give a profile of the sea angler from the Omnibus survey

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

18 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55-64

65+

Ag

e G

rou

p

Percentage in Group

Sea Anglers

Population

Fig 8.1.1 Age of Sea Anglers

Sea Anglers tend to be middle aged rather than either young (<34) or old (>65). This is at first quite surprising as angling tends to attract a significant number of retired males. However as a sport it tends to require more physical effort to get a shore mark or a boat launched compared to freshwater angling and consequently will be less attractive to those with increasing infirmity.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Population Sea Anglers

Perc

en

tag

e M

ale

/Fem

ale

Male

Female

Fig 8.1.2 Gender of Sea Anglers

85% of sea anglers are males. What is slightly surprising is the number of females, a larger proportion than with freshwater. We believe this reflects family participation and the importance of boating, where fishing is almost a subsidiary activity.

160

0 10 20 30 40 50

AB

C1

C2

DE

Percent of Group

Sea Angler

Population

Fig 8.1.3 Social Class of Sea Anglers

This graph shows that Sea Angling is not dominated by any class. The skilled working class (C2) are over-represented whilst the unskilled and professional classes tend to be under-represented. In the case of the working class this probably reflects the relative lack of mobility to get to the more remote shore marks and the lack of access to privately owned boats.

The profile of internet respondents is interesting and is shown in tables 8.1.1 and 8.1.2

Table 8.1.1 Age: Internet v Omnibus

Internet Omnibus

Under 45 47.3 41.3Over 45 52.7 59.4

Table 8.1.2 Gender: Internet v Omnibus

Internet Omnibus

Male 96.2 84.9Female 3.8 15.1

The internet respondent is younger and more likely to be male than the typical angler. 22.4% of the internet respondents also took part in fishing competitions and 29.3% owned boats, both of which we believe are likely to be higher than the average sea angler (but not on an angler day basis).

Fig 8.1.4 shows the distribution of days fished per angler (from the omnibus survey ).

161

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 80 81 to 100 >100

Fig 8.1.4 Distribution of Days Fished

As can be seen the data is extremely skewed with a mean of 19.2 days, a median of 10 days and a mode of just 1 or 2 days. 50% of anglers fish for less than 10 days and 80% for less than 30 days.

The histogram of the anglers in the internet survey has the same shape but significantly higher numbers as shown in table 8.1.4

Table 8.1.4 Days Fished; Internet v Omnibus Internet Omnibus

Mean 31 19

Median 19 10

Mode 3 2

Lower Quartile 5 4

Upper Quartile 49 25

From these figures and our case study work it is clear that rigid categorization of sea anglers is not possible. However for further analysis we have defined what in sociology are termed archetypes; non exclusive groups that have features that help us understand the structure. These archetypes are discussed in the next section.

8.1 Sea Angling Archetypes From the above figures and our case study work it is clear that rigid categorization of sea anglers is not possible. However to illustrate the diversity of angler behaviour we have defined what in sociology are termed archetypes; non exclusive groups that have features that help us understand the structure. These archetypes are outlined below.

8.1.0 The Sports and Competition Angler

There exist in any leisure activity different degrees of commitment. At the peak is the full time professional or coach; someone whose life is dictated and dominated by the activity. Numbers at this level in sea angling are extremely small. However there are a substantial number of sea anglers for whom sea angling is the primary leisure interest almost to the exclusion of all other

162

leisure activities. These we term Sports and Competition Anglers. They form the backbone of the clubs and travel extensively to compete in competition, and some might aspire to represent Scotland in international competition.

Capital expenditure by this group on equipment and boats is high and linked to days fished which may well exceed 50 per year. They are the group most conscious of stock changes and most likely to fish outside Scotland if there is a continued decline.

8.1.1 The Social Angler

At the margin, the distinction between the sport angler and the social angler is not clear. For both groups angling is the primary motive for their activity, but the social angler participates less frequently, and is motivated almost as much by the comradeship of fellow anglers. The social angler will have other interests and may belong to an angling club but will usually only fish in his/her own club competitions.

8.1.2 The Weekend Away Angler

As in Scandinavia, within Scotland there are a large group of urban based individuals who have weekend retreats, often residential caravans. A substantial proportion goes to the coast and enjoys boating and sea fishing. Indeed, many English visitors have weekend accommodation in Scotland, particularly in Dumfries and Galloway. Sea angling is important but even if stocks are poor the group are unlikely to desert the locations. A number of female spouses will participate at the margin.

8.1.3 The Family on Holiday

Families from both Scotland and south of the Border may well choose to holiday in sea/sea loch locations. Easily available shore marks or boats attract holiday makers, often with children, to participate in sea angling. The group is happy to fish simply for mackerel. Sea angling in this case is one of a range of potential activities for holiday makers which, in themselves are marginal, but together make up “the Scottish holiday experience”. Failure to catch anything can produce a serious negative experience, particularly where children are involved.

8.1.4 The Evening Angler

If anglers live close to the shore and the weather is good, then they can and do “pop out” for a spot of fishing. They are often young and may well have limited mobility. The easily accessible mark, typically a pier, is very important to this group.

8.2 Angler Behaviour: Past and Future Questions 19 to 24 asked anglers about the amount of Sea Angling currently being undertaken relative to 20 and 10 years ago and relative to the amount they expect to do in the future. It must be recognised that anglers no longer fishing will not be in the sample and hence there is a bias towards more fishing being undertaken.

The answers were coded -2, and -1 for less fishing and +2 and +1 for more fishing, the larger number reflecting much less or much more. Zero was No Change. Table 8.1.5 shows the means by region and overall. As might be expected there is, overall, a slight positive outcome from the past; more days are being fished. The bias does not apply to the future and is reflected in the near zero score.

163

Table 8.3.1 Days Fished: Past and Future

Home Region 10 years back 20 Years Back 10 years ahead

Argyll & Lochaber 0.38 0.00 0.41

Dumfries & Galloway 0.11 -0.06 -0.48

Glasgow & West -0.05 -0.21 -0.11

North East 0.79 0.56 0.34

Northern Scotland 0.56 0.08 0.12

Edinburgh & East 0.47 0.21 0.03

Western Isles 0.75 1.20 0.25

Orkney & Shetland 1.00 1.33 0.30

Visitors 0.37 0.48 0.30

Total 0.30 0.13 0.06

The really interesting finding is, however, at the regional level with growth on the islands and the North East and decline on the Clyde and expected decline in Dumfries and Galloway. The primary reason for change was investigated and Tables 8.3.2, 8.3.3 and 8.3.4.


Reason -2 -1 1 2 Total

More/Less Time 11 9 27 37 84

Family Responsibilities (increased/decreased)

10 5 7 15 37

Cost of Travel, Charter and Equipment 5 4 1 0 10

Moved House (nearer or further from coast) 3 0 3 8 14

Likelihood of catching fish 50 15 9 16 90

Other Interests (gained or lost) 5 1 3 21 30

Total 84 34 50 97 265




Family Responsibilities (increased/decreased)

7 15 13 16 51


Moved House (nearer or further from coast) 5 1 4 8 18


Other Interests (gained or lost) 2 3 10 27 42

Total 74 60 79 125 338

Table 8.3.4 Forecast of Days Fished to be fished 10 Years hence by Reason for Change

164



Family Responsibilities (increase/decrease) 2 8 21 14 45


House Move (nearer or further from coast) 0 0 1 4 5


Other Interests 1 0 3 1 5

My Age 16 23 14 7 60

Unlikely to be visiting Scotland 0 0 0 1 1

Total 77 68 109 71 325

Two reasons dominate past decision making on angling: Time Available (including family) and Fish Availability. As can be seen overall increase in leisure time has acted as a positive spur whilst declining fish stocks has had a strong negative influence. This is particularly noticeable for Clyde fishermen.

The same pattern dominates into the future with the addition that age becomes a significant factor. The recurrent expressed worry is that decline in fish stocks and fewer easily accessible shore marks (plus the increasing range of other, often less healthy, activities) is limiting the number of young people coming into the sport.

8.3 The Views of the Anglers In some survey work it is normal to allow an open ended comment section at the end to enable respondents to voice their feelings about the survey or the activity. In general these comments can be idiosyncratic and provide little information not gathered elsewhere. We were surprised, therefore, in this survey to have a large number of apparently well informed comments and, as a result, carried out a systematic analysis.

The overwhelming topic discussed without prompting by 104 respondents (41% of those entering any comment) was the decline in fish stock in both quantity and size. Within these it was clear that many were referring to the Clyde estuary and the west coast. Of the 104, 51 specifically laid the blame on inshore trawling for prawn and scallop some identifying fine net and bottom damage. A further half a dozen simply talked of a need for government action. There was no consistency or repetition to suggest any sort of orchestration; instead many came over as simply depressed and resigned to lack of government interest and/or inaction or unaware of action that had been taken to improve fisheries and marine management.

In contrast a number (15) recorded sea angling in Scotland extremely positively and a number more talked of brilliant scenery, friendly local people etc. Nine respondents suggested that Sea Angling in Scotland ought to be marketed seriously with more guides and advice.

As might be expected a number wanted more facilities (slips, charter boats, toilets, car access to off road marks) and three mentioned the increasing difficulty of fishing from piers. A number justified the government putting money into the sport because of the economic impact it had. A number strongly advocated a general catch and release policy as “their” contribution to sustaining the sport.

165

On the negative side a number of sea anglers discussed the litter problem, often attributing unacceptable behaviour to their fellow anglers. Surprisingly only two mentioned the dreaded midge and nobody mentioned Marine Parks.

In summary the overwhelming impression was that the anglers believed that Sea Angling in Scotland had huge unexploited potential but was being systematically, and almost casually, destroyed by commercial fishing effort, both directly by fishing close inshore and indirectly through the discards associated with some mobile gear.

8.4 Factors that determine success of a location

From our studies it has become clear that there exist locations which have a good reputation for sea angling. It should be made clear, however, that the principal determinant of sea angling activity is population. Thus, whilst an area such as the Clyde may have poor fishing, because of the population on or close to the estuary the numbers sea angling are large, with many of them being evening anglers fishing for mackerel in the summer. Conversely areas such as the Western Isles or Orkney may have excellent fishing, very high local participation and more charter boats for visitors than the whole of the upper Clyde (i.e. Glasgow and West region), the total numbers sea angling and total activity is only a fraction of those in Glasgow and West. Table 8.4.1 presents the number of sea anglers in each region, the number of angler days, the expenditure in each region. The last two columns describe the net flow of days and expenditure. The importance of population size in determining activity levels is shown by including three columns which compare each region’s data with the equivalent data for Glasgow and West.

Table 8.4.1 Competitiveness of Regions

Region AnglersfromRegion

% of Glasgow andWest

AnglerDays in Region


Expenditurein Region


Flow (Angler Days)

ExpenditureFlow (£m)

Argyll & Lochaber 5,825 24.70% 252,615 93.64% £16,744,009 101.59% 125,327 £11,307,933

Dumfries andGalloway 3,224 13.70% 233,080 86.40% £16,246,638 98.58% 215,777 £23,872,771

Glasgow and West 23,548 100.00% 269,783 100.00% £16,481,354 100.00% -137,134 -£10,796,652

North East Scotland 8,904 37.80% 234,307 86.85% £9,817,520 59.57% 99,134 £7,121,471

NorthernScotland 7,894 33.50% 144,346 53.50% £8,909,211 54.06% 29,889 £2,192,795

Edinburgh,Fife and South East 20,455 86.90% 250,868 92.99% £13,901,672 84.35% -79,792 -£1,618,218

WesternIsles 2,515 10.70% 80,567 29.86% £5,518,160 33.48% 46,196 £5,985,093

Orkney & Shetland 2,823 12.00% 74,640 27.67% £3,948,918 23.96% 46,258 £7,186,990

166

The important factor is the flow around Scotland and the substantial flow of visitors from south of the border to the regions. The primary determining factor here is the stock of fish, and for the Sports Angler, large, unusual fish. More accurately the primary determining factor is the reputation of the region for fish which results from favourable and extensive coverage in the media. The promotion of Scotland and its islands for sea angling is not unimportant.

If an area is promoted there must be facilities to match. For shore angling there are many quiet picturesque marks scattered in profusion along the coast. Toilet facilities and parking at popular shore marks would improve the quality of the angling experience. For own boat angling there are some complaints about lack of slipways, particularly around The Rhinn of Galloway. Generally, the picture seems good with a large number of under utilised launching spots and, particularly on the West Coast, numerous quiet sea lochs for a relaxing days fishing. The biggest problem in terms of facilities is the number of charter boats which seems to be contracting significantly. In many areas chartering for sea angling is a marginal activity with competition from diving parties and the normal problem of rough weather limiting days available. Heavy overhead cost associated with licensing and health and safety checks make legal chartering an increasingly unprofitable activity reducing substantially the attraction of sea angling in Scotland.

The reputation of sea angling areas is built on the availability of fish stocks for anglers to catch. Freshwater anglers and owners can improve fisheries in particular areas through stocking and habitat protection. Such options are not available to sea anglers. Within the sea angling sector, there appears to be an underlying uncertainty about future fish stock abundance which undermines the confidence of anglers and those who might otherwise invest in sea angling services (e.g. charter vessels, tackle shops, accommodation services). To the extent that the Scottish Government can influence the abundance of stocks exploited by sea anglers, it has an important role in determining the success of particular areas.

8.5 A SWOT Analysis of the Industry This analysis is based on

1. Stakeholder Interviews 2. Comments provided by the anglers in the internet survey 3. On-Site Interviews. 4. Views of the Study’s Steering Group members

The lists below are not arranged to reflect a ranking of in terms of the significance of individual issues. Neither does the list reflect the number of times that a particular issue was identified by stakeholders or other constituencies. The study team simply sought and recorded the views of those who could provide an insight into some aspect of sea angling. Thus, the lists below reflect an inclusive approach with the aim of generating comprehensive coverage. Since there is no explicit weighting the SWOT analysis does not, of itself, provide any insight into the future prospects of sea angling. The SWOT analysis provides a concise summary of the issues that could be confronted when assessing the future of sea angling.

8.5.0 Strengths.

1. Scotland’s former reputation as one of the best shore or boat angling locations in Europe.2. The many beautiful, peaceful, uncrowded angling locations. 3. The wide range of species still available across Scotland. 4. The diverse characteristics of the Scottish shoreline and coastal waters.

167

5. The shelter available in west coast lochs and some of the Scottish Islands enables safe, all year round fishing.

6. The reputation for helpful and friendly Scottish coastal communities. 7. For a specialist coastal recreational activity, it has a relatively high, though declining, adult

participation rate and for some is an important determinant of their quality of life. 8. A healthy outdoor activity which is understood to promote mental and physical well-being. 9. Potentially attractive to youngsters and, in some areas, participation may reduce youth

crime.10. Fosters a better understanding and appreciation of the natural world through exposure to

it.11. The low impact on the marine environment. 12. The minimal threat to the viability of fish stocks through the relatively low numbers caught

and prevalence of “catch and release.13. The inexpensive start up equipment costs and absence of access or licence charges

mean youngsters and individuals on low incomes are able to start and participate regularly.

14. Whole families can participate in both shore and/or boat angling. 15. The purchase of a vessel for angling can foster family/offspring’s interest in wider aspects

of boating. 16. The safe, well equipped and coded Scottish charter fleet with some spare capacity. 17. An inherited infrastructure of breakwaters, harbours, piers and slipways. 18. The emerging network of Scottish marinas for berthing and maintaining own boats,

particularly on the Firth of Clyde. 19. The availability of spare capacity of visitor accommodation in Scottish coastal

communities.20. The extension of the summer season into the shoulder months made possible through

visiting anglers and competitions. 21. An important element of the Scottish coastal tourist/holiday experience 22. A network of clubs and an established calendar of club, national and international

competitions. 23. The significant contribution to incomes and employment in Scottish coastal communities

and beyond, though the extent of this is not yet fully appreciated. 24. Supports identifiable economic activities (bait, charter boats, tackle shops, providers of

temporary accommodation).

8.5.1 Weaknesses

1. The crucial dependency on wild fish stocks, which are often over-exploited. 2. The widely held understanding that the total numbers of fish, and the numbers of

specimen sized fish, have declined and could continue to do so. 3. The lack of representation on decision making bodies dealing with the exploitation and

management of inshore fish stocks. 4. The sea angling lobby has been relatively weak and fragmented. 5. The demoralisation among a sizeable proportion of sea anglers. 6. Sea anglers sometimes unaware of tourism or marine/ fisheries initiatives by government

or other relevant bodies 7. The reduction in investment in sea angling dependent business caused by real uncertainty

about future fish stocks and activity levels. 8. The unpredictable and relatively poor weather.

168

9. A spatially diffuse activity, not very visible and thus often overlooked in local, regional and national decision making.

10. There is no general appreciation of sea angling’s significant contribution to Scottish incomes and jobs.

11. Within coastal regions, there is no appreciation of regional incomes and jobs supported by sea angling.

12. In some forums, catching fish for pleasure is viewed as less worthy than exploiting fish commercially for a living.

13. The lack of toilet and parking facilities for shore anglers in some key locations. 14. The absence of slipways in some areas. 15. The littering by some anglers.

16. It is not promoted in schools and elsewhere as worthwhile activity for youngsters. 17. It is weakly promoted as an activity for visitors holidaying in Scotland.

18.VisitScotland do not seriously promote Scotland as a venue for visiting anglers.

8.5.2 Opportunities

1. Encourage the Scottish Government to develop a strategy for sea angling which sets out aspirations and priority actions for initial protection and eventual restoration of the sector.A government backed development plan for sea angling would give those in the industry greater confidence to develop their services.

2. If angling quality improves, based on past participation rates, activity by Scottish anglers could increase very significantly, thereby retaining expenditure which otherwise might have flowed to England, Ireland, Norway and further afield.

3. If angling quality improves, numbers of visiting anglers could increase substantially, and more international sea angling competitions could be attracted.

4. High growth in sea angling activity will generate commensurate increases in income and employment in economically fragile coastal communities.

5. If activity increases, opportunities exist for more commercial fishermen to convert to angling charters.

6. An explicit recognition of sea angling’s significant regional economic impact and its potential for growth could lead to formal representation on Inshore Fisheries Groups, or other fisheries management bodies.

7. Recognition and support from Scottish Enterprise and regional development agencies arising from a better appreciation of the potential for sea angling to create jobs.

8. Recognition and support from sportscotland arising from a better appreciation of the numbers and frequency of participation and potential for growth.

9. Recognition and support from agencies tackling social exclusion issues following an appreciation that sea angling is; free access, healthy, could reduce youth crime and foster appreciation of the natural world.

10. Clear evidence from abroad, particularly USA, that improvements in the quality of sea angling, generates substantial increases in angling activity, incomes and employment as well as enhanced quality of life for anglers themselves.

11. Construction of artificial reefs, creation of angling only zones, bays, peninsulas and estuaries might significantly improve angling quality with relatively minor impacts on other stakeholders.

12. Could promote its conservation credentials particularly, as it is not generally known that catch and release of sensitive species is now widely practiced.

13. Could be better promoted as an activity for holiday visitors and visiting anglers 14. Ageing population with increased leisure time and money increases the population of

potential sea anglers.

169

15. The expansion of pleasure boat ownership in Scotland had increased the numbers of potential own boat sea anglers.

16. Marine Bill and other initiatives may provide some legal protection to fish stocks enhancing the quality of sea angling.

8.5.3 Threats

1. Continued decline of fish stocks exploited by sea anglers. 2. Inappropriate restrictions on sea angling arising from a failure within Scotland to

appreciate sea angling’s low impact of on fish stocks and habitats.3. The Common Fisheries Policy could impose inappropriate restrictions on Scottish sea

angling through a failure to appreciate the low impact of sea angling on fish stocks and habitats.

4. The Common Fisheries Policy could develop initiatives which do not reflect the economic value or economic impact of Scottish sea angling.

5. The existing and emerging framework for fishery decision making could fail formally to formally include sea angling, despite a better understanding of the current and potential economic impact of sea angling.

6. Sea angling continues to be overlooked by agencies dealing with sports, tourism and coastal developments through an on-going failure to appreciate the current and potential economic impact of sea angling.

7. Policy formulations which focus on economic impacts and exclude relative net economic value, would not capture sea angling’s contribution to the quality of life.

8. Increased petrol costs reducing the number of angers travelling to fish or participate in competitions.

9. Reduction in the number of promontory locations such as breakwaters, piers and promenades where anglers are allowed to fish. This particularly affects the disabled, aged and physically disadvantaged anglers

10. Reduced charter fleet, through a combination of poor angling, increased fuel costs, and Maritime and Coastguard Agency coding compliance requirements.

11. Climate change affecting inshore fish abundance.

170

8.6 Future Prospects In the early 1960s a meeting of what we would now term as SportScotland and VisitScotland was convened in order to discuss how to best use “the great sea angling potential of Scottish waters” to lengthen the tourism season by running fishing festivals at either end of the recognised season The first ever festival was held on Arran, drawing 302 entries mainly from south of the border, and 2326lb of white fish went to the scales; by 1965 major festivals were being held in many diverse locations eg: Arran, Ullapool, Eyemouth, Stornoway, Gourock and Saltcoats; the European Championships were held at Ullapool in 1965. By1970 there were the Scottish Open and International Team Championships, Scottish Shore Championships, Scottish Team Championships and hundreds of club competitions held annually. 48.

A 1972 Scottish Tourist Board Publication noted that “New British records are continually being made in Scottish waters. These apply not only to huge skate and halibut but to specimen fish of many types. The result is that Scotland is now recognised by sea anglers as one of the most exciting sea angling countries in Europe”49

In a similar vein, a 1987 guide to angling in Scotland50 stated “Giant porbeagles only a few pounds below the world record, five-hour battles with huge skate, tackle shattering world-record halibut are only a few of the piscatorial pleasures awaiting the angler who ventures north into Europe’s greatest untapped potential angling grounds”

The stakeholder survey, anglers’ comments and evidence from the case study areas suggeststhat, generally, the untapped potential of the 1970’s and 1980’s does not seem to have been realised. On the contrary, when comparing the present with the 1970’s and 1980’s, stakeholders and the majority of anglers believe that in some key areas both the catch per angler day and the number of specimen fish have declined; though the decline is not uniform. It is particularly evident on the Firth of Clyde, to the extent that local anglers now travel to other regions, when previously the Firth of Clyde attracted anglers from across the UK and regularly hosted European and National competitions. Although a similar, though much less pronounced trend is believed to be characteristic of other case study areas, such as Orkney and Luce Bay, the relative quality of sea angling in these areas is sufficient to attract visiting anglers. Indeed, many anglers fishing some areas are broadly satisfied with the quality of the sea angling experience, despite the perception of decline and on-gong concerns about future fish stock abundance.

Within the sector, it is generally believed that the decline in sea angling catches is the root cause of the contraction in activity, and the subsequent loss of many angling dependent businesses, particularly charter boats. We also note the angling community’s firmly held belief that the decline in sea angling catches is a largely a consequence of overexploitation and discarding by commercial boats using mobile gear. Independent support for this thesis was provided by the Firth of Clyde Sea Angling Study. In many respects, the dramatic decline in the quality of sea angling on the Firth of Clyde has probably increased uncertainty across the whole sector, with anglers and angling businesses concerned that their areas could suffer a similar fate.

48 Personal communication from Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network.. 49

Scotland For Sea Angling, 1973. Published by Scottish Tourist Board. 50

Page 9, Scotland 1987 For Fishing. Produced by Pastime Publications (Edinburgh) and distributed by the British Tourist Authority

171

Despite the prevailing uncertainty and perception of long term decline, currently sea angling expenditure in Scotland (£141m) exceeds spending on all Scotland’s freshwater fisheries (£131mspent on salmon, sea trout, brown trout, rainbow trout and coarse fish).51 This was a surprising result.

Whilst economically comparable with freshwater angling, sea angling does not appear to have a comparable media profile or involvement in policy development. With respect to Scottish freshwater fisheries, many economic assessments have been undertaken and consequently there is widespread appreciation of their role in supporting income and employment. Additionally, private ownership creates strong incentive effects for owners to seek to protect their assets by combining together to better influence policy formation and public opinion. The combination of widespread recognition of their economic contribution and effective advocacy could have enabled the freshwater sector to influence the development of policy. For example, a range of freshwater fisheries organisations played a key role in developing the Scottish Government’s Strategic Review for Scottish Freshwater Fisheries published in July 2008. This review sets out a vision for freshwater fisheries in Scotland: "Scotland will have sustainably-managed freshwater fish and fisheries resources that provide significant economic and social benefits for its people".

It should also be recognised that freshwater anglers and owners can improve angling catches by stocking and habitat improvement. In contrast, with respect to fish stock abundance, sea anglers are comparatively powerless, and to that extent, the sector’s prospects are more heavily reliant on policies which affect wild fish stocks. Given this dependency, and the belief that commercial exploitation is compromising sea angling, the perception of a lack of involvement in policy formation is a further cause for concern among the sea angling community. Currently, there is some disquiet that sea angling is not being represented on the Executive Committees of the newly formed Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs), though there is an expectation that sea anglers should be involved through each IFG’s Advisory Group52.

There is significant potential for growth in Scottish sea angling and an enhanced contribution to income and employment across Scotland, particularly in fragile coastal communities. Indeed, the growth potential of sea angling could exceed that of many freshwater fisheries. For example, many salmon beats are fully occupied and efforts to improve these might simply result in owners being able to increase their rental or permit prices. Such capacity constraints mean there may be few, if any, additional anglers to purchase hotel accommodation, meals, presents, tackle etc.

There are no such capacity constraints relevant to sea angling. It has many beautiful, peaceful, uncrowded angling areas, an extensive range of native sea species many of which are still available, albeit smaller and in reduced numbers. The diverse characteristics of the Scottish shoreline and coastal waters provide a varied experience for the sea angler. On the west coast, and around some of the Scottish Islands, safe sheltered waters offer the possibility of all year round fishing. The coastal communities themselves have excess capacity of visitor accommodation and an enviable reputation for being helpful and welcoming. There is an infrastructure of breakwaters, harbours, piers and slipways and an emerging network of Scottish marinas for berthing and maintaining own boats, particularly on the Firth of Clyde and the West Coast. An established system of clubs exists to encourage anglers to develop their interest in the

51 Radford A.F., and Riddington G.L (2004) estimated expenditure on Scottish coarse and game angling to

be £131m at 2009 prices.

The IFGs are tasked to develop Management Plans for inshore fisheries.

172

sport interest and participate in competitions. It is easy to appreciate why Scotland was once regarded as one of the best shore or boat angling locations in Europe.

Additionally, sea angling has some inherent qualities which are compatible with current health and social policy. It is a healthy outdoor activity which is understood to promote mental and physical well-being, and, in areas such as West Dumbarton and Inverclyde, participation may reduce youth crime. The inexpensive start up equipment costs and absence of access or licence charges enable youngsters and individuals on low incomes both to start and to participate regularly. It is one of the few outdoor activities where whole families can participate. Many sea anglers purchase vessels which then develops family or offspring’s interest in wider aspects of boating.

It may be possible to achieve some growth simply by more energetically promoting sea angling and hoping that increased participation will subsequently lead to greater investment in businesses supplying angler services. The problem is that the returns from promotional initiatives could be low if the perception among stakeholders remains one of general uncertainty about fish stock abundance and possible long term decline. There are concerns that these perceptions deter new entrants, reduces the willingness of anglers to invest in capital equipment (e.g. boats, engines, caravans) and undermines the confidence of those who might otherwise invest in sea angling services (e.g. charter vessels, tackle shops, accommodation services. The key to unlocking the potential of sea angling is to ensure the availability of fish stocks for anglers to catch.

There is evidence from abroad, particularly the USA, that improvements in the quality of sea angling, generate substantial increases in angling activity, incomes and employment (see for example, Adams et al 2000 and Bell 1993). If restoration of the quality of Scotland’s sea angling were, say, to result in a 50% increase in sea angling’s economic contribution, this would translate to an additional £70m of retained and visitor angler spending, and an additional 840 FTE’s and £18.5m of household income.53 On the other had if fish stock decline is real, and continues, the long term cost will be significant. At worst, Scotland would lose a minimum of 1,675 jobs and £37m of income to households. The difference between the loss of sea angling and its enhancement could be 2,515 FTE’s and £55.5m of annual household income.

It is worth noting these FTEs are potentially very long lived, provided stocks are conserved and angler preferences do not change dramatically. In this context, 4,000 FTEs which last 25 years are possible equivalent to 10,000 FTE’s which span 10 years54

. Compared with, say, jobs in electronic assembly, FTEs predicated on sea angling are potentially sustainable over the very long time periods and the loss (gain) associated with their demise (creation) is that much greater.

To the extent that the Scottish Government can influence the abundance of stocks exploited by sea anglers, it has a pivotal role in sea angling’s future. Interestingly, following the Drew Report, Defra commenced a consultation on a recreational sea angling strategy for England. The Environment Agency in England and Wales already has well developed strategies for their freshwater fisheries. With the Scottish Government’s recent publication of its Strategic Framework for Scottish Freshwater Fisheries, sea angling in Scotland may soon be the only UK angling sector which is not underpinned by a government backed strategy, despite having an economic contribution similar to that of all Scotland’s freshwater angling.

Against this background, now that we have a better understanding of sea angling’s economic significance, a strategy for Scottish sea angling that set out aspirations and priority actions for the

53 These are indicative based on an assumption of linear relationships. 54 Ignoring time preference issues.

173

protection and eventual further development of the sector would give those in the industry a greater confidence to invest and develop their services, and would enable effective promotion of Scottish sea angling by the appropriate agencies. On the other hand, a strategy that attached a relatively low priority to sea angling, whilst reducing the underlying uncertainty, might accelerate disinvestment and job loss.

174

SECTION 9 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

9.1 Scottish and Regional Angler Effort and Expenditure

The Table below summarises the estimates of adult angler activity and expenditure occurring in each region and in Scotland as a whole. It is estimated that 125,188 adults went sea angling in Scotland (plus some 23,445 juveniles).

From the first column, it can be seen that Glasgow and the West has the greatest number of adult resident sea anglers (23,548 anglers). From column two, it also has the greatest number of angler days (269,783 days), despite relatively poor sea angling. From column five, Edinburgh Fife and the South East Region has the greatest total expenditure (£26.896m). Total expenditure on sea angling across the whole of Scotland was £140.868m.

A recent study of the economic contribution of Scotland’s game and coarse angling estimated that game and coarse anglers spent a total of £131m (salmon and sea trout £85.6; brown trout £17.2m; rainbow trout £22.6m; coarse fish £5.76m)55. It would appear that, in terms of angler expenditure, sea angling is as significant as all Scottish freshwater angling combined.

Table 9.1.1 Estimated Regional Sea Angling Activity and Expenditure (£’000s)

Region

Number of Resident SeaAnglers56

Annual Sea Angler Days in Region

Annual TripExpenditurein Region

Annual Capital Expenditure in Region

Total Annual Sea Angler Expenditure

Argyll & Lochaber

5,825 252,615 £16,744 £5,879 £22,623

Dumfries & Galloway

3,224 233,080 £16,247 £9,048 £25,294

Glasgow and West

23,548 269,783 £16,481 £7,645 £24,126

North East Scotland

8,904 234,307 £9,818 £5,659 £15,477

NorthernScotland

7,894 144,346 £8,909 £2,251 £11,160

Edinburgh,Fife and South East

20,455 250,868 £13,902 £12,994 £26,896

WesternIsles

2,515 80,567 £5,518 £3,672 £9,190

Orkney & Shetland

2,823 74,640 £3,949 £2,153 £6,102

Outwith Scotland

50,000 NA NA NA NA

Total 125,188 1,540,206 £91,567 £49,301 £140,868

55 Radford, A. and Riddington, G. (2004)The Economic Impact of Game and Coarse Fishing in Scotland. For SEERAD, November 2004. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19506/38879

56 This is number of resident sea anglers who fished in Scotland during the last year.

175

The Table below summarises the net inflow or outflow of angler activity and expenditure. From the first column, Glasgow and the West also has the greatest net export of adult angler effort (150,798 days). Associated with this, there is a net outflow from the region of £11.377m of sea angler expenditure. In contrast Dumfries and Galloway, which has a better reputation for sea angling, has the largest net inflow of sea angler effort (213,906 days), and the greatest annual net inflow of expenditure £23.793m.

Table 9.1.2 Net Flow of Angler Activity and Expenditure (£’000s)

RegionAnnual Net Inflow (+) and Outflow (-) of Angler Days

Annual Net Inflow (+) and Outflow (-) of Angler Expenditure

Argyll & Lochaber 121,947 £11,164

Dumfries & Galloway 213,906 £23,793

Glasgow and West -150,798 -£11,377

North East Scotland 93,967 £6,902

Northern Scotland 25,308 £1,998

Edinburgh, Fife and South East -91,661 -£2,123

Western Isles 44,737 £5,923

Orkney & Shetland 44,620 £7,117

Outwith Scotland -302,026 -£43,398

Total 0 £0

9.2 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scotland

Table 9.2.1 below summarises sea angling’s current economic contribution in terms of jobs and income supported as well as the net loss of income and employment if sea angling were to cease to exist. The table shows that, currently, sea angling supports 3,148 Full Time Job Equivalents (FTEs)57 and £69.67m annually of Scottish household income in the form of wages, self employment income, rents and profits. If sea angling ceased we could expect a net loss of atleast 1,675 FTEs and annual income loss of £37m.

Table 9.2.1 Economic Contribution of Sea Angling


Jobs Income (£’000s) Jobs Income (£’000s)3,148 FTEs £69,670 1,675 FTEs £37,042

9.3 The Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scottish Regions

Table 9.3.1 summarises the estimates for each of the eight regions. Note that the jobs and incomes lost would not be expected to sum to the Scotland equivalent figure because loss to one region normally results in gains in another and smaller loss to Scotland as a whole.58

57 A single FTE could be one full-time all year post, or two part-time jobs, or two seasonal jobs, or four part-time seasonal jobs. Thus, 3148 FTEs could translate to, say, the jobs of over 4,000 individuals. 58 The Scottish total for jobs and income supported was estimated by running a model of the Scottish economy and not by summing the totals for each region. Because of these procedural differences, there will be slight differences between the Scottish total and the regional sum, though conceptually they should be identical.

176

Table 9.3.1. The Economic Impact of Sea Angling by Region Currently Supported Would be Lost

Jobs Income (£’000s) Jobs Income (£’000s)

Argyll & Lochaber 524 £8,446 392 £6,342

Dumfries and Galloway 534 £7,714 462 £6,670

Glasgow and West 523 £11,892 249 £5,657

North East Scotland 343 £7,319 226 £4,822

Northern Scotland 299 £5,009 167 £2,800

Edinburgh, Fife and South East 504 £11,866 397 £9,370

Western Isles 184 £3,172 117 £2,028

Orkney & Shetland 145 £2,498 96 £1,657

9.4 The Important Local Centres for Sea Angling in Scotland

Table 6 identifies the number of internet respondents who identified a particular location they used for own boat charter/launching.

Table 9.4.1. Twenty Six Most Popular Launch Sites.59

Launch Site Number Launch Site Number

Drumore/Portpatrick 115 Taynuilt/Bonawe 25 Luce Bay 112 Rothesay 23

Oban 82 N. Berwick 23

Arbroath 65 Ardrishaig 22

Whithorn 51 Peterhead 21

Stranraer 49 Lochgilp 19

Dunbar 47 Tobermory 19

Thurso 43 Loch Aline 18 Girvan 43 Ayr 17

Sunart 40 Port Logan 12

Inverclyde 30 Crinan 12

Stonehaven 27 Lochinver 11

Stornoway 25 Wick 9

Table 9.4.2 below, identifies the number of internet respondents who identified a particular location they used for shore angling.

59 Names in italics were not on the drop down menu in the internet questionnaire but were written in by respondents.

177

Table 9.4.2. Thirty Most Popular Shore Areas

Shore Area Nos Shore Area Nos

Luce Bay 153 Nigg to St Cyrus 68

Mull of G to Stranraer 151 N.Clyde 68

Fyne 132 Nairn to Peterhead 61

Etive 120 St.Andrews -Earlsferry 56

Gareloch/Loch Long 112 Cruden Bay to Nigg Bay 55

St Cyrus to Montrose 102 Inner Forth 53

West Kintyre/Oban 96 Morvern-Mallaig 51

Wigton Bay 95 Cowal/Bute 49

N.Berwick-St Abbs 90 Skye 45

Inner Solway 89 Kyle -Ullapool 43

Ballantrae to Wemys Bay 84 South Tay 42

Lorne/Linhe 79 Cumbrae 41

Inverclyde 75 Newport-St Andrews 38

South Queensferry - Nth Berwick 75 Ullapool-Durness 37

Peterhead to Cruden Bay 68 EarlsFerry-Inverkeithing 34

9.5 The Main Competing Areas Within and Outwith Scotland.

It seems that sea anglers will participate provided there is the reasonable prospect of catching fish. For many anglers the main determinant of fishing mark is distance from home. Nearly 43% of Scotland’s population resides within 5km of the shore and the participation rate in these “coastal” areas is double that of inland areas.

The combination of fish stock characteristics and abundance, the local physical geography and the size of the local population will largely determine the extent and type of local sea angling.Dumfries and Galloway, particularly Luce Bay and the Mull of Galloway, have relatively sheltered waters, good shore access and a variety and reasonable abundance of sea fish. It therefore supports shore, own boat and charter sea angling. Indeed, the majority of the sea anglers are visitors to the region. In contrast, the Firth of Clyde has relatively poor fish stocks and is not capable of supporting regular charter activity, though the local population size means there are reasonable numbers of local (shore) anglers who rely heavily on migratory fish stocks such as mackerel. Own boat and charter boat angling is popular elsewhere on the West Coast where there are a number of excellent sheltered lochs enabling safe comfortable fishing. In Orkney, shore angling and own boat angling is largely undertaken by local anglers, though fish abundance and variety is sufficient to attract visiting charter anglers. Along the East Coast, there are charter vessels out of Arbroath and to a lesser extent Stonehaven. On this coast, shore angling is relatively more popular as there are extensive beaches and, in winter, cod.

In every area, two of the three most popular fish are mackerel and pollack. Cod is now rare on the West Coast, whereas in the North East it is the most popular species. Dogfish appears to be a popular West Coast target with coley and flatfish forming a second tier of target species. Further details of the relative popularity of each species in each region are given in the main report.

Specialist and competition anglers are willing, regularly, to travel further and the attraction is often the size of the fish. Among other possibilities, Scotland offers the prospect of catching tope in Luce Bay, porbeagle in the Northern Isles and North Coast, rays/skate in Argyll and in the Western Isles and conger in Orkney.

178

Within the UK, sea anglers identified the South Coast of England and Cornwall as alternatives to charter boat angling in Scotland. Internationally, many sea anglers fish, or aspire to fish, in Norway, Iceland and Ireland. Although expensive, Florida and the Caribbean are regarded as offering good value for money because of the size, variety and quantity of fish that could be caught.

9.6 The Principal Characteristics of the Recreational Sea Angling Sector

Sea angling is an activity carried out by all ages and classes roughly in line with the proportion in the population at large. Middle aged, skilled working men form a group somewhat larger than their proportion in the population. Juveniles, however, are relatively more likely to fish than their elders and men almost six times more likely than females. By its nature sea angling can be an activity for all the family and many women seem to participate as part of the family experience.

The number of days fished by each person is extremely wide with a trimmed mean of 5.46 for anglers from the rest of the UK and 16.85 for Scottish sea anglers giving an overall 12.30 days per angler. However these figures mask massive variations with some anglers reporting over 200 or even 300 days per annum but 51% reporting less than 10

Expenditure is similarly widely spread with some individuals, particularly, but not exclusively, own boat anglers spending as much as £10,000 a year in total on their sport and others (such as juveniles) spending less than £50. The trimmed mean cost of a days adult sea angling, including allowance for capital spend on items times like rods and boats comes to a surprisingly high £110 per day. The mean annual expenditure in Scotland by adult sea anglers was £1,516.

9.7 The Key Trends in the Sector

In the 1970s and 1980s Scottish tourist and angling publications proclaimed that Scotland offered exciting sea angling, record sized fish and that the country comprised Europe’s greatest untapped potential angling grounds.60

There is a belief among sea anglers that this untapped potential has not been realised. Most participants in the stakeholder survey believed that there were fewer sea anglers now than 20 or 10 years ago and they also expected the downward trend to continue. Indeed, the Firth of Clyde case study revealed evidence to support the view that, in the Clyde, angling has declined significantly, largely because of a decline in sea fish abundance.

On the other hand, respondents to the internet questionnaire revealed that their activity was very similar or slightly higher than levels 20 and 10 years ago. The exception was anglers from Glasgow and the West where the decline of fish stocks in the Clyde has had serious repercussions on participation. It should also be recognised that those who are disillusioned, or have given up, would probably not complete the internet questionnaire. Consequently, the decline revealed by the stakeholder survey could be more reliable than the apparent slight

60 For example, Scotland For Sea Angling, 1973, Scottish Tourist Board and Scotland, 1987, For Fishing. Produced by Pastime Publications (Edinburgh) and distributed by the British Tourist Authority

179

increase reported by internet respondents. For those internet respondents whose activity levels have increased the key determinant was an increase in their leisure time. This is likely to continue. For those whose activity levels had decreased the major reason cited was lack of fish.

9.8 The Future Prospects for the Sector

There is significant potential for growth in Scottish sea angling. Scotland has many beautiful, peaceful, un-crowded angling areas, an extensive range of native sea species many of which are still available, a diverse shoreline and safe sheltered coastal waters offering the possibility of all year round fishing. The coastal communities themselves have excess capacity of visitor accommodation and an enviable reputation for welcoming visitors. There is an infrastructure of breakwaters, harbours, piers and slipways and an emerging network of Scottish marinas for berthing and maintaining own boats, particularly on the Firth of Clyde and the West Coast. An established system of sea angling clubs exists to encourage sea anglers to develop their interest and participate in competitions. Additionally, sea angling can be a healthy outdoor activity in which whole families can participate. It can promote mental and physical well-being, and, in some areas, participation may reduce youth crime. The inexpensive start up costs and the absence of access or licence charges mean youngsters and individuals on low incomes are able to start and to participate regularly.

There is evidence from abroad, particularly in the USA, that improvements in the quality of sea angling generate very substantial increases in angling activity, incomes and employment. If Scotland were to achieve a 50% increase in sea angling activity levels this would secure a minimum of 1,675 FTEs and could possibly add a further 840 FTEs. The difference between the loss of sea angling and its enhancement could be 2,515 FTEs.61

It may be possible to achieve some growth simply by more energetically promoting sea angling and hoping that increased participation will subsequently lead to greater investment in businesses supplying angler services. The problem is that the returns from promotional initiatives could be low if the perception among stakeholders remains one of long term decline. The key to unlocking the potential of sea angling is to ensure the availability of fish stocks for anglers to catch. There are concerns that underlying uncertainty about fish stock abundance deters new entrants, reduces the willingness of anglers to invest in capital equipment (e.g. boats, engines, caravans) and undermines the confidence of those who might otherwise invest in sea angling services (e.g. charter vessels, tackle shops, accommodation services).

To the extent that the Scottish Government can influence the abundance of stocks exploited by sea anglers, it has an important role in sea angling’s future. With the Scottish Government’s recent publication of its Strategic Framework for Scottish Freshwater Fisheries and, given work in England and Wales, sea angling in Scotland may soon be the only major UK angling sector not underpinned by a government backed strategy, despite having an economic contribution similar to that of all Scotland’s freshwater angling.

A strategy for Scottish sea angling that set out aspirations and priority actions for the protection and eventual further development of the sector would give those in the industry a greater confidence to invest and develop their services, and would enable effective promotion of Scottish sea angling by the appropriate agencies. On the other hand, a strategy that attached a relatively low priority to sea angling, whilst reducing the underlying uncertainty, might accelerate disinvestment and job loss.

61 These are indicative based on an assumption of linear relationships.

180

181

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Classical and Robust Estimates

Appendix 2 Implementation of the DREAM model

Appendix 3 References

Appendix 4 Internet Survey

Appendix 5 Comment List

Appendix 6 Stakeholder Questionnaires

Appendix 7 GIS Procedures

Appendix 8 DREAM Output

182

APPENDIX 1

Classical and Robust Estimates

Theory

In statistical theory the Central Limit Theorem states that sample means will be distributed normally

around the true mean provided that the samples are identically, independently distributed (IID). It is

important to recognise that the shape of this distribution is not relevant provided the samples are

drawn from the same shaped distribution. In practice we assume that each point is a sample from

the same distribution (we could split the points randomly, calculate the sample means and then

calculate the mean of the sample means). But this may well not be true, for example we might have

two groups, charterers and non-charterers that have radically different distributions and a sample

with a majority of one type will have a very different shape form a sample with a majority of the

other. Recognising the limitations of the CLT there has been a movement towards developing

“robust” estimators that are less sensitive if the IID assumption is invalid. One such very old estimator for the central location of a population is the Median but in recent years a number of

others have been developed including Trimmed Means, M Estimators (Huber and Hampel), Wave

Estimators(Andrew) and Biweight Estimators (Tukey). The trimmed estimator(�) removes �% of

the points from the ends of the distribution. If � =0 then we have the mean, if � =50 we obtain the

Median. The 5% trimmed Mean is often the default.

A trimmed mean is less susceptible to the effects of extreme scores than is the arithmetic mean. It

is therefore less susceptible to sampling fluctuation than the mean for extremely skewed

distributions. It is less efficient than the mean for normal distributions but in this case the

distributions are clearly not normal. The effect of removing only the most extreme 5% of values can

be dramatic. In this case for example the trimmed mean number of charter days in the home region

falls from 1.867 to 0.6285 and the number of away charter days from 1.086 to 0.392 for all sea

anglers. However if it is thought that the population is actually two very different groups, non-

charters and charterers then it is appropriate to trim each separately. This gives a mean of 0.916

and 0.972 for home and away charter days.

In the following tables we provide estimates based on the classical mean number of days by region

and by type. Tables in the report are based on the trimmed mean.

183

The Classical Estimates


Table 10.1.1 Classical Estimate of Angler Days in Dumfries and Galloway by origin and type

Shore Boat Charter Total

Argyll & Lochaber 6,645 997 994 8,63662

Dumfries & Galloway 13,190 0 5,569 18,758Glasgow & West 23,066 20,847 11,014 54,928North East 1,008 626 753 2,387Northern Scotland 1,341 1,224 69 2,633Edinburgh & East 5,909 29,344 3,374 38,627Western Isles 0 0 0Orkney & Shetland 0 0 0 0RUK Visitors 96,205 43,188 37,866 177,259Total 147,363 96,226 58,644 302,233

Table 10.1.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Dumfries and

Galloway

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure


TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £1,600,427 £413,053 £456,192 £869,245 19 £291,360


RUK Visitors £33,860,052 £14,089,518 £14,499,975 £28,589,492 759 £11,031,303

Total £42,590,785 £18,664,219 £19,434,252 £38,098,471 999 £14,449,141

Table 10.1.3 The classical estimate of the Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Dumfries and Galloway


Home 45.0% 9 £131,112


RUK Visitors 90.3% 686 £9,958,815

Total 874 £12,640,980

Argyll and Bute

62 The internet and case study surveys showed that there is undoubtedly fishing from private boats by local anglers

from Dumfries and Galloway. The simple fact, however, is that in 457 telephone calls to local residents in the

structured Omnibus Survey, nobody could be found with that experience. Since numbers are apparently very small it

was decided to stay with the resultant zero figure rather than guess at some alternative.

184

Table 10.2.1 Classical Estimates of Angler Days in Argyll & Bute by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 48,816 54,086 31,342 134,245Dumfries & Galloway 508 187 280 975Glasgow & West 35,919 19,609 15,954 71,482North East 9,250 4,421 3,303 16,974Northern Scotland 403 0 343 746Edinburgh & East 9,189 24,443 3,518 37,150Western Isles 0 0 0 0Orkney & Shetland 0 0 0 0RUK Visitors 30,824 14,957 9,810 55,591Total 134,909 117,703 33,207 285,820

Table 10.2.2. Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Argyll and

Lochaber

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure


TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £12,809,376 £4,481,900 £4,017,261 £8,499,161 265 £4,084,449


RUK Visitors £11,594,047 £5,283,292 £4,549,317 £9,832,608 311 £4,968,596

Total £33,393,958 £14,753,389 £12,768,958 £27,522,347 856 £13,790,877

Table 10.2.3 Classical Estimate of Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Argyll and Lochaber


Home 60.0% 159 £2,450,670Scottish Visitors 78.6% 220 £3,725,311RUK Visitors 92.0% 286 £4,571,109Total 665 £10,747,089

185

Northern Scotland

Table 10.3.1 Classical Estimates of Angler Days in Northern Scotland by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 928 183 27 1,138Dumfries & Galloway 25 0 0 25Glasgow & West 3,068 1,367 1,564 6,000North East 12,653 5,068 5,170 22,890Northern Scotland 49,037 66,499 13,156 128,693Edinburgh & East 3,696 3,362 3,449 10,507Western Isles 8 0 8Orkney & Shetland 465 0 0 465RUK Visitors 6,733 1,294 669 8,695Total 76,613 77,773 24,035 178,421

Table 10.3.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Northern Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure


TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £10,420,527 £4,574,116 £4,225,086 £8,799,203 263 £4,370,366


RUK Visitors £2,046,376 £1,042,505 £929,418 £1,971,923 61 £1,011,325

Total £15,354,798 £7,175,329 £6,525,566 £13,700,895 412 £6,892,407

Table 10.3.3.Classical Estimate of the Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Northern Scotland


Home 68.8% 180 £3,004,627


RUK Visitors 88.9% 54 £898,956

Total 306 £5,131,039

186

North East

Table 10.4.1 Classical Estimate of Angler Days in the North East by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 2,174 6.4 0 2,185Dumfries & Galloway 135 0 2 137Glasgow & West 12,689 2,6.46 7,131 21,936North East 44,850 40,893 16,819 102,561Northern Scotland 1,421 0 686 2,107Edinburgh & East 19,386 13,321 6,218 38,925Western Isles 136 0 136Orkney & Shetland 165 0 0 165RUK Visitors 38,867 6,081 3,233 48,181Total 119,823 62,422 34,089 216,334

Table 10.4.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to North East

Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure


TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £7,632,800 £3,190,029 £3,722,442 £6,912,471 138 £3,033,113


RUK Visitors £9,844,604 £4,879,238 £5,537,380 £10,416,618 223 £4,713,630

Total £22,482,411 £11,058,848 £12,631,289 £23,690,137 498 £10,631,610

Table 10.4.3 Classical Estimate of Economic Impact of Sea Angling in North East Scotland


Home 75.0% 104 £2,274,835


RUK Visitors 88.2% 197 £4,159,086

Total 411 £8,769,288

187

Edinburgh and East

Table 10.5.1 Classicalt Estimate of Angler Days in the Edinburgh and East by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 391 997 68 1,456Dumfries & Galloway 145 0 0 145Glasgow & West 3,338 1,355 3,669 8,361North East 4,327 0 391 4,718Northern Scotland 454 0 466 920Edinburgh & East 117,619 126,643 13,236 257,497Western Isles 136 0 0 136Orkney & Shetland 0 0 0 0RUK Visitors 29,592 3,882 5,462 38,936Total 156,001 132,876 23,293 312,169

Table 10.5.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Eastern Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £24,702,270 £10,325,868 £13,269,353 £23,595,221 443 £10,471,982 ScottishVisitors £4,019,665 £1,748,989 £2,187,735 £3,936,724 78 £1,798,736RUK Visitors £7,548,530 £3,649,482 £4,552,010 £8,201,492 160 £3,731,565Total £36,270,465 £15,724,338 £20,009,098 £35,733,437 680 £16,002,283

Table 10.5.3 Classical Estimate of the Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Eastern Scotland


Home 81.3% 360 £8,508,485Scottish Visitors 75.7% 59 £1,361,900RUK Visitors 88.6% 141 £3,305,101Total 560 £13,175,486

188

Glasgow and West

Table 10.5.1 Classical Estimate of Angler Days in Glasgow and West by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 0 1,046 18 1,065Dumfries & Galloway 289 156 0 445Glasgow & West 121,549 139,210 66,142 326,901North East 1,479 219 482 2,179Northern Scotland 0 0 0 0Edinburgh & East 2,213 4,587 274 7,074Western Isles 0 0 0 0Orkney & Shetland 0 0 0 0RUK Visitors 5,045 388 186 5,619Total 130,574 145,607 67,102 343,283

Table 10.6.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Western Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £28,000,950 £12,966,838 £18,815,375 £31,782,212 599 £13,686,937


RUK Visitors £1,679,411 £883,645 £1,188,167 £2,071,811 42 £928,909

Total £32,262,005 £15,079,337 £21,675,482 £36,754,819 699 £15,902,605

Table 10.6.3 The Classical Estimate of Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Western Scotland


Home 66.1% 396 £9,051,039Scottish Visitors 82.9% 48 £1,067,069RUK Visitors 90.9% 38 £844,462Total 483 £10,962,570

189

Western Isles

Table 10.7.1 Classical Estimate of Angler Days in the Western Isles by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 3,640 2,286 4,967 10,894Dumfries & Galloway 657 243 11 911Glasgow & West 4,573 1,051 4,796 10,421North East 4,008 636 412 5,055Northern Scotland 1,240 1,486 987 3,713Edinburgh & East 6,968 3,770 1,646 12,385Western Isles 14,533 27,669 279 42,481Orkney & Shetland 262 0 0 262RUK Visitors 6,971 2,251 2,527 11,749Total 42,852 39,393 15,626 97,871

Table 10.7.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to the Western

Isles

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £5,522,255 £1,381,354 £1,234,797 £2,616,151 76 £1,219,079


RUK Visitors £2,666,584 £1,308,536 £1,101,910 £2,410,447 69 £1,208,164

Total £12,043,666 £4,704,519 £4,018,564 £8,723,083 249 £4,298,357

Table 10.7.3 Classical Estimate Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Western Isles


Home 28.6% 22 £348,308


RUK Visitors 87.5% 60 £1,057,144

Total 163 £2,858,744

190

Orkney and Shetland

Table 10.8.1 Classical Estimate of Angler Days in Orkney & Shetland by origin and type


Argyll & Lochaber 366 28 27 421Dumfries & Galloway 0 0 0 0Glasgow & West 804 58 889 1,751North East 2,562 4,859 703 8,124Northern Scotland 403 1,835 1,755 3,994Edinburgh & East 167 1,791 3,480 5,438Western Isles 0 0 0Orkney & Shetland 21,695 11,145 594 33,434RUK Visitors 10,030 7,582 7,469 25,081Total 36,028 27,298 14,918 78,244

Table 10.8.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Orkney and Shetland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £2,835,676 £1,027,619 £924,622 £1,952,241 55 £935,962

Scottish Visitors £1,495,056 £828,385 £689,329 £1,517,714 43 £782,930

RUK Visitors £4,751,500 £2,157,737 £1,875,208 £4,032,945 117 £1,999,870

Total £9,082,232 £4,013,741 £3,489,159 £7,502,899 215 £3,718,762

Table 10.8.3 Classical Estimate of Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Orkney and Shetland


Home 50.0% 28 £467,981


RUK Visitors 100.0% 117 £1,999,870

Total 183 £3,155,302

191

Scotland

Table 10.9.1 Classical Estimate of Economic Contribution of Sea Angling to Scotland

GrossExpenditure

DirectExpenditure

IndirectExpenditure

TotalExpenditure

Jobs Supported

IncomeSupported

Home £93,524,280 £42,137,688 £52,204,395 £94,342,084 1834 £41,068,582


RUK Visitors £73,991,106 £38,209,628 £45,532,564 £83,742,191 1723 £37,729,315

Total £203,480,321 £102,125,085 £123,140,888 £225,265,973 4,531 £100,289,474

Table 10.9.2 Classical Estimate of Economic Impact of Sea Angling in Scotland

Loss to Region PercentageLoss

JobsLost

IncomeLost

Home 41.8% 767 £17,183,864


RUK Visitors 90.5% 1560 £34,162,252

Total 2794 £61,648,504

192

APPENDIX 2

Implementation of DREAM model

Section 2.3 discussed the ideas and methods underlying economic impact analysis. Riddington et al (2006) details the general assumptions, methods and performance of the DREAM approach. This section is concerned with the development of the specific model for this project.

The core of a DREAM model consists of an exhaustive set of local input output tables and a set of 123 equations that model trade flows. The local tables are at NUTS4 (sub local authority) level in Scotland and at NUTS3 level for the rest of the UK and Ireland. They describe the production, consumption and flows between the standard 123 industrial sectors and are updated by CogentSI annually.

The trade flow equations predict proportionate flows on the basis of production, consumption and impedance (distance and ferry times)

The first task is to aggregate the NUTS4 tables to the geography required i.e. taking the 42 individual Scottish tables and adding them together to form the 8 sea regions used in this project. Tables for the RUK, Rest of Europe and Rest of the World form the completely exhaustive set required.

For each region, 3 key trading regions (based on distance and economic size) are identified and the remaining four aggregated to form a Rest of Scotland table. Trade flows between the eight regions (Target region, 3 key partner regions, Rest of Scotland, RUK, REU and ROW) are then estimated using the trade equations. Key to this is iteration to ensure that the complete system is completely balanced i.e. all production must go to consumption and all consumption must be met by production. It is important to note that a region that is in surplus in an industry will still import some of its requirements (and export more as a consequence) reflecting the degree of heterogeneity of production and consumption in an industry.

For each type of angler in the region (Home, Scottish Away, RUK) the expenditure by category provides the basic input to the model. Disaggregation between types of angler is necessary because each has a different displacement pattern. Disaggregation by activity or specie would also be possible. The expenditure is allocated to industry and then sourced to an area, reflecting any particular knowledge about the products concerned. An obvious and important example is sourcing of expenditure on hospitality services. Normally a large proportion of expenditure by locals in the region on this activity will flow outside the region (e.g. on foreign travel). However at this first allocation we know 100% will be sourced within the region.

Again it is important to note that only a fraction of the gross expenditure will have a local impact. The most obvious example is fuel where, after duty, tax and raw material import as little as 5p in the pound (to retail and local transport) may impact on the local economy. This can result in the multiplier between gross expenditure and final total expenditure in the region being less than unity.

The expenditure that actually has an effect is known as the direct expenditure. The impact of this expenditure is then traced successively through the system via industry to industry purchases (Indirect Effects), industry=>wage=>industry (induced effects) and uniquely feedback effects from trading partners. The general system is shown in Fig 10.10.1

193

Fig A1 The DREAM Model

Part of the underlying data system is based on output/job measures and aggregated wages provides the income. The information from the model is gathered and presented in the standard output format shown in Fig A 2

Gross Expenditure

VAT

Direct Expenditure

Retail Home Plus

Margin

Imports

Wages Local Retail

Taxes Imports

Home Plus

Margin

Imports

Indirect + Induced

Wages

Tax

Indirect Induced Direct

194

Fig A2 Output Template from DREAM Impact Assessment

Appendices 10.3 to 10.27 provide the output for the 3 types of angler in each region and Scotland. In the regional analysis that follows information from these tables has been extracted to provide a broad picture of the jobs and income currently supported by sea angling and the economic impact of closure of a fishery (by accessing displacement as described in the previous section). The measures described in section 2.3.3 have then been calculated.

195

APPENDIX 3

REFERENCES

Adams C., Jacob S. and Smith S. (2000) What Happened after the Net BanFood and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University

of Florida. SGEF 110 February 2000 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE123

Arkenford Market Research (2008) Survey of UK Watersports and Leisure Participation for:

Sunsail, RNLI, RYA and British Marine Federation, 2006

Bastiman S. Personal Communication

Bell F. (1993) Current and Projected Tourist Demand for Saltwater Recreational Fisheries in FloridaFlorida Department of Natural Resources Sea Grant Research Paper SGR 111.1993

http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgpt93001.pdf

Davis, J. and O’Neill C.O (1992). Discrete Choice Valuation of Recreational Angling in Northern Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 3 452-457

Deloitte and Touché (1996). The Economic Impact of Angling in the Tweed Catchments. A study

undertaken on behalf of Scottish Borders Enterprise and the Tweed Foundation.

Drew Associates (2004) Research into the Economic Contribution of Sea Angling England and Wales For Economic and Statistics Division, DEFRA, March 2004

Dunn, M.R., Potten, S.D., Radford, A.F. and Whitmarsh, D.W. (1989) An Economic Appraisal of the Bass Fishery in England and Wales. Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic

Resources Report 30, University of Portsmouth.

Fisheries Resources Management (2000) Assessing the Economic Value and Realising the Potential of Recreational Sea angling in the Western Isles. A report prepared for the Western Isles

Fisheries Trust.

Foundation for Water Research (1996) Assessing the Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements: Manual, Marlow, Bucks

George St Research and Jones Economics (2003) Assessment of the Economic Impact of Sea Angling in the Highlands and Islands for: HIE, Edinburgh 2003

Gibb Environment (1999) Economic Assessment of The River Lune Salmon Fishery. Gibb House, Reading.

Land Use Consultants (2006) Review of Marine and Coastal Recreation in Scotland for SNH 2006

196

Lund P.J. (1981) The Economic and Social Value of Salmon Fishing to the UK Economy in 1978.

Presented at the Symposium on the Economic Evaluation of Salmon Fisheries, Fishmongers Hall,

London, 1981. Atlantic Salmon Trust, Pitlochry, Scotland. 11pp.

Mackay Consultants (1989). Economic Importance of Salmon Fishing and Netting in Scotland.

Report prepared for the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board

Martin L.R. (1987) Economic impact analysis of a sport fishery on Lake Ontario: an appraisal of

method. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(3), 461-468.

Mawle G.W. (1983) Angling in South Wales. Department of Applied Biology, University of Wales

Institute of Science and Technology. Research Report. 193pp.

Moon N and Souter, G. (1995) Socio- Economic Review of Angling 1994. Report to the National

Rivers Authority, Bristol, R&D Project 501.

Nautilus Consultants (2000) Study into Inland and Marine Fisheries in Wales, For: National

Assembly of Wales, 2000

Nautilus Consultants (2006) The Motivation, Demographics and Views of South West Recreational Sea Anglers and their Socio-economic Impact on the Region For: Invest in Fish South West

Partners.2006

Peirson, G.; Tingley, D.; Spurgeon, J.; Radford, A. Economic evaluation of inland fisheries in England and Wales Fisheries Management & Ecology, Volume 8, Numbers 4-5, August/October 2001 , pp. 415-424(10)

PIEDA Ltd and the Scottish Marine Biological Association (1988) Study of Sea Angling in the Firth of Clyde for Scottish Tourist Board 1988

Radford, A.F., Hatcher, A. and Whitmarsh, D. (1991) An Economic Evaluation of Salmon Fisheries in Great Britain. A Research Report to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Food. Research

Report 16, Centre for the Economics & Management of Aquatic Resources, University of Portsmouth

Radford A F, Riddington G and Tingley D (2001) ‘Environment Agency R&D Project: Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries. Project Record. Module A: Economic Evaluation of Fishing Rights’ (W2-039/PR/1). Produced by MacAlister Elliott & Partners. May 2001.

Radford A.F., Riddington G.L & Gibson H. (2007) Economic Evaluation of Freshwater Fisheries Moduel B: The Economic Impact of Freshwater Angling For Environment Agency: March 2007 http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO1207BNNW-e-e.pdf

Radford A.F. and Riddington G.L (2006) The Economic Impact of Salmon and Trout Angling in the Kyle of Sutherland Fishery Trust Area For Kyle of Sutherland Fishery Trust January 2006 Radford A.F. and Riddington G.L (2004)The Economic Impact of Game and Coarse Fishing in Scotland for SEERAD - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19506/38879

197

Riddington G.L., Radford A.F and Bostock J. (2006). An Economic Evaluation of the Impact of the salmon parasite Gyrodactylus Solaris Parasite should it be introduced into Scotland For SEERAD, Oct 2006 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1062/0042434.pdf

Riddington G.L., Radford A.F and Higgins P.(2004) Economic Impact of Water Based Recreation in Spey Catchment Area for Spey Catchment Management Plan Partners October 2004 http://www.hie.co.uk/econstudyfull.pdf

Riddington G.L., Gibson H.G. and Anderson J. (2006) A comparison of gravity model, survey and location quotient based local area tables and multipliers Regional Studies, Vol. 40.9, pp. 1069–1081, December 2006

Riddington G.L., Gibson H.G. McIntyre S. and Mackay S. (2005) The Economic Impact of Sports, Sporting Events, and Sports Tourism in the U.K. The DREAMTM Model European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp 323-/334, September 2005

Simpson D and Mawle G.S. (2005). Public Attitudes to Angling 2005 Environment Agency Report www.environment-Agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/ geho0805bjpree_1153660.pdf

Spurgeon, J., Colarullo, G., Radford, A.F. and Tingley, D. (2001) Environment Agency R&D Project: Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries. Project Record. Module B: Indirect Economic Values Associated with Fisheries (W2-039/PR/2). Produced by MacAlister Elliott & Partners.

Spurgeon and Lawrence (2007) Economic Evaluation of Freshwater Fisheries Module A: The Economic Value of Freshwater Angling For Environment Agency: March 2007 http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO1207BNNW-e-e.pdf

SQW (2004) Assessing the Value and Realizing the Potential of Sustainable Freshwater Fishing in Orkney, Scotland for Scottish Natural Heritage

Tourism and Recreation Research Unit (1982). A study of the Economic Value of Sporting Salmon Fishing in Three Areas of Scotland. A report prepared for the Department of Agriculture and

Fisheries for Scotland. Edinburgh University.

TNS/Visit Scotland (2007) Fishing in Scotland: Final Results Presentation to Visit Scotland, June

2007. Available from VisitScotland

TNS(2005) Survey of Visitors to Orkney 2004-2005- Final Report for: VisitOrkney http://www.visitscotland.org/exec_summ_orkney_2004_05_visitor_survey.pdf

TUS (2004) The UK 2000 Time Use Survey www.esds.ac.uk/government/timeuse

Willis K. and Garrod G. (1991) Valuing Open Access Recreation of Inland Waterways: On-site Recreation Surveys and Selection Effects Regional Studies, 25 511-524

Willis K. and Garrod G. (1999) Angling and Recreational Values of Low-Flow Alleviation in Rivers Journal of Environmental Management 57 71-83

198

Appendix 4

INTERNET SURVEY

Survey of Sea Angling in ScotlandDivision of Public Policy, Glasgow Caledonian University for Scottish Government

This survey is part of a study being conducted by a team of economists from the Division of Public Policy at Glasgow Caledonian University. The study has the support of the Scottish Federation of

Sea Anglers and the Scottish Sea Anglers Conservation Network. Indeed, these bodies are represented on the group that overseas the planning and execution of the study. The contribution

of individual sea anglers is an important determinant of the successful completion of this work and, in the interests of developing a better understanding of the importance of sea angling, we would be very grateful if you would complete this questionnaire which should only take five minutes of your

time.The questionnaire covers sea angling in eight regions of Scotland but you will only be asked about those relevant to you. A map of the regions can be found on the next page. Once you have finished answering a question click the 'next' button to proceed. This process may not be instantaneous as,

depending upon your answer, the survey is activating the next appropriate question to be asked. Thank you for your cooperation.

If you wish to discuss this survey or sea angling in general a comment box is provided at the end of the survey. Alternatively you can send an email to [email protected]

About You

Q1 Please indicate the region where you normally live - your "home region". (Tick 1)� Orkney and Shetland� Western Isles � Central and Northern Highlands� North East Scotland (including Perthshire)� Argyll, Arran and Lochaber (excluding Helensburgh & Lomond)� Glasgow and the West (including Helensburgh & Lomond)� Edinburgh and the East (including Stirling, Fife and The Borders)� Dumfries and Galloway� Northern England � Ireland (North and South)� Rest of UK� Mainland Europe� North America� Other

Q2 If your home is in Scotland, please could you type in the first section of your post code e,g, G84, EH11, AB19

_____________________________________

Q3 Your Age� Under 21 � 21-45 � 45-60 � Over 60

Q4 Your Sex� Male � Female

199

Q5 Do you particpate regularly in sea angling competitions to the extent that you would describe yourself as a "competition angler"?

� Yes � No

Q6 Do you own, or part own, a boat which is used for sea angling in Scotland?� Yes � No

Q7 What percentage of the time the boat is used do you personally use it for sea angling?� 0-10% � 26-50% � 76-99%� 11-25% � 51-75% � 100%

Sea Angling Equipment ExpenditureQ8 Please indicate your total expenditure over the last three years (and where it was incurred) on

boats, outboards, trailers etc. used for sea angling in Scotland. Please include purchases, insurance, berthing, maintenance, ropes and fenders. Do not include boat hire/charter or fuel.

£0 Lessthan£25

£25 to £100

£101 to £250

£251 to £500

£501 to £1000

£1001to

£5000

£5001to

£10000

Morethan

£10000In Home Region (if Scottish)

� � � � � � � � �

Internet/Mail Order � � � � � � � � �Outside Home Region in Scotland

� � � � � � � � �

Outside Scotland � � � � � � � � �

Q9 Please indicate your total expenditure over the last three years (and where it was incurred) on rod,reels, hooks, line etc. used for sea angling in Scotland. Do not include bait, a later question will address this.

£0 Less than £25

£25 to £100

£101 to £250

£251 to £500

£501 to £1000

Over£1000

In Home Region (if Scottish)

� � � � � � �

Internet/Mail Order � � � � � � �Outside Region � � � � � � �Outside Scotland � � � � � � �

Q10 Please indicate your total expenditure over the last three years (and where it was incurred) on specialist clothing, waders etc. used for sea angling in Scotland.

£0 Less than £25

£25 to £100

£101 to £250

£251 to £500

£501 to £1000

Over£1000


� � � � � � �

Internet/Mail Order � � � � � � �Outside Region � � � � � � �Outside Scotland � � � � � � �

Q11 Please indicate your total expenditure over the last three years (and where it was incurred) on sea angling books, magazines, guides etc.

£0 Less than £5

£5-£25 £26 to £50 £51-£100 Over £100


� � � � � �

Internet/Mail Order � � � � � �Outside Region � � � � � �Outside Scotland � � � � � �

200

Your Sea Angling Within Your Home RegionQ12 Over the past three years, how many overnight trips which have involved sea angling have you

made to places in Scotland which are located within your home region?� 0 � 2 or 3 � 6 to 10 � 26 to 50 � More than 100� 1 � 4 or 5 � 11 to 25 � 51 to 100

Q13 Over the past three years, how many day or part day trips which have involved sea angling have you made to places in Scotland which are located within your home region?

� 0 � 2 or 3 � 6 to 10 � 26 to 50 � More than 100� 1 � 4 or 5 � 11 to 25 � 51 to 100

Q14 Adding together your day trips in Q13 and the days or part days you actually fished during overnight trips, please indicate the total number of days or part days spent sea angling within your home region. Please ensure you have an answer (e.g. none) in all three rows below.

None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to10 11 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100

101 to 250

Morethan250

From shore � � � � � � � � �From own or friend's boat � � � � � � � � �From charter boat � � � � � � � � �

Your Sea Angling Outside Your Home RegionQ15 Over the past three years, how many overnight trips which have involved sea angling at some

time, have you made to places in Scotland which are located outside your home region?� 0 � 2 or 3 � 6 to10 � 26 to 50 � More than

100� 1 � 4 or 5 � 11 to 25 � 51 to 100

Q16 Over the past three years, how many day trips which have involved sea angling have you made to places in Scotland which are located outside your home region? If you are a visitor staying overnight your answer will be 0

� 0 � 2 or 3 � 6 to10 � 26 to 50 � More than 100

� 1 � 4 or 5 � 11 to 25 � 51 to 100

Q17 Adding together your day trips in Q16 and the days or part days you actually fished during overnight trips, please indicate the total number of days or part days spent sea angling in Scotland outside your home region. Please ensure you have an answer (e.g. none) in all three rows below.

None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to10 11 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100

101 to 250

Morethan250

From shore � � � � � � � � �From own or friend's boat � � � � � � � � �From charter boat � � � � � � � � �

Q18 Please indicate the total number of days or part days you spent sea angling outside Scotland over the last three years.

� None � 3 to 5 � 11-25 � 51 to 100 � More than 250

� 1 or 2 � 6 to 10 � 26 to 50 � 101 to 250

Changes in Your Sea AnglingQ19 How does the number of days you spend sea angling in Scotland now compare to 10 years ago?

� Was not sea angling in Scotland � About same � Has decreased significantly � Has Increased a little� Has decreased a little � Has increased significantly

201

Q20 What do you consider is the main reason for this change (tick one)?� More/Less Time � Moved House (nearer or further from

coast)� Family Responsibilities

(increased/decreased)� Likelihood of catching fish

� Cost of Travel, Charter and Equipment � Other Interests (gained or lost)

Q21 How does the number of days you spend sea angling in Scotland now compare to 20 years ago?� Was not sea angling in Scotland � About same � Has decreased significantly � Has Increased a little� Has decreased a little � Has increased significantly

Q22 What do you consider is the main reason for this change (tick one)?� More/Less Time � Moved House (nearer or further from

coast)� Family Responsibilities

(increased/decreased)� Likelihood of catching fish

� Cost of Travel, Charter and Equipment � Other Interests (gained or lost)

Q23 How do you believe that the number of days you spend sea angling in Scotland in 10 years time will compare to the number now?

� Will not be sea angling in Scotland � About same � Will decrease significantly � Will increase a little� Will decrease a little � Will increase significantly

Q24 What do you consider is the main reason for this forecast (tick one)?� More/Less Time � Likelihood of catching fish� Family Responsibilities

(increase/decrease)� Other Interests

� Cost of Travel, Charter and Equipment � My Age� House Move (nearer or further from

coast)� Unlikely to be visiting Scotland

Q25 Have you fished on freshwater in Scotland in the last year?� Yes � No

Your Daily Expenditure in Your Home Region when Sea Angling in ScotlandQ26 When undertaking a day or part days sea angling in your home region please indicate typical daily

expenditure on the following items £0 Less than £5 £5-£10 £11-£25 More than £25

Fuel and Transport. � � � � �Food and Drink from shop � � � � �Food and Drink from cafe/pub

� � � � �

Bait � � � � �Other � � � � �

Q27 When undertaking a day or part days sea angling in your home region please indicate the daily amount you would typically contribute to a boat charter� £0 � £11to £25 � More than £50� Less than £10 � £26-£50

202

Your Daily Expenditure when Away from Home Region when Sea Angling in ScotlandQ28 When undertaking a day or part days sea angling in Sotland away from home please indicate

typical daily expenditure on the following items. For transport please take total for a trip and divide by the typical number of days in a trip

£0 Less than £5

£5-£10 £11-£25 £26 to £50 More than £50

Fuel and Transport � � � � � �Food and Drink from shop � � � � � �Food and Drink from cafe/pub

� � � � � �

Bait � � � � � �Other � � � � � �

Q29 When undertaking a day or part days sea angling away from home please indicate the daily amount you would typically contribute to a boat charter.� £0 � £11 to £25 � More than £50� Less than £10 � £26-£50

Overnight ExpenditureQ30 What is your usual form of accommodation?

� Friends or Family � Caravan Hire � Hotel� Camping � Self Catering � On board boat� Caravan (Own) � Bed and Breakfast

Q31 Please indicate typical expenditure per night for your accommodation.� Nothing � £11-£25 � £76-£100� less than £5 � £26-£50 � > £100� £5-£10 � £51-£75

Dumfries and GallowayMain Fishing: Along Solway Coast, Wigtown Bay, Luce Bay, Loch Ryan, the North Channel

Q32 Have you fished in the Dumfries and Galloway Area in the last 3 years?� Yes� No

Q33 Please indicate the number of days or part days sea angling from the shore you had in this area in the following years.

None 1 2 or 3 4 or 5 6 to 10 11 to 50 More than 50

2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q34 Which of these areas have you fished (from the shore) in the last three years (Tick all that apply)?Inner Solway � Luce Bay �Wigtown Bay � Mull of Galloway to Stranraer � Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

____________________________________

Q35 Please indicate the number of days or part days sea angling from your own or a friend's boat you had in this are in the following years.


2005... � � � � � � �

203

2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q36 Please indicate the number of days or part days sea angling from a charter boat you had in this area in the following years.


2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q37 In the last three years which of these departure points have you used when fishing from a boat (Tick all that apply)?

Whithorn � Drumore/ Portpatrick �Luce Bay � Stranraer � Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

____________________________________

Q38 What species of sea fish did you fish for in this area (indicate all that apply)?� Sea Trout � Whiting � Dogfish� Bass � Common Eel � Halibut� Mackerel � Pollack � Porbeagle Shark� Cod � Tope � Hake� Haddock � Conger � Flatfish (Flounder, Plaice,

Dabs)� Coleys � Rays or SkateOther (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

____________________________________

Q39 If you are unable to fish for this type of sea fish in this area what is your most likely response?� Same Species in Different Scottish Area� Different Species in Same Scottish Area� Fish outwith Scotland� Would not Fish

Q40 If you were unable to fish for any sea fish in this area what is your most likely response?� Fish elsewhere in Scotland� Fish outside Scotland� Would not Fish

Orkney and ShetlandMain Fishing: The coast

Q41 Have you fished in the sea in Orkney and Shetland in the last 3 years?� Yes� No

Q42 Please indicate the number of days sea angling from the shore you had in this area in the following years


2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

204

Q43 Please indicate the number of days sea angling from your own or a friend's boat you had in this are in the following years


2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q44 Please indicate the number of days sea angling from a charter boat you had in this area in the following years


2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q45 What species did you fish for in this area (indicate all that apply)?� Sea Trout � Whiting � Dogfish� Bass � Common Eel � Halibut� Mackerel � Pollack � Porbeagle Shark� Cod � Tope � Hake� Haddock � Conger � Flatfish (Flounder, Plaice,


________________________________________________

___________________________________



Western IslesMain Fishing: Everywhere on the Western Isles

Q48 Have you fished in the sea in the Western Isles in the last 3 years?� Yes� No



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

205



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �


Stornoway � Barra �Other (please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

____________________________________



________________________________________________

____________________________________



North East ScotlandMain Fishing: North of Tay Estuary, Arbroath to Aberdeen , Cullen, Portsoy and NE Coast

Q56 Have you fished in the sea in this area in the last 3 years?� Yes� No

206

Q57 Please indicate the number of days sea angling from the shore you had in this area in the following years.


2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q58 Which of these areas have you fished (from the shore) in the last three years (Tick all that apply)?Nairn to Peterhead � Nigg Bay to St Cyrus �Peterhead to Cruden Bay � St Cyrus to Montrose �Cruden Bay to Nigg Bay � Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

____________________________________

Q59 Please indicate the number of days sea angling from your own or a friend's boat you had in this are in the following years.


2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q60 Please indicate the number of days sea angling from a charter boat you had in this area in the following years.


2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q61 In the last three years which of these departure points have you used when fishing from a boat(Tick all that apply)?

Findhorn � Peterhead � Arbroath �Macduff � Stonehaven � Montrose � Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________

Q62 What Species did you fish for in this area (indicate all that apply)?� Sea Trout � Whiting � Dogfish� Bass � Common Eel � Halibut� Mackerel � Pollack � Porbeagle Shark� Cod � Tope � Hake� Haddock � Conger � Flatfish (Flounder, Plaice,


________________________________________________

____________________________________


207


Argyll, Arran and Lochaber Main Fishing: Cowal, Bute, Holy Loch, Loch Goil, Arran, Loch Fyne, East and West Kintyre; Oban; Loch Etive; Appin, Loch Linhe, Loch Sunart, Ardnamurchan, Loch Moidart, Gigha, Islay; Jura; .

Please note the Upper Clyde, Gareloch and the east of Loch Long are in Glasgow and West area




2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q67 Which of these areas have you fished (from the shore) in the last three years (Tick all that apply)?Loch Fyne � West Kintyre and Oban �Morven,Ardnamurchan to Mallaig � Firth of Lorne and Loch Linhe �Cowal and Bute � Loch Etive �East Kintyre (Carradale, Campbelltown) � Inner Hebrides (Coll, Mull, Islay, Jura,

Coll, Tiree etc)�

Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

208

Q70 In the last three years which of these departure points have you used when fishing from a boat(Tick all that apply)?

Ardrishaig � Croabh Haven � Inner Hebrides (Islay, Colonsay, Coll)

�

Rothesay � Oban � Arisaig �Lochgilphead � Loch Sunart � Mallaig �Crinan � Tobermory � Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Q71 What species did you fish for in this area (indicate all that apply).� Sea Trout � Whiting � Dogfish� Bass � Common Eel � Halibut� Mackerel � Pollack � Porbeagle Shark� Cod � Tope � Hake� Haddock � Conger � Flatfish (Flounder, Plaice,


________________________________________________

________________________________________________



Glasgow and the WestMain Fishing: The North Clyde (Helensburgh, Gareloch, Loch Long), Inverclyde shore, Wemyss Bay and Girvan; Cumbrae




2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q76 Which of these areas have you fished (from the shore) in the last three years (Tick all that apply)?Ballantrae to Wemys Bay � North Clyde (Erskine to Rhu) �Cumbrae � Inner Lochs (Gareloch and Long) �Inverclyde (Wemys Bay to Erskine) �

209


________________________________________________

________________________________________________



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �


� Girvan � Ayr � InverclydeOther (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________



________________________________________________

________________________________________________



Edinburgh and the EastMain Fishing: South of Tay, North East Fife, Forth Estuary, North Berwick to St Abbs


210



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q85 Which of these areas have you fished (from the shore) in the last three years (Tick all that apply)?South Tay Estuary � Inner Forth �Newport to St Andrews � South Queensferrry to North Berwick �St Andrews to Earlsferry � North Berwick to St Abbs �Earlsferry to Inverkeithig �Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �


� Dunbar � North BerwickOther (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________



________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Q90 If you are unable to fish for this type of fish in this area what is your most likely response?� Same Species in Different Scottish Area� Different Species in Same Scottish Area

211

� Fish outwith Scotland� Would not Fish


Central and Northern ScotlandMain Fishing: 1000 miles of coast including Skye; Sound of Raasay, Torridon; Ullapool; Durness and the North Coast; Scrabster and Thurso; Wick; Helmsdale; Brora; the Dornoch, Cromarty, Beauly and Moray Firths




2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �

Q94 Which of these areas have you fished (from the shore) in the last three years (Tick all that apply)?Skye � Wick to Dornoch �Kyle of Lochalsh to Ullapool � Dornoch to Beauly (inc Black Isle) �Ullapool to Durness � Moray coast to Nairn (Incl Inverness) �Durness to Wick �Other (Please insert) ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �



2005... � � � � � � �2006 � � � � � � �2007 � � � � � � �


� Thurso � Lochinver � Tain� Wick � Dundonnel

212


________________________________________________

________________________________________________



________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Q99 If you are unable to fish for this type of fish in this area what is your most likely response?� Same Species in Different Scottish Area� Different Species in Same Scottish Area� Fish outwith Scotland� Would not Fish


Q101 Please add here any comments you might like to make about sea angling in Scotland and this survey

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your assistance. The results of this project should be available on the Scottish Government web site in early 2009

213

APPENDIX 5

Internet Survey Comments

20 years ago I fished 3 times a week along the coastline from Greenock to Girvan and also a charter several times a year. My fishing declined significantly as did the amount of money I spent due entirely to the fact that fishing stocks were in decline along all of this part of the coast. Where you could possibly have a chance of a fish, however remote that was, once that ex

80% of the time I go fishing I blank

98% of world fish stocks have now been destroyed! It is a bit like slamming the door after the horse has bolted... have a look at www.obanfishing.co.uk & www.skatefishing.co.uk www.tsmvgannet.co.uk A key political point is that many anglers, myself included, now spend most of their "fishing" money abroad (especially in Norway) ONLY because the idiots have allowed inshore stocks around Scotland to be destroyed. I spend several thousand pounds each year on fishing trips abroad, and most anglers I know who are reasonably well off do the same. In Norway, cod are so co A lot of scottish west coast lochs are populated by breeding fish and should be protected from the commercial netting and long liner boats. The Northern and Eastern coasts are populated mainly by undersize fish due to the over fishing of inland coastal waters over many years. The main fishing on Eastern Coatline are for migratory fish such as sea trout, mackerel and cod. W a very good introduction to sea fishing on holiday in Ayre went on the Rachel Claire out of Girvan a brilliant day out.

A very interesting survey, However, I should like to see more done to increase the number of boats available within Scotland and to increase the catch to bring it in line with Iceland.

all anglers need to remember to clean up after themselves as you often hear about birds getting caught up in line and swallowing hooks with baits left on that haven't been cleared away. Although I still go out as often as possible, the number of friends coming with me has reduced over the years due to the lack / smaller size of fish. Numbers of cod in the Forth area have dropped over the years but the biggest change I have noticed has been the drop in average size. Although we fish for many species in one area, there are normally one or two specific targe angling is one of the most popular past times for the the working man to which he/she spends there hard erred cash. it a shame that the fish stock are on a decline as the E.U. polices continue to get it rough with the catching of commercial boat catching over quoter and throwing back dead fish the powers to be need to get a grip before there is no fish left in our waters. Apart from boat fishing I regularly spend time on Mountain Bothies Association workparties and on walking/camping trips. I always take a rod with me on these trips and enjoy catching my own supper on a night. Apart from species such as smouth hound and Tope from the shore, the fishing in Scotland over the last 30 years has declined markablly. In my opinion most of the decline can be put down to commercial fishing.

Appears to be a well set out survey

As a (mainly) shore angler, I would like to see much less inshore commercial fishing for fish species. As an expat Scot working down south I do travel "hame" to see my mates and to go fishing. The Scottish Executive should get involved and look at the American fishing/tourist industry; it is a cash cow to those areas where a) investment has been made and b) the recreational angler is EXPLOITED for the dollars in his wallet that he is willing to part with in order to get a g As my angling experience is gained I plan to spend more money, ie bigger boat to go further and catch specimen fish. Been sea angling for 30 years. Shore and boat fishing trips 30 years ago were very successfull. These days it is a very different story, with catch rates very much down, and smaller fish. Far less charter boats operating than years ago - and the chances of success on a charter boat trip is very poor in my opinion. As these charter boats can be very expensive to own, operate

brill!

bring back 3 mile limit ban the clam and prawn dredgers

Can Always find somewhere to fish in scotland. and it is verry rare to have a blank day. but Fuel costs are going to make alot of anglers think twice about the travelling.

Charter boats are getting less every year i would like to see some sort of help to the local skippers

214

cod fishing from the shore in the north east is on the up Cod fishing that i remember as a kid in the 1970`s on the firth of clyde was superb ! White fish stock`s of all species have been destroyed by greedy commercial fisherman on the clyde and inner lochs making angling for them a waste of time and effort ! Cod has gone from Girvan, I have fished Girvan for 14 years common to catch 6lb - 8lb red cod every trip upto 5 years ago. we might catch 2 or 3 per season. Pollock is still very good in this area but a worry is the publicity from tv cooks about pollock. If the commercial boats start catching pollock angling in this part of scotland is finished. Shut the clyde to all co Considerable potential for developing recreational sea angling(Guiding, Charter Boats) in Western Isles. BUT, risk is too great unless , for example, sea lochs were closed to commercial fishing (notshellfish). Could not believe that mullet did not have a tick box. A hugely important sporting fish, ranked 4th. in importance in a similar survey in England.

Declining fish stocks are the main problem, allowing a small minority to rape the seas killing everything they encounter will lead to declining revenue for the economy throught Scotland. dissapointing in the number of charter & comercial boats that once took anglers out diminishing over the years. This also is built into the fewer number of fish to be caught. To hold a competitoon of note with in excess of 60 anglers, Arbroath offer 5 boats and now only Stromness in Orkney, with the use if boats used for diving can any numbers be achieved. The cost of licen

Do not ignore a growing number of visitors made VERY welcome by the local anglers in a passive hobby that benefits your economy and us as individuals. Thanks

Due to excessive effort by the prawn mobile fleet (trawlers) white fish stocks, those that are targeted by the sea anglers have diminished to near extinction levels. East coast has not fished as well the last 3 years,not the same amount of easterlies,so that part is not filled in.

Everithing we catsh goes back in see accept for bait (mackrel) and maybe a dinner.

Facilities available to sea anglers in the Highlands ie access, quality of boats, ease of dis/embarking are significantly poorer but the quality of the fishing is superior in comparison to other parts. Facilities fior anglers must improve. We are a hardy bunch who spend fortunes on our hobby/sport. The tourist boards need to take account of this to encourage investors to take an interest. There isn't just golf in Scotland! Family events and some ill health have upset my summer routines for the last couple of years. I and my family have fished in Dumfries/Galloway for about 20 years. Summers there are remembered with affection by all. After dinghy fishing/chartering, I bought my own boat-1992. There is no doubt that the fishing grounds are (much) less prolific than formerly. I think too much fantastic coastline but a noticed drop in fish numbers. species like cod, haddock numbers are on the drop while other species like bass, flounders pollack wrasse numbers remain strong while dogfish numbers are going through the roof. fish sizes are down on the past 10 years

Fihing in general has deteiorated over the last 10 15 years. Making it a viable prospect to fish abroad.

fish locally fishing in river forth has increased you can now catch bass and codling easily Fish numbers & sizes are very poor compared to when I started sea fishing almost 40 years ago. It was once possible to catch decent cod, haddock & whiting in the Firth of Clyde, now it is a waste of time. Mackeral shoals are not as dense as they used to be & the fish are much smaller. Once it was usual for mackeral to average around 10 ounces & fish of 1lb to 1.5lbs were no fish stocks are declining in all areas I fish . without inprovement of fish stocks sea fishing will continue to decline as it has done for the last twenty years look at florida MyFWC.com/fishing .florida fish and wildlife conservation commission. to see what can be achieved.

fish stocks are very poor no fish zones should be introduced for all types of fishing comercial and sport its about time the scottish parliament got of their .... and did something abiut this problem Fish stocks must be properly protected as their value is tenfold to an angler than that of a commercial fisherman.

Fishing in Scotland forms part of my holiday experience and it is not just the fishing/tackle trade that benefits. My fishing trips reveal new places to visit which I often return to with my family for leisure. Fishing is better on the west coast than the east, however due to family commitments I can only fish there a couple of times a year. Fishing now is very very poor compared to 20 years ago. Fish are smaller and harder to find especially from fishin from a boat.

215

fishing was spoilt by seals Thay take fish and tackle

Fishing will only improve when inshore commercial is reduces to managable levels fishing within scotland is not as good as it has been over the last few years number of fish have declind drenaticly. I blame over fishing from industrial tralling and so many anglers taking under sized fish home when should be returned. thank you for the oppertunity tow have my say within the sea fishing in ScotlandFor the last 30 years I have been fishing in the Clyde coast from Dumbarton to oban when I was a boy there were lost of sea angling clubs allover Scotland a large number in Glasgow but over the year the fishing got worse manly to letting the big fishing boat into the Clyde estuary taking all the prawns and shell fish you could go out boat fishing and get over 60lb bag of co

fuel cost is beond on joke GOOD SURVEY. DANGER-ACTION MUST BE TAKEN NOW AGAINST THE MOBILE COMERCIAL FLEET BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. THEY ALONE ARE RESPOSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF THE FISH STOCKS. OVER FISHING, BLACK LOADS, DISCARDS. SEA ANGLERS ARE THE ONLY GUARDIANS OF THE SEA. THANK YOU. BAN TRAWLERS NOW.........BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.got to stop the poles and and foreigners taking all they catch home undersized fish very big problem on east coast Have fished at International level for over 30 years at World and Home nations level from both boat and shore and have seen a steady decline in fish stocks and species within our Scottish coastal waters over this time.I have fished all over the world but now do a considerable ammount of fishing in Ireland. This country knows how to protect species and fish numbers and also

Have to go to norway now to catch big fish.

have visited various parts of Scotland for the last few years, the fishing st the moment is still ok although I have noticed a problem in Luce bay with what I believe is dredger damage Having recently resumed sea angling after many years absence, I am alarmed at the lack of fish in the Clyde, I wonder if the Government have any plans to build artificial reefs to put some life back in the Clyde eastury. Having witnessed trawling close inshore near the Mull of Galloway and scallop dreging have a devastating effect upon Luce bay I would like to see areas protected from commercial fishing as well as more catch and return practised wher possible by sea anglers. Hope that you can help maintain the fish population for future generation to enjoy sea fishing within Scotland. Fingers crossed !.

How does this survey compare with the same survey carried out a few years ago in England. I took part in a survey asking the same line of question's? I am concerned that this survey result will see sea anngling made only the preserve of the financially better off and will not tackle tohe loss of fish from netting , plolution and global warming effects ( if it is a real event ) I am also concerned that the results of the suvey will be seized upon by those anti fishing as a way to curtail or stop tyhe common man doing wh I am originally from Helensburgh and as a teenager I fished every shore and boat competition in the Clyde/Gareloch/Loch Long/Loch Fyne/Loch Goil, winning the Scottish Junior Shore Championships and competing in the European Cod Championships from boats. Up to the early eighties we regularly caught cod up to 20lbs, conger eel up to 40lbs, coalfish up to 6lbs, an occasional I am very concerned about the impact of commercial and illegal fishing on inshore fish stocks. The damage commercial and illegal boats cause to the level of fish stocks is not my only concern. The damage caused to the seabed by prawn, shellfish and other seabed trawlers is irreparable. Witness the lack of sizeable fish shoals in the inner Clyde sea lochs as an example. I wo i am very experienced and knowledgable about the availability of angling in scotland and over the last 3 years have seen a rapid decline in the number and quality of sea fish available to catch. this has had a terrible affect on day trip anglers who are just giving up the sport as they can no longer catch fish they might have a few years ago. i would also like it noted that

i am worried that the tope will be a target species for profit I believe sea angling in scotland is a very important part of the economy, one which has for to long been overlooked and dismissed in favour of the commercial fishing industry. i have 2 daughters who both love to fish and see to many youngsters give up on fishing because of the state of the fishing stocks caused by the commercial industry. these kids then go on to hang abou

I competition fish in Cairnryan every year

216

I CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE MORE FISH TO CATCH IN THE SCOTTISH AREA THAN IN MOST OTHER PARTS OF THE UK...MAIN SPECIES I FISH FOR IS COD,LING,POLLACK

i could be very possible that in the next couple of years my fishing will be really curtailed due to the fact of falling fish stocks in the areas mentioned before I enjoy the fishing around luce bay and irish sea, but apart from tope the fish are mainly very small compared to the east and south coasts of england. It would be a tremendous improvement to all concerned if commercial fishing of all kinds were banned from luce bay, i enjoy the fishing i can get to do in the areas of scotland but the stocks are so low theres not enough fish and we think its due to the long liners the fish are not getting a chance to get to mature so i think we need to do something about it like maybe having an anglers permit fee nothing exspencive maybe 50quid a year and put the money to some use in conservation of the

I feel that the government must see that RSA is a more viable alternative to commercial fishing in terms of revnue generated, and should act quickly to conserve our fish stocks! Thank you I feel that there are too few fish around the inner shore. I could have so much more enjoyment if fish were more plentiful and better-sized; in this instance I would get out fishing more. I also feel that Scottish fish are being plundered to dangerously low levels by commercial fishing boats. I would like to see Scotland's lochs and shorelines made into conservation areas w I fish all over Scotland and the UK but till the three mile limit is introduce once more sea angling in Scotland is decreasing as the fish are harder to catch and only experience anglers are catching fish. If you look at fishing clubs you will find the average age will be between 40 & 50. It is very difficult to get juniors to take up fishing due to the computer generation i fish alot at torness power station where alot of bass are situated due to the warm water. alot of eastern europeans fish here not with rods but with nets and take all fish they land including those that are way under size to sell to local restaurants I fish in the Ayrshire area, Troon, Ayr, from shore. Sea Angling (not sea catching) should be encouraged and supported at grass roots level, ie kids. Many fish occasionally and enjoy it regardless of weather and despite poverty. Sea Angling / not catching, should be encouraged for all regardless of sex age or pocket and whether club member or individual. If you've done it y I have a concern that a web based survey is unlikely to reach large numbers of visiting anglers. I fish mainly in the Solway area and reckon over 50% of the anglers fishing on the beaches each weekend have driven up from the North of England.

i have been fishing for 34 years and have noticed a great decline in the clyde estuary in this time also argyle and bute sea lochs seem pretty dead due to illegal trawling which still goes on I have ceased providing recreational angling charters from my own vessel as my location (Stromness) has proved to be too far away for a good patronage of serious sea anglers due to the costs involved travelling to Orkney. Most of my previous charters were made up of holiday makers which were generally to ad hoc. I still fish from the vessel a lot with my friends. Additional I have just recently tried sea fishing from a charter boat and discovered what fun it is. I will certainly sea fish more however I am concerned about the lack of fish in the area as we travelled for hours to reach a spot that trawlers cant reach. i have noticed a decline in my catches over the thirty years that i have been sea fishing and my opion is that there should be no inshore trawling may be the goverment might listen to the vast quantity of voters that go sea fishing atb

I have only started sea fishing as I normally freshwater fish for trout I have recently returned to sea angling after a break of over 30 years (mainly due to 2 sons wanting to go fishing) and was dismayed at the lack of fish in the Clyde estuary and sea lochs where Cod and Haddock were plentiful but are now rarely seen. I remember 30 odd years ago while night fishing for conger on Loch Long- seeing fihing boats trawling the loch all night with

I have seen a drastic decline in the numbers of fish caught in my life time of fishing in Scotland. The main reason is over exploitation by the commercial sector. I say this as an ex commercial fisherman. I hope that common sence will prevail and our precious marine eco system will be protected for over fishing and destructive fishing methods. If we can build a strong fishery within 10 years perhaps anglers from the rest of the United Kingdom will travel to Scotland to fish for something other than Salmon. The way things are going I'll be spending less time in Scotland and I like to fish East Neuk area - lot of Wrasse and codling, flatties and wee Pollack. Always catch and release.I like to fish in the Mull of Galloway Luce Bay because it is a very beautiful area and the local fishermen are very keen to excersise catch and release

217

i love fishing in scotland .sw scotland gets a lot of visiting anglers as does ne scotland. I love my fishing in Luce Bay,I stay in B and B in the area,but I am really concerned about overfishing around our coastline. i love the fishing in scotland(i live in lancashire) but the amount of rubbish that is left makes me ashamed to admit i am an angler(seems to consist mainly of beer cans, fishing line and packaging. something needs to be done to encourage people to take all thier rubbish home with them.it spoils a beautiful country

i mainly fish from the shore around the stranraer area, my main concern is how close in the trawlers get under the cover of darkness,something has to be done about this.also this year i witnessed netting going on at river estuaries surelly such a practice should be made illegal, i also return all the fish i catch

I regularly fish from a charter boat from Eyemouth,

I release all Cod under 18" (unless deeply hooked) and they all seem to swim away!

i spend an abolute fortune while fishing in scotland, much to my wifes annoyance! I think it is long overdue that both the Scottish and English parliaments are looking at how much Sea angling contributes to the economies of our countries. It is also of benefit to peoples well being by encouraging people to get outdoors and also by keeping the younger generation off street corners. The devestation caused by the commercial sector and the disasterous CFP ar i think there is good fishing all round Scotland but we need to protect the inshore waters ie keep the trawlers out further to give the bass ect a chance to spawn and increase the size you are allowed to keep them for eating or maybe just make it all a catch and release i think they should somehow make people take there spare line etc home because i fish at loch long and it is horrible at bits because of the amount of rubbish left by anglers. there were two men and two children at one point thtrowing beer bottles into the water. i counted at least 14 but i am possitive there were more. i think this is a good idea if its going to help scottish fish stocks and reduce the number of commerical fishing vessels that come in shore and wipe out most of the fish especially undersized fish, especially as alot of anglers spent alot of money on equipment I think this is a great survey. I would like to be doing more sea angling, but i am aware (as a young man) that fishing is not what it used to be. Any efforts to assist, regenerate fishing in my local area would be welcome from a personal point of view, but i also believe, on the basis of anecdotal local evidence, that it would provide a valuable injection of money into the I understand some thieving b****** in Whitehall thought it a good wheeze to try and tax me for sea angling. I hope for his/her sake this does not come to fruition-lawyers are very expensive and a good civil service salary is less than my pension. I used to be able to go out from the shore in front of the house and fill a bucket with haddock and cod. I know it wasn't yesterday but the inshore trawlers raped the Clyde and now it's hardly worth fishing except for a go at the sea trout and makerel but the fish farmers are putting paid to the sea trout fishing now, just like the trawlers did, only this sacrelige is affec I used to fish Troon harbour until it was shut for the ferry.The ferry no longer leaves from there but the pier remains closed to the public.The pier used to be full of people fishing from all over the west coast and further afield but is sadly closed.A lot of young people used to fish there and i suppose it kept them off the streets but nowhere for them now. I usually visit Loch Duich once a year to fish in the area - (sea or freshwater). Now I am improving catches with different techniques I would anticipate an increase in my angling activity in Scotland (both freshwater and sea) to cover a wider area and species. Pollack being my first species caught, would move on to rays, tope ,hounds,conger, bass, mackerel, wrasse, dogfish I was invited along to my first sea angling trip yesterday and enjoyed it immensely.With the exception of some Mackerel we used for bait, all fish were returned but the sport of catching the variety of fish was enough to keep me entertained for the full trip. i wish that more anglers would be more aware of the affects of disgaurded rubbish on the enviroment and the wild life I would like to be able to fish in my local area. I would like to see the same if not more numbers of fish and species present in more abundant numbers. I would prefer that fishing for pleasure would not be prohibited due to over fishing due to stock being removed either due to major or minor fish removed for food resources,or worse competitions where they kill the fish and I would like to see far better effort, in trying to preserve fish stocks; Offshore reefs, 'The Golden Mile 'rule applied, preventing commercial fishing within One mile of the shore. I am not opposed to paying a sea fishing licence, provided that these wishes were met. I would also like to see more effort in preventing undersize bass being taken in HUGE numbers from the powe

218

I would like to see more restrictions put in place on inshore commercial fishing, which would boost numbers and species of fish available for RSA's to catch from the shore. Also better access and facilities at popular fishing marks. I would love to find a guide to species and good places to fish around the coast in tourist information - there never seems to be any local knowledge added. You often find that wildlife walks and other tourist attractions are heavily promoted with detailed guides.

i,ve been a keen angler for over forty years now and i,ve watched catches decline over the years and i think the biggest propbelm is greed we take far to much from the sea anglers and trawlers alike

I'd like to be able to fish closer to home on the Clyde Region, but fish have been depleted in this area along with the bottom ecosystem due to trawler activity. if of any interest to your self's on the east coast, from cockenssy power station to north berwick, there are fish that rarely ever get caught, these fish have multiplied over the years to a great amount the fish in question is the "Mullet" most range from 3 half pound upwards, the biggest i have seen is 11 pounder nobody can catch these fish except the lucky few, they are I'm 31 years old, when I was a kid, from about 5 till I was 15 my dad had a boat, we used to go fishing from Gourock, covering down to Largs and also up the 3 lochs on the lower clyde, the Gare loch, Holy loch, and Loch long.....it was not uncommon to catch large Cod.....I own a shop in Gourock, and we sell fishing supplies, including bait, we are the only fishing shop from im a very dedicated angler,but i have noticed fish stocks decline, due to comercials over fishing and gill netters!!which is ruining this wonderful sport. 90%of my catches go back fighting fit as i see this good practice thank you... karl

I'm secretary of Aberdeen Thistle Sea Angling Club (20 members). If you wish to poll Club members please provide paper questionairre (most members not e-enabled) im so dissapointed in the loss of fish in the clyde, fishing is my hobby and i love it, but the lack of sizeable fish is poor. I believe this was caused years ago when the trawllers were allowed into the clyde, and ever since that happened the weed beds etc..have been destroyed! I would like to fish the clyde nowadays for decent fish, like it was 10+ years back. thanks In 2006 I had a book published based upon my experiences of fishing the area around Eyemouth (missing from your survey!)I believe the book has encouraged a new generation of anglers to explore the Borders, greatly increasing the income of those in both the retail and accommodation trades. I am also conscious that there will have been a detrimental effect on the number of fi In general I feel the quality of fishing is going downhill rapidly, lots of species we used to catch in fair numbers are no longer around in the quantities they were, there are also fewer fish off the piers for the kids to catch. Though the current government are paying for this study it doesn't appear they put any value on sea angling, they just favour the commercials. In general,Sea angling in Scotland is hard work,especially from shore,probably down to depleted fish stocks from over-fishing by commercial trawlers.I personally believe,that shore fishing,would hardly impact stock levels,but believe that conservation,and education regarding minimun sizes of species to be taken,is very much needed.Alas, there is an uneducated and uncaring s

In my opinion (And I HAVE fished from the South Atlantic to The far reaches of Russia) Scotland offers some of the most diverse fishing around. And the people are ONLY matched in welcome by the Irish! Increasing petrol prices are forcing me and my fishing colleagues to fish locally more often. TV programmes showing the charter fleet discarding tonnes of fish weekly due to the fact they are too small or the wrong species are very disheartening to watch. Government must rethink current strategy on fish quotas, net sizes etc. More needed from SFPA (or police) to curb under

Inshore trawlers, especially those involved in night fishing, must be more strictly controlled. It appears to me that the commercial fishermen will take every living thing from the sea, without regard to their's or anyone elses future!

it is about time we started to create our own reefs with old cars concrete and other materials to protect the fish and stop the trawlers from cleaning out the bays and inshore waters

it is gettingh worse due to trawlers and nets bein laid out trawlerls are fishing in a three mile radious it is not the sea angler who decimate the fish stocks, its the commercial fishing boats big and small who fish right up to shore.when they should fish at least 15 miles out to preserve shore stocks and improve shore stocks It is time that Scotland instigated inshore protection zones where commercial fisherman are not permitted and sea fish are allowed to breed without being disturbed. The fact that commercial fishing is allowed in inshore waters is Scotlands disgrace. Commercial fishing is based on greed and is one of the few activities that does not put anything back into the industry.

219

it would be better if there was more piers jetties and that so u can go fishing safely with young kids It's fine the way it is. Al these people jumping on a conservation bandwagon will end up ruining it. Less interference the better.

Its getting poorer by the year, due to trawlers and illeagal dumping of rubbish Just a small note is that i fish with 2/3 friends all year round and we return all fish. Thanks Graham Anderson Just want to be left alone to fish with out interference from angling "do-gooders" and the government. I fish to eat. KEEP IT FREE /// NO ROD LICENSE !!! /// ALLOW -10m ROD AND LINE COMMERCIAL FISHING ((1 PERSON)ISSUE SPECIAL NEW LICENSES FOR ALL) LET THE INDIVIDUAL MAKE A LIVING IF HE WANTS, NOT HAVE TO TAKE OUT A BANK LOAN TO BYE ONE FROM SOME PROFITEERING GIT! WHO IS GIVING UP. KEEP IT FREE /// NO ROD LICENSE !!! /// ALLOW -10m ROD AND LINE COMMERCIAL FISHING ((1 PERSON)ISSUE SPECIAL

Lack of fish and survey is too long!! last year the mackerel were posted missing , not much better this year, seems to be more young cod than previous years

list of ports/venues, with fish species/availability.rated poor fair good excelant, time of year for best overall results.local accomodation availability approx costs, boat , bait availability, Local councils and other authoritys like the forestry commission, and land owners are making difficult, if not impossible to access fishing marks by putting up bollards and gates etc. Shops and public places have by law to allow disabled access, so why not councils. Access to remote fishing marks are nye impossible because of distance to walk after parking your car, but now

Love fishing in Scotland lovely part of the world to fish in and quality of fishing far better than in northern ireland. Hope to fish scotland for many years to come Main fishing loch ryan for congers and loch etive for spurdogs. And loch sunart for congers spurdogs and skate. No other fishing done. Major un-tapped asset to the Scottish econemy which if the stocks where protected and managed could be promoted throughout the world, just like golf.However if the over fishing by comercial fishing boats is left unchecked in inshore waters then this potential will be lost forever. More information about marks/bait etc. should be made available for tourists and travelling Scots. Booklets on these subjects are produced by the welsh and irish tourist boards. the survey was too long- i was getting bored and almost switch off.

more places stocking fresh bait eg lug & rag in dumfries & galloway area would be a great help Most of the Scottish sea anglers I know work in well paid responsible jobs, and look to the sport as a vital release from the pressures of the workplace; as they generally cash-rich but time-poor, they spend a lot of time fuelling the fact they can't actually being out there by buying new equipment which they don't really need! We get very annoyed at the lack of control o Most species are becoming increasingly dificult to locate and catch due to commercial over fishing and due to the fact there are very little laws governing pleasure anglers also ( Torness power station bass explotation). Also the general size of fish is becoming smaller. My fishing in Scotland is centred around the Mull Of Galloway with Charter Skipper Ian Burrett, the main species being Tope and Pollack. On occasions I have also travelled to Loch Aline on the Sound Of Mull again with Ian Burrett, the species being large Common Skate. My initial visit was to Ullapool,1964 for European & Scottish Championships. Further visits 1965-1970. Weymss Bay, Rothesay, Arran, Caithness and Orkney all provided me with excellent sport which I was pleased to promote via my journalistic outlets. Visits were then reduced as I travelled to South Africa x 3, The Gambia x 10, New Zealand x 2, Canada x 1, Kenya x 7, Malaya My main target species are edible fish - cod and haddock which have suffered much overfishing by the commercial sector.Most fish caught are juveniles with mature fish rarer each year.Our inshore waters were once plentiful but are now a national disgrace. Despite the lack of fish boat angling remains popular in this region and has probably increased over the past few years a Normaly travel up to Scotland witha view to engage in a spacific type of fishing ie.Giant Skateor Wreck and reef fishing.

Not enough fish.

Not enough fish.

One of the most disappointing elements when shore fishing, particularly from sea lochs is the amount of discarded rubbish. if sea fishing is to be promoted more widely and attract foreign tourists it would be

220

good to tackle this problem and have more enforcement carried out.

Over the past decade I have spent a considerable sum of money on Boat Sea Angling and all the associated costs. Competition Sea Angling contributes a mega income into the Scottish economy year in year out. Sea Angling is a Sport enjoyed by a considerable number of participants on an ongoing basis who are supporting fish conservation in a big way.

over the years i have found that the fishing is get over the years i have notice a decline in the size and amount of sea fish around, i blame the goverment for allowing trawlers to fish were and when they want. norway and america have the right idea, a simply solution do what they do. Perhaps there should have been the option instead of would not fish No point in fishing as these are the bread and butter species of each region when they are gone three will be effectively nothing left. big Cod in the winter was a primary reason for fishing the solway and the clyde in winter 20 years ago now I only fish the clyde for bait and collect bait in the area Personally I have noticed a dramatic decline in the inshore angling around the Scottish Coast. Combined with rising transport costs I can see my sea angling steadily decline as it becomes increasingly difficult to balance the cost with the rewards

Please get rid of the midges

please improve slipway access in SW Scotland

Please keep sea fishing alive in Scotland Please protect the fish. Geoff.

please keep the trawlers away to let the fish grow again Please regulate inshore set gillnets its crazy that these go relatively unregulated. A netter can have kilometeres of net that fish indiscriminately throughout the tide day in day out. Any catch from these nets goes undeclared so no one really knows what these nets take. No one seems to care about the impact they have on our coasts. At the very least there should be a stric Predominantly fished Firth of Clyde and Lochs in Clyde area 25 years ago. Witnessed the demise of the Clyde due to trawelling 25 years ago, it has never recovered.Gave up sea angling for about 15 years and started again about 10 years ago. Now mainly fish competitions in the North East from Kirkcady to Arbroath. Can still catch cod there as the ground is so rough trawellers price of fuel is crippling,we have some of the best fishing in the uk and we must look after it. like to see bass nursery areas around the powerstations and a no fishing zone. better enforcing of minimum sizes of fish Questions are quite "rigid" although I accept that this is the way for surveys of this type. We spent 2-3 hours sea fishing on the east Kyle of Bute where it meets Loch Striven on 2 consecutive days last week and caught 30+ mackerel, returning approximately half of them and eating the rest. Would like to have caught other species, i.e cod/haddock but if there were any there Recreational Sea Angling is being threatened by commercial fishermen in any areas where fish exist in numbers. I am concerned that inshore fish stocks have been depleted over the last 30 years by illegal netting and long lining. The little fish that are left should be protected from commercial fishing so that recreational angling can continue to bring economic benefit to RSA in Scotland needs to be taken more seriously and representatives should be involved in managing fish stocks around our coast,the amount of money spent by RSA in Scotland must be taken into account when deciding on fish managment,commercials only take and very rarely give back to the areas they fish. Scotland has the potential to be one of the Sea Angling capitals of Europe. The variety and scenery is exceptional. Send someone to the USA, Cape Cod or Long Island to see the level of conservation and the resultant millions made from recreational sea angling. [email protected]

Scottish and european commercial fishing vessels have reduced size, number and species available to shore anglers making it less appealing to fish from shore.

SEA ANGLERS IN THIS AREA SUFFERING FROM ILLEGAL TRAWLING TO CLOSE TO SHORE sea angling around the Arran shores has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years. It is no longer a way of islanders to provide food for thier familys and the staple meal of fish is now a exception. Untill the objectives of marine conservetation are realised by the provision of NO Take zones are in place, established to allow protection for spawning and juviniles of the fi sea angling in scotland brings in hoge revenue to local areas such as the European Federation of sea Anglers (EFSA) European boat championships in Stromness, Orkney in 2003 where more than £500,000 went in to the local economy during the festival from 162 international competitors from 16 nations. this is just 1 example of how much money is spent on the biggest sport in bri

221

Sea angling in Scotland is a very diverse sport and there are many anglers who are not part of a club or Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers - I would ask that great effort is made to reach these people and find out their answers and comments. William Kennedy (Former World and British shore champion) Sea angling in scotland is more valuable to the economic structure of the country than commercial fishingSea angling in Scotland is still very good though the inshore gounds are nothing like as good as they once were. Most angling these days is done on a catch and release with few fish kept for the pot. This method is followed by all anglers individual or competition. Good fish need returning and small fish need to breed. We only wish the commercial boats realised that discard

Sea angling in Scotland is the best there is in the U.K. SEa angling in Scotland is very dire in a lot of places and it would be great to see some positive action taken to improve fish stocks around or coast. However drastic action would need to be taken to achieve this, and at present there is serious doubt whether the political will and courage exists to effectively tackle the problem!For a start inshore trawling and scallop dr Sea angling in scotland needs more support from the government,too many trawlers are over fishing these areas,and coming in too close to the shore,especially foreign EU trawlers. If I was unable to fish my way for relaxing and unwinding would be gone,I do spend alot of money on my hobby and would HATE to sea conditions get even worse over the coming years!! Sea angling in Scotland needs to be protected the way it has been in America especially Florida. There needs to be at least a 3 mile exclusion zone to trawlers around the Scottish coast.This would be for British trawlers as I would implement a 50 mile exclusion zone for any foreign boats.Look at Iceland,they protected their waters from British trawlers,now their industry ha Sea angling is a huge part of my life and I devote an awfull lot of my time to persueing this sport. My interests also include conservation of our seas and I think it is not only hugely important that more is done to ensure there is a bright future for Sea angling in Scotland it is also our responsibilty to look after our seas. In other countries such as Norway and Iceland

Sea angling is big business - and provides valuable jobs. It needs Governmental support. Sea angling is in rapid decline due to overfishing, we will only get one chance to try and stop this decline by protcting our fish. We have many sea loch in Scotland that could be used as breading grounds if we were to protect them from commercial fishing, or no take zones. Scotland is a fantastic country that would attract more visitors if we could develope our fishing sto

sea angling is of a massive importance to all of scotland the islands our fore fathers have had this right for ever for free and not another stealth tax as we have already paid the highest price life itself Sea Angling to me has been and still is a great pastime, I have fished for more than 35 years and would hate to be unable to fish from the beaches, I find it recharges my batteries and allows a certain sanity to prevail, no matter the catch achieved if anything the freedom to be able to do this is the most important thing to me and if ever there was a rod licence or any oth Sea angling, like it's counterpart of game angling in Scotland, is a great hobby, that puts a lot back into different communities. I have many friends from England that relish a chance to come north and fish, and they put money into our economy. Sea fishing as most areas of Britain are in decline through overfishing. More conservation areas should be set up, no commercial fishing & catch & release for rod & line anglers to give fish stocks time to recover. Hopefully the survey may bring about changes to stop the decline in fish stocks severe restrictions should be made on commercial over fishing and a no take policy on all shark species introduced Since the removal of the 3 mile inshore limit for trawlers, inshore fishing has undoubtedly deteriorated. My view would be that nursery or safe haven areas should be established where commercial fishing is not allowed. This would allow fish to become re-established in overfished areas benefiting both commercial fishermen and anglers. This would also benefit the local econom

Some of the question where closed and unfair. I think the survey is flawed if you strat to use such questions. Take your "green" hat off and look at practicallities Southwest Scotland has the potential to match Ireland as a Bass Fishery! Think of the millions that would bring to the local economy! YOU MUST PROTECT THE BASS FISHING IN SOUTHWEST SCOTLAND AND MAKE IT ROD AND LINE ONLY! THIS WOULD BE WORTH MILLIONS OF POUNDS TO YOU!!!! Stop the rape of the sea's now! Make Bass a sportsfish! Protect it like you protect Salmon!

222

Started sea fishing again after a 'break' of 34 years. Only got back into it after buying my kids a cheap rod & reel. Been fishing only the last 6 months and I'm totally hooked (as they say). I just keep seeing rods etc that I really want. Spending a small fortune at my local angling shop. Will keep it going now and not give it up again. Still trying to get the kids interes

Stop commercial over fishing! STOPNTHE TRAWLLING FOR PRAWN ON NURSERY GROUNDS AROUND GIRVAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Survey asks for last 3 years then doesnt count 2008

takes all kinds of fishermen to catch in the solway

the angling in Scotland could learn a lesson from the way Norway controls cod fishing this would in crease the fish and the money spent to catch on cod out ways the cost of a net full of undersized fish

the best area,the best fishing,i love the whole place good survay

the beuty of the scottish scenery where ever you fish and the peace and tranquility is stunning to say the least so support you local sea angling clubs and cummunitys .

The catch rate fishing in Scotland has declined over the years and my trips to Scotland will decline along with the fishing. What is the point of all that beautiful coastline and sea if the fishing disappears. The Clyde is a desert due to Commercial trawling. The Forth is becoming a desert because of commercial trawling. Unless you can persuade the gutless cretins, also known as politicians, to take their heads out of their arseholes and see the damage trawling is doing, any survey you do is a total waste of time. Quite simply with no fish in the sea, there will be no anglers. The Clyde is still being completely raped of most species of marine life due to commercial scallop dredgers. Because of this most of my fishing is conducted in either Lochs Fynne or Etive If all fishing on the Clyde (Commercial and sport)was completely banned for five years the Clyde would recover and hopefully could return to the levels of fish stocks we had in the sixties

The continual ignorance and inactivity by our sucessive Governments has led to a decline in angler activity including mine. Something needs to be done to retore the great fishing of the 70's to our waters. the decline in the number of fish being caught is very noticable with in the last ten years. it is almost rare to catch a cod shore fishing from the north east of scotland which is a joke! lack of fish being caught by rob and line is putting of of the future generation of pleasure anglers. this will in the end stat to show through the sales in fishing tackle shops. The general standard of fishing is poor and you need to work hard for results investing time and significant amount of money. The government have no interest in shore angling and are have total disregard for the interest of the shore angling community. I fail to understand why inshore fishing is allowed by a small amount of people to the detriment of sea anglers. Opportunit The inshore trawlers have ruined the West coast for sport anglers. They scoop up everything removing even the feedstock. The main issue in Scotland today is the lack of charter boats availible for anglers to use, I know of instnces i.e. Arbroath were the local government have actualy made it harder for boats to run by not supporting them and unknowingly have reduced the revenue to the local economy. There is a lot of good fishing ground around Scotland if only we had more charter boats availi

The main reason for the lack of fish is the inshore boats that mono gill net at night!!!! The management of areas like Torness and Cockenzie where the juvenile bass population is wiped out every year by anglers selling to restaurants is a disgrace. It has been reported to the authorities time and time again but it's still going on. The politicians need to give quotas over a specific map area per boat - having communal access just drives down conservation standards. Each EU country should only fish their own territorial waters to minimise food miles. Trawling should be banned - anything which disturbs the seabed is anathema. Nets can be designed to catch only medium sized fish - let big productive fema the potential for sea angling in scotland is massive if it is properly maintained and the recreational sea anglers looked after, with restrictions put especially on the commercial landing of baitfish especially Irish International Angler... THE QUALITY OF FISH CAUGHT SEA-ANGLING DETERIATES EVERY YEAR. BACK 20 YEARS AGO YOU HAD TO STOP FISHING FOR HADDOCK AFTER A FEW HOURS THERE WERE SO MANY, NOW YOU ARE LUCKY IF YOU CATCH ONE AT ALL the quality of sea angling in s/w scotland is declining yearly, something must be done to limit commercial fishing, especially more destructive methods such as scallop dredging,in favour of recreational sea angling, which is both sustainable and beneficial to local communities.

the qualiy of fishing is diminishing every year in both numericy of catch and the average weight of

223

catch.

The rapid decline in the fish stock in the firth of clyde and sea lochs over the last 30 years has been dramatic. The sea lochs should be treated as nursery areas and all trawling banned completely. The act of trawling kills the whole of food chain and destroys a huge resource which angling and tourism bring. The placing of artificial reefs to make trawling impossible would THE RECREATIONAL ANGLING PROSPECTS IN SCOTLAND IS A SLEEPING GIANT, SCREAMING FOR A REASON TO BE RE-AWOKEN. WE NEED MORE FISH TO CATCH THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. THE BAD OLD DAYS OF KILLING ALL YOU CATCH ARE GONE NOW AS MOST FISH THAT ARE CAUGHT ARE RETURNED ALIVE TO TRY AND KEEP WHAT IS LEFT OF OUR SPORT ALIVE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. PLEASE HELP OUR CAUSE........... The reduction in the fish stocks, most notably North Sea cod, and the obvious accompanying decline in the sand eel population is worrying. Interesting to note that areas where local charter skippers actively conserve stocks (Ronnie Campbell in Oban working with skate and Ian Burrett in Dumfries with the pollack) do not suffee as badly. Granted, the commercial interest in th THE REMOTENESS OF MANY MARKS COUPLED WITH THE AWE INSPIRING SCENERY IS ONLY DAMPENED BY THE OBVIOUS OVERFISHING AND DECLINE OF MOST SPECIES.ANY ACTIVITY FROM ANY GOVERNMENT BODY THAT ASSISTS IN ASSISTING, SPONSORING OR FUNDING IN ANY WAY CAN ONLY BE A POSSITIVE THING. FISHING MARKS IN SCOTLAND ARE VERY WIDE SPREAD BUT THE FACILITIES EG BAIT, TACKLE AND EQUIPMENT FOR ANGLERS

The resource needs protecting from commercial 'over exploitation' The sea angling Charter boat helps suport five full time employes , and many indirect suport industies such as Hotel, fuel, tackle,bait in our local area of loch Sunart Anual turnover of £150,000 mostly spent localy. the survey seems to be aimed at calculating my expenditure on fishing. What is has missed is that all my holidays are taken with fishing in mind, hence I always holiday in Scotland, usually on the west coast. If stocks are not conserved then there will be little point in holidaying there. Suggest to the government to implement the 'golden mile'!!!!! PROTECT OUR FISH STOCKS There are not enough safe facilities for people of my age. Each year we catch less good fish. I do not think we shall come much longer. There are very few fish left in the Gareloch / Clyde estuary, only mackerel and small amounts of coleys/dab/cod/etc. We at the Gareloch and Lochlong AC usually fish away, using charter boats, mainly from arbroath. The cost of fuel is puting a strain on our resources,eg Charter boat costs have increased dramatically as well as travel costs over the last year.

There has been a considerable decrease in the amount of fish I have caught over the last ten years and also a significant decrease in the size of specimen fish caught There has been a decline in shore angling over the years in Scotland caused by over fishing by commercial fishing boats hopefully this survey will bring this to the governments attention and something will be done to reverse this and preserve the fish for future generations of shore fishermen there have been a great number of surveys on this subject including the Petrie report and still the sport of sea angling falls way short of the interest of the powers to be considering the amout of money spent on it It is a large part of the out of season tourest market there is a big decline in fish numbers and size olso the clyde coast is fished out due to inshore fishing boatsthere is a big decline in fish numbers and size olso the clyde coast is fished out due to inshore fishing boatsThere is a differnece between the occasional mackerel fishermen (like me) who might put out a creel or two as well(like me also)and the self-appointed spokesmen for sea angling, who are all too aften pseudo environmenatlists with an anti commercial fisheries agenda There is a differnece between the occasional mackerel fishermen (like me) who might put out a creel or two as well(like me also)and the self-appointed spokesmen for sea angling, who are all too aften pseudo environmenatlists with an anti commercial fisheries agenda There is a fine balance between what anglers are prepared to spend and what rewards sport and/or catch-wise that they get. The signicant rise in fuel costs experienced by everyone in all walks of life will itself eventually start to hit hard and curtail sea angling activity, especially boat angling. The reduction in the number of fish in the sea and especially the lack of l There is a fine balance between what anglers are prepared to spend and what rewards sport and/or catch-wise that they get. The signicant rise in fuel costs experienced by everyone in all walks of life will itself eventually start to hit hard and curtail sea angling activity, especially boat angling. The reduction in the number of fish in the sea and especially the lack of l

224

there is a huge potentual for sea angling in scotland which has to be managed ,we should take lessons from other countrys make artificial reefs from old ships nursery areas no take areas and rod licenses, in the past there were huge stocks of fish which were plundered commercialy and the anglers seen the destruction of these fish stocks we brought it to the attention of t there is a huge potentual for sea angling in scotland which has to be managed ,we should take lessons from other countrys make artificial reefs from old ships nursery areas no take areas and rod licenses, in the past there were huge stocks of fish which were plundered commercialy and the anglers seen the destruction of these fish stocks we brought it to the attention of t There is a need for a readily accessible online gazetteer of coastal fishing marks highlighting, species, bait and recommended tackle. There is a need for a readily accessible online gazetteer of coastal fishing marks highlighting, species, bait and recommended tackle. There is far more going on than is officially realised. There is also much by individuals who are not commercial. Much of the fish caught and certainly over 60% of what I catch goes as gift to neighbours. Frequently, I will deliver to six houses after a trip. There is far more going on than is officially realised. There is also much by individuals who are not commercial. Much of the fish caught and certainly over 60% of what I catch goes as gift to neighbours. Frequently, I will deliver to six houses after a trip. There is tremendous potential resource that is potentially wasted as some species are relatively unique to Scotland and yet they are given little or no pretection and there is no effort to market them to anglers. i.e. Common Skate and Spurdog on west coast, Tope in SW and Porbeagle in the north. The Irish government and Welsh assembly and now actively marketing sea anglin There is tremendous potential resource that is potentially wasted as some species are relatively unique to Scotland and yet they are given little or no pretection and there is no effort to market them to anglers. i.e. Common Skate and Spurdog on west coast, Tope in SW and Porbeagle in the north. The Irish government and Welsh assembly and now actively marketing sea anglin there is very little fish off troon now,and no cod in the last 5 years i think the fishing boots have cleaned the bay out

This is probably the most badly worded survey i have ever encountered - and it's especially hard as a tourist that fishes in Scotland and is then unfamiliar with all of the areas. thursday 5thjuly armadale pier fishing first thing at dawn only caught 20 mackrel from pier but on 6th july at dawn a total explosion in the water of mackrel in a feeding frenzy and a basking shark was feeding for about 40 minutes plus 6 minky whales feeding away To get good fishing I have to travel, closest good fishing areas (boat and shore) are at Oban (West) and Arbroath (east)- your survey did not appear to iclude Arbroath. Best areas are Thurso and Orkney and I travel to these areas frequently to boat fish . If fishing was banned in any or all of of these areas it would not be a question of fishing overseas, I would EMIGRATE

To many scallop boats destroying the sea bed have seen boats with young flounders lying on boat deck dead . Solway used to be very good for flounders but very scarce now

To Many trawlers with nets fishing inside the 3mile limit

underestimate the rod and line anglers worth at your peril !

undertake less sea fishing now due to disability

used to fish solway coast in winter have stopped goin due to no fish being caught fish aberdeen coast in winter for cod size of fish much smaller now amount of fish caught falling every year

Very difficult to find ports with two boats which we re quire for our competitions. Used to fish often at Ayr and Gourock but these areas seem to be devoid of both boats and fish. Very important to understand the effect of seasons on where I fish (and most other reasonably serious anglers): May - September - First choice is boat fishing Dumfries and Galloway for the range and quality of species, especially tope and smoothhound. Second choice is boat fishing the east coast for codling (there are no cod left!). If I didn't live here I wouldn't bother We have noticed a worryingly long term decline in the number, size and range of species available, particularly throughout the west coast, although cod seems to be more prevalent over the last year or two on the east coast, where we (myself and two friends) come up for a day or so rock fishing on the east coast. My love of fishing in Scotland began on our first holiday o

we love it but only go out on casual basis with children for fun We need more launching areas for small boats, better control of inshore fisheries -trawler free zones, - within sea lochs better marketing for scotland as a sea angling destination - we are not looking after this resource

225

When i fished with onyermarks in luce bay it was one of the best charter trips i have taken (baring in mind i go all over inc norway and ireland)the quality of local info local hospitality and accomadation were also very high not to mention the quality and variety of fish all in all a very good experiance thank youWhile I've not made any trips to Scotland specifically to fish, it's a significant part of family holidays and the availability of fishing affects the choice of holiday location. Or at least it does when I'm choosing our holidays... I live in north east England and I'd probably also be more inclined to make short day trips to the Mull of Galloway and up the coast to St Abb Why no box to tick for eating in restaurants or hotels? Do you believe that all sea anglers only eat in pubs or cafes? Why no questions about which countries we now use for sea angling. If you asked questions about how much we spent abroad you would understand the amount of cash lost to Scottish sea angling. Cash that once upon a time was spent at home before the seas w wish 3 mile limit would be restored and conservation area implemented in upper clyde from cumbrae north as far as loch fyne exemptingprawn and trawl boats to enable the bottom dwellers to grow again and create a nursery environment for many species of fish. With the decline in fishing stocks on my native north east coast of england, the fishing in scotland is so much more attractive than standing for hours on end over here without a fish, as we can expect to catch fish (or at least we know there is a chance of them) Fishing the home coast here results in a few undersized fish. Fishing the west coast of scotland, there apopear Without the Charter boats, especially the specialist charters fishing for Tope Skate etc, fishing in Scotland would decline drasticly. without the oppotunity to fish successfully in ther laga bay area/Lock Sunart I would not come here for my family holiday. Including fuel, accomodation and fod, eating out, local purchases and boat charter/trips I spent £1500 in one week (family of four) worry about the declining stocks of every species and the destruction caused by boats dredging the sea bed for shellfish Would like to think that with proper conservation the fishing around scotland could be vastly improved. Educating the anglers (some of them) would improve the image of sea fishing. Beach cleaning + positive pr would help. You could have a world class recreational fishery if the commercials didn't slaughter everything, the size of fish landed at peterhead now is a disgrace. they are using larger vessels to catch more, smaller fish because they need to catch more fish just to pay for the catching of them: pay for the vessel, fuel, gear etc - a £5 million boat needs A LOT of 10" whiting/hake/haYou have to be a dedicated angler to catch lots of different species, fish can be scarce its only alot of time, experiance and money that produce good results, There should be more areas in scotland where commercial fishing should not be allowed We the recreational anglers put alot of money into this country only to have the piss taken out us from the government by allowi You have to be a dedicated angler to catch lots of different species, fish can be scarce its only alot of time, experiance and money that produce good results, There should be more areas in scotland where commercial fishing should not be allowed We the recreational anglers put alot of money into this country only to have the piss taken out us from the government by allowi

APPENDIX 6

Stakeholder Questionnaires

CHARTER BOAT TELEPHONE SURVEY

My name is ____________ and I am calling from Glasgow Caledonian University. We are undertaking a study on behalf of the Scottish Government into sea angling. The study is looking at the numbers of people involved, where they fish, what they spend and the number of businesses and jobs that are in some way dependent on sea angling. I am sure you will appreciate that sea angling charter boat operators are of particular interest to us, and I would be very grateful if I could have a few minutes of your time and ask you a number of questions. All your answers will be treated in the strictest confidence and individual businesses will not be identifiable in the final report. CONFIRM CONTACT DETAILSPORT VESSEL OWNER 1. What species do your anglers fish for? ___________________________

226

2. Does the species targeted vary over the season?___________________ 3. How many days per season do you manage to fish? ______days 4. What % of your anglers are visitors to the region? ______% 5. What % of your anglers are visitors to Scotland? ______% 6. What % of your anglers are under 18 years old? ______% 7. How many FTE’s are employed in the charter business? ______FTEs 8. What is the boat capacity? ______ anglers 9. On an average charter, how many angers are in the boat? ______ anglers 13. In terms of the number of anglers and charter boats operating

from your port, what do you think were the peak years? ______ 14. How do the numbers currently operating from your port compare with the peak years

identified above? ______________________________________15. In your view, what are the principal reasons for the change in the number of anglers between

the peak years and today?

16. In your view what are the current prospects for charter boat operators across Scotland?

17. In your view, what can be done to improve these prospects? (e.g. marketing, slipways, harbour facilities, habitat protection etc).

18. Could you please give the names of other charter operators in your home port

227

STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

Dear Sea Angling Stakeholder

I am writing to ask for your assistance in connection with a Scottish Government funded study into sea angling. At the moment, policy towards sea angling in Scotland has been hindered because little is known about the full extent of Scottish sea angling and its economic impact. Fortunately, the Scottish Government is seeking to redress this situation by funding a team of economists from Glasgow Caledonian University to produce an economic assessment of sea angling in Scotland.

This study is strongly supported by all Scottish sea angling bodies. Indeed, all such bodies are represented by the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network(www.ssacn.org) on the Committee which oversees the planning and execution of this study.

In order to successfully complete this work, the team have been undertaking a number of surveys. These have included a telephone survey of 14,000 Scottish households which was designed to estimate the numbers engaged in sea angling, and an on-line questionnaire aimed at establishing how much individual anglers spend. In addition, we are surveying charted boat operators and key individuals in five case study areas.

Whilst, you may have already contributed to one or more of these surveys, we would like your assistance with one further dimension of our work. It is crucial that we obtain the views of key stakeholders whose opinions and judgement derive from wide experience and extensive knowledge about Scottish sea angling. Among others, our list of (50) key stakeholders includes; anglers, club secretaries, representatives from the Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers, charter skippers, journalists, tackle suppliers and biologists. We have been given your name and contact details and would be very grateful of you would think about the questions below.

Our intention is to ask you to address these questions as part of a telephone survey and we will be contacting you in due course. In the meantime, you might wish to think about how you would answer these questions. You may feel that your particular knowledge and expertise is not relevant to some questions. If so, please let us know and concentrate of those questions where you can make a contribution to our understanding of sea angling. Some of the questions are asking you to estimate percentages and we recognise that you will be making an informed judgement. Given your experience, even if you feel uncomfortable, we still value your judgement and, unless your particular knowledge is clearly not relevant, we would like you to provide the estimates requested.

As an alternative to spending time on the telephone, you may prefer to complete the questions below and either email to [email protected] or post to Division of Public Policy, Caledonian Business School, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens, G4 0BA.

228

SEA ANGLING IN SCOTLAND – STAKEHOLDER OPINION

1. What would you regard as the most important areas/hot spots for shore angling in Scotland? Using judgement and your own criteria please try and list (a maximum of 10) areas in order of importance.

2. What are the most important areas/ports for own boat/charter sea angling in Scotland? Using judgement and your own criteria please try and list (a maximum of 10) areas/ports in order of importance.

3. What are the main alternative sea angling centres overseas which compete with Scottish sea angling?

SHORE ANGLING.

4. On average, what percentage of sea anglers fishing from the shore are under 18 years old?

5. On average, what percentage of sea anglers fishing from the shore are visitors from outside Scotland?

6. In terms of the numbers participating in sea angling from the shore what do you think were the peak years in Scotland?

7. How do the numbers currently participating in sea angling from the shore, compare with the peak years identified above?

8. In your view, what are the principal reasons for the change in the number of shore anglers between the peak years and today?

9. In your view what are the current prospects for shore angling in Scotland?

10. In your view, what can be done to improve these prospects? (e.g. marketing, access, parking, habitat protection etc)

OWN OR FRIEND’S BOAT ANGLING (Please ignore charter boat angling)

11. On average, what percentage of sea anglers fishing from the own/friends’ boat are under 18 years old?

12. On average, what percentage of sea anglers fishing from own/friends’ boat are visitors from outside Scotland?

13. In terms of the numbers participating, what do you think were the peak years in Scotland for own/friends’ boat angling?

229

14. How do the numbers currently participating in sea angling from their own/friends’ boat compare with the peak years identified above?

15. In your view, what are the principal reasons for the change in the number of anglers between the peak years and today?

16. In your view what are the current prospects for own/friends’ boat angling in Scotland?

17. In your view, what can be done to improve these prospects? (e.g. marketing, slipways, moorings, habitat protection etc).

230

On –Site Survey

Good morning(Afternoon)

I wonder if you could assist. As you may know, the Scottish Sea Angling Federation

persuaded the Scottish Government to fund research into the economic importance of sea

angling. As a result of our previous work on Freshwater Angling we have been asked to

carry out this research. We have already completed a survey of over 12,000 Scots to establish

the total number of Scottish sea anglers and their basic characteristics. We are now trying to

establish what this means in terms of expenditure via an internet based survey. We are also

seeking to add more understanding of sea angling by examining specific areas in more depth

and this area [Show map] (Upper Clyde) has been selected as an area (that used to have very

large numbers of sea anglers but now seems to have far fewer). If you are willing I should be

very grateful if you could provide some information about you and your angling

Age

Gender

Post Code

Target Species

Days/Part Days spent sea fishing locally

Days/Part Days spent sea fishing in Scotland outside local area

Expenditure on equipment this year

Expenditure on a typical day, on transport, food etc.

What would you do if you could not fish in this area? (ring)

Fish elsewhere in Scotland

Fish outside Scotland

Do something else in area

Do something else outside area

231

APPENDIX 7

GIS PROCEDURES

The assessment of populations and coast line length was undertaken using Arc-GIS software, combined with Scottish outline map from UK Borders map library, the DataZone map in Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics database and the 2006 population estimates by Data Zone from the SNS database. Final procedures were as follows

1. The data zone estimates for 10-14, 14-19 and ALL ages were downloaded as a csv file from SNS and converted to a dbf file within Excel.

2. The .shp map of the data zone was downloaded and added to a new map in Arc-GIS. 3. The ,dbf file was added to the map and joined with the data-zone map. 4. Population estimates for the age classes were obtained using the statistics option in

the attribute file.5. Data Zones on the mainland were selected using the selection tool. It should be

noted that on occasions, most notably the Small Isles and the Summer Isles, the relevant data zone on the mainland incorporated very small population islands (the total population of the whole zone is less than 150). The population of the selected mainland areas was obtained from the selected items in the attribute table.

6. Two features were created; the coastline of the mainland and the Scotland England Border, using the sketch tool option in the Arc-GIS editor. (Note that this required definition in Arc-Catalog and loading into Arc-Map)

7. The total length of the coastline and the borders was estimated from the attribute table after defining and calculating the lengths of each segment.

8. The total length for the islands was obtained from the Scotland Outline map downloaded from UK Borders map library. This was unfortunately not possible for the mainland because the relevant feature included inland waters and the border. On the other hand each island is an individual feature.

9. The Selection by Location tool on the Arc-Map main menu provides a means of identifying any data zone within a buffer zone of specified width for a specified feature This was done for 1, 2, 5 10 and 25km buffers of the Coastline feature. The statistics for the selected data zones was obtained from the attribute table.

10. Finally population data for the islands was obtained by subtraction.

232

233

APPENDIX 8 DREAM Output

Region: Argyll and LochaberHelensburgh

and LomondGlasgow Home

Survey results

Components of spending

Fuel Food Shops Food Pub Bait Other CharterAccommodati

onBoats Rods Clothing Books Total

£3,440,400 £1,236,755 £889,266 £1,227,784 £1,123,179 £998,773 £791,601 £746,076 £1,464,242 £603,254 £288,046 £12,809,376

26.9% 9.7% 6.9% 9.6% 8.8% 7.8% 6.2% 5.8% 11.4% 4.7% 2.2% 100.0%

Total effective

spendRetail margins Wholesale margins

VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all Argyll

and Lochaber

producers

Falling on all

Helensburgh and

Lomond producers

Falling on all

Glasgow producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK

producersImports EU Imports RoW

£12,809,376 £2,166,674 £604,245 £2,913,354 £9,896,022 £4,481,900 £1,920 £85,239 £1,244,833 £1,554,909 £7,368,801 £1,265,227 £1,261,993

100.0% 16.9% 4.7% 22.7% 77.3% 35.0% 0.0% 0.7% 9.7% 12.1% 57.5% 9.9% 9.9%

Type 1 multiplier analysis ( business-to-business supply chain) (£000's)

Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output

multiplierDirect jobs Total jobs

Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Argyll and Lochaber £4,482 £1,431 £53 £5,966 1.331 214 248 1.160 19.4 £3,789 £15,264

Rest of Scotland £1,332 £848 £416 £2,596 12 31 £1,104 £35,142

Scotland £5,814 £2,278 £469 £8,562 1.473 226 280 1.236 21.8 £4,893 £17,497

Rest of UK £1,555 £833 £1,113 £3,500 15 36 £1,534 £42,941

UK £7,369 £3,111 £1,582 £12,062 1.637 241 315 1.308 24.6 £6,427 £20,379

Type 2 multiplier analysis (supply chain plus spending of all who work in it and consequent supply chains) ($000's)

Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated


Rest of Scotland £1,332 £1,149 £1,738 £4,219 12 44 £1,433 £32,908

Scotland £5,814 £4,172 £2,625 £12,610 2.169 226 308 1.360 24.0 £5,579 £18,124

Rest of UK £1,555 £1,246 £3,469 £6,269 15 51 £2,137 £42,092

UK £7,369 £5,417 £6,094 £18,880 2.562 241 359 1.487 28.0 £7,716 £21,517

Neighbouring regions:

Total spend

£12,809,376


Bait, 9.6%

Charter, 7.8%

Other, 8.8%Food Pub,

6.9%

Fuel, 26.9%

Food Shops, 9.7%

Boats, 5.8%

Accommodation, 6.2%

Clothing, 4.7%

Books, 2.2%Rods, 11.4%

Employment generation - supply chain and incomes within it

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Argyll and Lochaber

Type 2 job multipliers

Argyll and Lochaber:1.23

Scotland:1.36 UK:1.49

Employment generation - supply chain

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Argyll and Lochaber




234

Region: Argyll and LochaberHelenburgh

and LomondEdinburgh Scotland

Survey results




£487,682 £1,325,310 £1,321,801 £1,374,357 £1,008,362 £404,543 £2,231,450 £425,091 £320,907 £43,305 £47,727 £8,990,536

5.4% 14.7% 14.7% 15.3% 11.2% 4.5% 24.8% 4.7% 3.6% 0.5% 0.5% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on all

Helenburgh and

Lomond producers

Falling on all

Edinburgh

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£8,990,536 £1,309,299 £398,779 £1,136,065 £7,854,471 £4,988,197 £615 £43,752 £565,844 £863,458 £6,461,866 £671,202 £721,403

100.0% 14.6% 4.4% 12.6% 87.4% 55.5% 0.0% 0.5% 6.3% 9.6% 71.9% 7.5% 8.0%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated


Rest of Scotland £610 £349 £278 £1,237 7 17 £510 £30,239

Scotland £5,598 £1,635 £336 £7,569 1.352 234 277 1.183 30.8 £4,852 £17,508

Rest of UK £863 £443 £689 £1,996 9 23 £854 £37,678

UK £6,462 £2,078 £1,026 £9,565 1.480 243 300 1.231 33.3 £5,705 £19,033

Type 2 multiplier analysis (supply chain plus spending of all who work in it and consequent supply chains) (£000's)

Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated


Rest of Scotland £610 £482 £1,139 £2,232 7 25 £732 £29,318

Scotland £5,598 £3,529 £2,122 £11,250 2.010 234 303 1.294 33.7 £5,468 £18,050

Rest of UK £863 £672 £2,396 £3,932 9 34 £1,301 £38,532

UK £6,462 £4,201 £4,519 £15,182 2.349 243 337 1.383 37.5 £6,770 £20,104


Total spend

£8,990,536


Bait, 15.3%

Charter, 4.5%

Other, 11.2%

Food Pub, 14.7%

Fuel, 5.4%

Food Shops, 14.7%

Boats, 4.7%

Accommodation, 24.8%

Clothing, 0.5%

Books, 0.5%

Rods, 3.6%


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Argyll and Lochaber





0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Argyll and Lochaber




235

Region: Argyll and LochaberHelensburgh

and LomondGlasgow RUK

Survey results




£1,658,029 £597,334 £1,321,801 £777,223 £609,474 £240,775 £1,649,708 £1,174,633 £1,811,208 £863,464 £890,398 £11,594,047

14.3% 5.2% 11.4% 6.7% 5.3% 2.1% 14.2% 10.1% 15.6% 7.4% 7.7% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on all

Helensburgh and

Lomond producers

Falling on all

Glasgow producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£11,594,047 £2,176,797 £622,014 £2,077,401 £9,516,646 £5,283,292 £2,255 £88,015 £725,502 £1,377,259 £7,476,322 £775,378 £1,264,946

100.0% 18.8% 5.4% 17.9% 82.1% 45.6% 0.0% 0.8% 6.3% 11.9% 64.5% 6.7% 10.9%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated


Rest of Scotland £816 £476 £307 £1,598 8 20 £698 £34,279

Scotland £6,099 £1,939 £365 £8,403 1.378 263 311 1.183 26.8 £5,271 £16,946

Rest of UK £1,377 £637 £864 £2,879 16 33 £1,304 £39,671

UK £7,476 £2,576 £1,229 £11,282 1.509 279 344 1.234 29.7 £6,575 £19,118


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Argyll and Lochaber £5,283 £3,351 £1,044 £9,679 1.832 254 310 1.217 26.7 £4,995 £16,132

Rest of Scotland £816 £677 £1,413 £2,906 8 31 £982 £31,849

Scotland £6,099 £4,029 £2,456 £12,584 2.063 263 340 1.295 29.4 £5,978 £17,555

Rest of UK £1,377 £1,057 £3,070 £5,505 16 47 £1,887 £39,812

UK £7,476 £5,086 £5,527 £18,089 2.420 279 388 1.392 33.5 £7,864 £20,275


Total spend

£11,594,047


Bait, 6.7%

Charter, 2.1%

Other, 5.3%

Food Pub, 11.4%

Fuel, 14.3%

Food Shops, 5.2%

Boats, 10.1%


Clothing, 7.4%

Books, 7.7%

Rods, 15.6%


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Argyll and Lochaber





0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Argyll and Lochaber




236

Region: Dumfries and GallowayScottish

BordersEast Cumbria Home

Survey results




£451,227 £130,779 £167,407 £176,419 £119,994 £169,454 £131,135 £115,091 £64,878 £24,678 £49,366 £1,600,427

28.2% 8.2% 10.5% 11.0% 7.5% 10.6% 8.2% 7.2% 4.1% 1.5% 3.1% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Dumfries and

Galloway

producers

Falling on all

Scottish Borders

producers

Falling on all East

Cumbria producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£1,600,427 £188,185 £59,971 £365,557 £1,234,870 £413,053 £5,747 £5,631 £350,783 £468,612 £1,243,825 £214,256 £142,345

100.0% 11.8% 3.7% 22.8% 77.2% 25.8% 0.4% 0.4% 21.9% 29.3% 77.7% 13.4% 8.9%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Dumfries and Galloway £413 £233 £10 £655 1.586 14 18 1.334 11.4 £265 £14,441

Rest of Scotland £357 £294 £118 £768 2 2 £335 £154,596

Scotland £770 £527 £127 £1,424 1.850 16 20 1.294 12.8 £599 £29,249

Rest of UK £474 £338 £447 £1,260 4 23 £562 £24,911

UK £1,244 £865 £575 £2,684 2.157 20 43 2.200 26.9 £1,161 £26,974


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Dumfries and Galloway £413 £368 £88 £869 2.104 14 19 1.418 12.2 £291 £14,969

Rest of Scotland £357 £344 £360 £1,060 2 2 £389 £177,325

Scotland £770 £712 £447 £1,929 2.507 16 22 1.369 13.5 £681 £31,420

Rest of UK £474 £447 £1,205 £2,126 4 32 £774 £24,259

UK £1,244 £1,159 £1,652 £4,055 3.260 20 54 2.736 33.5 £1,454 £27,155


Total spend

£1,600,427


Bait, 11.0%

Charter, 10.6%

Other, 7.5% Food Pub, 10.5%

Fuel, 28.2%

Food Shops, 8.2%

Boats, 7.2%

Accommodation, 8.2%

Clothing, 1.5%



0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland



Dumfries and Galloway:1.42



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland





237


BordersEast Cumbria Scotland

Survey results




£451,478 £1,141,799 £1,145,063 £1,156,346 £848,662 £282,800 £2,035,607 £34,814 £26,281 £3,547 £3,909 £7,130,307

6.3% 16.0% 16.1% 16.2% 11.9% 4.0% 28.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Dumfries and

Galloway

producers

Falling on all

Scottish Borders

producers

Falling on all East

Cumbria producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£7,130,307 £933,377 £289,654 £916,277 £6,214,030 £4,161,649 £25,343 £24,712 £395,753 £727,020 £5,334,477 £412,913 £466,640

100.0% 13.1% 4.1% 12.9% 87.1% 58.4% 0.4% 0.3% 5.6% 10.2% 74.8% 5.8% 6.5%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Dumfries and Galloway £4,162 £2,030 £86 £6,277 1.508 170 208 1.221 29.1 £2,832 £13,645

Rest of Scotland £421 £273 £383 £1,077 5 5 £451 £82,094

Scotland £4,583 £2,302 £469 £7,354 1.605 175 213 1.217 29.9 £3,282 £15,408

Rest of UK £752 £483 £1,478 £2,713 8 61 £1,189 £19,415

UK £5,334 £2,785 £1,947 £10,067 1.887 183 274 1.497 38.5 £4,471 £16,303


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated


Rest of Scotland £421 £339 £1,113 £1,874 5 6 £635 £111,461

Scotland £4,583 £3,886 £2,044 £10,513 2.294 175 226 1.290 31.7 £3,761 £16,655

Rest of UK £752 £659 £4,768 £6,179 8 101 £2,165 £21,478

UK £5,334 £4,545 £6,813 £16,692 3.129 183 327 1.783 45.8 £5,926 £18,144


Total spend

£7,130,307


Bait, 16.2%

Charter, 4.0%

Other, 11.9%

Food Pub, 16.1%

Fuel, 6.3%

Food Shops, 16.0%

Boats, 0.5%


Clothing, 0.0% Books, 0.1%

Rods, 0.4% Employment generation - supply chain and incomes within it

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland






0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland





238


BordersEast Cumbria RUK

Survey results




£5,286,871 £1,904,686 £1,145,063 £2,478,291 £1,943,399 £929,354 £5,260,338 £3,695,628 £5,698,422 £2,716,630 £2,801,369 £33,860,052

15.6% 5.6% 3.4% 7.3% 5.7% 2.7% 15.5% 10.9% 16.8% 8.0% 8.3% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Dumfries and

Galloway

producers

Falling on all

Scottish Borders

producers

Falling on all East

Cumbria producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£33,860,052 £6,872,454 £1,964,622 £6,203,587 £27,656,465 £14,089,518 £72,543 £114,647 £2,194,065 £5,071,796 £21,542,569 £2,238,986 £3,874,910

100.0% 20.3% 5.8% 18.3% 81.7% 41.6% 0.2% 0.3% 6.5% 15.0% 63.6% 6.6% 11.4%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated


Rest of Scotland £2,267 £1,597 £1,391 £5,255 21 23 £2,316 £102,889

Scotland £16,356 £8,163 £1,667 £26,186 1.601 616 741 1.203 21.9 £12,392 £16,720

Rest of UK £5,186 £3,103 £6,236 £14,525 59 326 £6,610 £20,305

UK £21,543 £11,266 £7,903 £40,712 1.890 675 1,067 1.580 31.5 £19,001 £17,814


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Dumfries and Galloway £14,090 £11,487 £3,013 £28,589 2.029 595 759 1.277 22.4 £11,031 £14,525

Rest of Scotland £2,267 £2,076 £4,470 £8,813 21 23 £3,100 £133,357

Scotland £16,356 £13,563 £7,483 £37,402 2.287 616 783 1.270 23.1 £14,132 £18,055

Rest of UK £5,186 £4,647 £20,487 £30,321 59 499 £10,860 £21,745

UK £21,543 £18,210 £27,971 £67,723 3.144 675 1,282 1.899 37.9 £24,991 £19,492


Total spend

£33,860,052


Bait, 7.3%

Charter, 2.7%

Other, 5.7%

Food Pub, 3.4%

Fuel, 15.6%

Food Shops, 5.6%

Boats, 10.9% Accommoda

tion, 15.5%

Clothing, 8.0%

Books, 8.3%

Rods, 16.8%


0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland






0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland





239

Region: West CentralArgyll and

Lochaber

Dumfries and

Galloway Home

Survey results




£6,940,382 £2,792,187 £2,307,290 £3,482,720 £2,511,143 £1,619,104 £1,113,155 £1,565,705 £3,304,922 £1,270,390 £1,093,951 £28,000,950

24.8% 10.0% 8.2% 12.4% 9.0% 5.8% 4.0% 5.6% 11.8% 4.5% 3.9% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all West

Central producers


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on all

Dumfries and

Galloway

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£28,000,950 £5,145,194 £1,483,993 £6,051,945 £21,949,005 £12,966,838 £176,347 £138,580 £1,981,478 £2,989,983 £18,253,226 £1,855,592 £1,840,186

100.0% 18.4% 5.3% 21.6% 78.4% 46.3% 0.6% 0.5% 7.1% 10.7% 65.2% 6.6% 6.6%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

West Central £12,967 £5,025 £2,063 £20,055 1.547 396 514 1.299 18.4 £11,419 £22,218

Rest of Scotland £2,296 £1,662 £496 £4,454 21 52 £1,816 £34,752

Scotland £15,263 £6,687 £2,559 £24,509 1.606 416 566 1.360 20.2 £13,235 £23,375

Rest of UK £2,990 £1,841 £2,410 £7,241 29 74 £3,147 £42,595

UK £18,253 £8,528 £4,970 £31,751 1.739 445 640 1.438 22.9 £16,382 £25,594


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

West Central £12,967 £9,529 £9,287 £31,782 2.451 396 599 1.515 21.4 £13,687 £22,844

Rest of Scotland £2,296 £1,997 £3,627 £7,921 21 76 £2,647 £34,631

Scotland £15,263 £11,525 £12,914 £39,703 2.601 416 676 1.623 24.1 £16,334 £24,178

Rest of UK £2,990 £2,597 £8,228 £13,815 29 113 £4,721 £41,895

UK £18,253 £14,122 £21,142 £53,518 2.932 445 788 1.771 28.2 £21,055 £26,711


Total spend

£28,000,950


Bait, 12.4%

Charter, 5.8%

Other, 9.0%Food Pub,

8.2%

Fuel, 24.8%

Food Shops, 10.0%

Boats, 5.6%

Accommodation, 4.0%

Clothing, 4.5%



0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

West Central


West Central:1.51 Scotland:1.62

UK:1.77


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

West Central



UK:1.44

240


Lochaber

Dumfries and

Galloway Scotland

Survey results




£50,038 £103,965 £104,563 £97,385 £60,288 £12,510 £200,402 £991,586 £748,561 £101,016 £111,329 £2,581,643

1.9% 4.0% 4.1% 3.8% 2.3% 0.5% 7.8% 38.4% 29.0% 3.9% 4.3% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all West

Central producers


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on all

Dumfries and

Galloway

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£2,581,643 £624,154 £171,381 £378,571 £2,203,073 £1,228,855 £5,903 £4,103 £87,702 £428,754 £1,755,317 £188,120 £259,636

100.0% 24.2% 6.6% 14.7% 85.3% 47.6% 0.2% 0.2% 3.4% 16.6% 68.0% 7.3% 10.1%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

West Central £1,229 £448 £181 £1,858 1.512 41 51 1.252 19.7 £1,091 £21,430

Rest of Scotland £98 £57 £33 £188 1 2 £82 £32,991

Scotland £1,327 £505 £214 £2,046 1.542 42 53 1.276 20.7 £1,173 £21,970

Rest of UK £429 £228 £240 £898 6 11 £402 £35,879

UK £1,755 £734 £454 £2,943 1.677 48 65 1.360 25.0 £1,576 £24,384


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

West Central £1,229 £874 £798 £2,901 2.361 41 58 1.435 22.6 £1,287 £22,051

Rest of Scotland £98 £85 £217 £400 1 4 £133 £33,258

Scotland £1,327 £958 £1,016 £3,301 2.488 42 62 1.490 24.2 £1,420 £22,772

Rest of UK £429 £379 £859 £1,667 6 15 £571 £37,070

UK £1,755 £1,338 £1,874 £4,967 2.830 48 78 1.636 30.1 £1,991 £25,604


Total spend

£2,581,643


Bait, 3.8%

Charter, 0.5%

Other, 2.3%

Food Pub, 4.1%

Fuel, 1.9% Food Shops, 4.0%

Boats, 38.4%

Accommodation, 7.8%

Clothing, 3.9%

Books, 4.3%

Rods, 29.0%


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

West Central



UK:1.64


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

West Central



UK:1.36

241


Lochaber

Dumfries and

Galloway RUK

Survey results




£167,577 £60,372 £104,563 £78,554 £61,600 £4,560 £166,736 £256,614 £395,682 £188,635 £194,519 £1,679,411

10.0% 3.6% 6.2% 4.7% 3.7% 0.3% 9.9% 15.3% 23.6% 11.2% 11.6% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all West

Central producers


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on all

Dumfries and

Galloway

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£1,679,411 £409,682 £114,752 £274,459 £1,404,952 £883,645 £4,206 £3,134 £64,961 £195,378 £1,151,323 £101,539 £152,090

100.0% 24.4% 6.8% 16.3% 83.7% 52.6% 0.3% 0.2% 3.9% 11.6% 68.6% 6.0% 9.1%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

West Central £884 £315 £125 £1,324 1.498 29 37 1.247 21.8 £789 £21,557

Rest of Scotland £72 £48 £23 £144 1 2 £62 £35,146

Scotland £956 £363 £148 £1,467 1.535 30 38 1.276 22.8 £851 £22,181

Rest of UK £195 £106 £133 £435 2 5 £196 £38,105

UK £1,151 £469 £281 £1,902 1.652 32 43 1.340 25.9 £1,047 £24,065


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

West Central £884 £623 £565 £2,072 2.345 29 42 1.429 25.0 £929 £22,159

Rest of Scotland £72 £63 £153 £288 1 3 £97 £34,655

Scotland £956 £686 £718 £2,360 2.469 30 45 1.489 26.6 £1,026 £22,944

Rest of UK £195 £168 £479 £843 2 7 £291 £38,868

UK £1,151 £854 £1,198 £3,203 2.782 32 52 1.608 31.1 £1,317 £25,226


Total spend

£1,679,411


Bait, 4.7%

Charter, 0.3%

Other, 3.7%

Food Pub, 6.2%

Fuel, 10.0%Food Shops,

3.6%

Boats, 15.3%

Accommodation, 9.9%

Clothing, 11.2%

Books, 11.6%

Rods, 23.6%


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

West Central



UK:1.61


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

West Central



UK:1.34

242

Region: North East Edinburgh Fife Home

Survey results




£1,758,925 £678,597 £525,454 £714,844 £394,694 £310,532 £329,045 £808,827 £954,836 £275,490 £881,555 £7,632,800

23.0% 8.9% 6.9% 9.4% 5.2% 4.1% 4.3% 10.6% 12.5% 3.6% 11.5% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all North

East producers

Falling on all

Edinburgh

producers

Falling on all Fife

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£7,632,800 £1,432,481 £435,016 £1,793,265 £5,839,534 £3,190,029 £21,009 £62,567 £472,249 £997,739 £4,743,594 £585,722 £684,424

100.0% 18.8% 5.7% 23.5% 76.5% 41.8% 0.3% 0.8% 6.2% 13.1% 62.1% 7.7% 9.0%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North East £3,190 £1,225 £307 £4,722 1.480 106 128 1.209 16.8 £2,718 £21,170

Rest of Scotland £556 £378 £182 £1,115 4 13 £483 £37,656

Scotland £3,746 £1,603 £489 £5,838 1.558 111 141 1.278 18.5 £3,202 £22,668

Rest of UK £998 £573 £731 £2,302 10 25 £1,021 £41,303

UK £4,744 £2,176 £1,220 £8,140 1.716 121 166 1.372 21.7 £4,223 £25,443

Type 2 multiplier analysis (supply chain plus spending of all who work in it and consequent supply chains)

Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North East £3,190 £2,300 £1,422 £6,912 2.167 106 138 1.302 18.1 £3,033 £21,933

Rest of Scotland £556 £494 £602 £1,651 4 17 £597 £35,955

Scotland £3,746 £2,794 £2,024 £8,564 2.286 111 155 1.401 20.3 £3,630 £23,436

Rest of UK £998 £869 £2,380 £4,247 10 36 £1,460 £40,961

UK £4,744 £3,664 £4,404 £12,811 2.701 121 191 1.575 25.0 £5,090 £26,715


Total spend

£7,632,800


Bait, 9.4%

Charter, 4.1% Other, 5.2%

Food Pub, 6.9%

Fuel, 23.0%

Food Shops, 8.9%

Boats, 10.6%

Accommodation, 4.3%

Clothing, 3.6%

Books, 11.5%

Rods, 12.5%


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North East


North East:1.3 Scotland:1.4 UK:1.57


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North East


North East:1.21 Scotland:1.28

UK:1.37

243

Region: North East Edinburgh Fife Scotland

Survey results




£292,118 £654,957 £666,787 £676,043 £452,992 £239,060 £1,234,842 £400,297 £302,189 £40,779 £44,943 £5,005,007

5.8% 13.1% 13.3% 13.5% 9.1% 4.8% 24.7% 8.0% 6.0% 0.8% 0.9% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


East producers

Falling on all

Edinburgh

producers

Falling on all Fife

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£5,005,007 £741,056 £222,141 £1,793,265 £3,211,742 £2,989,580 £5,831 £33,709 £171,481 £449,084 £3,649,685 £355,232 £338,945

100.0% 14.8% 4.4% 35.8% 64.2% 59.7% 0.1% 0.7% 3.4% 9.0% 72.9% 7.1% 6.8%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North East £2,990 £1,032 £251 £4,272 1.429 108 127 1.173 25.4 £2,585 £20,357

Rest of Scotland £211 £133 £134 £477 2 6 £204 £32,350

Scotland £3,201 £1,165 £384 £4,749 1.484 111 133 1.206 26.6 £2,790 £20,924

Rest of UK £449 £263 £465 £1,178 5 13 £508 £38,090

UK £3,650 £1,428 £849 £5,927 1.624 115 147 1.271 29.3 £3,297 £22,485


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North East £2,990 £2,114 £1,258 £6,361 2.128 108 136 1.260 27.3 £2,885 £21,149

Rest of Scotland £211 £181 £435 £827 2 9 £286 £31,770

Scotland £3,201 £2,295 £1,693 £7,188 2.246 111 145 1.316 29.1 £3,171 £21,806

Rest of UK £449 £393 £1,553 £2,395 5 21 £801 £38,932

UK £3,650 £2,688 £3,246 £9,584 2.626 115 166 1.439 33.2 £3,972 £23,929


Total spend

£5,005,007


Bait, 13.5%Charter,

4.8% Other, 9.1%

Food Pub, 13.3%

Fuel, 5.8%

Food Shops, 13.1%Boats, 8.0%


Clothing, 0.8%Books, 0.9%

Rods, 6.0%


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North East



UK:1.44


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North East



UK:1.27

244

Region: North East Edinburgh Fife RUK

Survey results




£1,437,036 £517,717 £666,787 £673,630 £528,240 £79,346 £1,429,824 £1,118,207 £1,724,204 £821,986 £847,626 £9,844,604

14.6% 5.3% 6.8% 6.8% 5.4% 0.8% 14.5% 11.4% 17.5% 8.3% 8.6% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


East producers

Falling on all

Edinburgh

producers

Falling on all Fife

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£9,844,604 £2,024,399 £576,787 £1,793,265 £8,051,339 £4,879,238 £19,064 £71,569 £418,985 £1,078,774 £6,467,630 £606,705 £977,003

100.0% 20.6% 5.9% 18.2% 81.8% 49.6% 0.2% 0.7% 4.3% 11.0% 65.7% 6.2% 9.9%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North East £4,879 £1,726 £422 £7,027 1.440 177 208 1.178 21.1 £4,227 £20,310

Rest of Scotland £510 £337 £219 £1,065 4 13 £469 £36,385

Scotland £5,389 £2,063 £641 £8,093 1.502 181 221 1.221 22.5 £4,696 £21,246

Rest of UK £1,079 £600 £846 £2,525 13 29 £1,134 £39,260

UK £6,468 £2,663 £1,487 £10,617 1.642 194 250 1.291 25.4 £5,829 £23,328


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North East £4,879 £3,446 £2,091 £10,417 2.135 177 223 1.265 22.7 £4,714 £21,099

Rest of Scotland £510 £449 £753 £1,711 4 18 £614 £34,742

Scotland £5,389 £3,895 £2,844 £12,128 2.251 181 241 1.332 24.5 £5,328 £22,099

Rest of UK £1,079 £934 £2,908 £4,920 13 43 £1,691 £39,606

UK £6,468 £4,829 £5,752 £17,048 2.636 194 284 1.466 28.8 £7,019 £24,734


Total spend

£9,844,604


Bait, 6.8%

Charter, 0.8%

Other, 5.4%

Food Pub, 6.8%

Fuel, 14.6%

Food Shops, 5.3%

Boats, 11.4%


Clothing, 8.3%

Books, 8.6%

Rods, 17.5%


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North East



UK:1.47


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North East



UK:1.29

245

Region: North MorayArgyll and

Lochaber Home

Survey results




£2,910,520 £951,285 £1,305,093 £955,559 £964,086 £450,386 £1,079,623 £27,748 £1,193,403 £233,294 £349,531 £10,420,527

27.9% 9.1% 12.5% 9.2% 9.3% 4.3% 10.4% 0.3% 11.5% 2.2% 3.4% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


producers

Falling on all

Moray producers


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£10,420,527 £1,619,582 £441,464 £2,447,238 £7,973,289 £4,574,116 £65,012 £32,758 £759,975 £888,214 £6,320,075 £820,458 £832,756

100.0% 15.5% 4.2% 23.5% 76.5% 43.9% 0.6% 0.3% 7.3% 8.5% 60.7% 7.9% 8.0%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North £4,574 £1,362 £144 £6,080 1.329 209 244 1.169 23.4 £3,949 £16,195

Rest of Scotland £858 £586 £263 £1,707 8 20 £799 £39,016

Scotland £5,432 £1,948 £407 £7,787 1.434 216 264 1.223 25.4 £4,748 £17,963

Rest of UK £888 £492 £759 £2,140 8 21 £947 £44,133

UK £6,320 £2,440 £1,166 £9,926 1.571 224 286 1.274 27.4 £5,695 £19,928


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North £4,574 £3,001 £1,224 £8,799 1.924 209 263 1.258 25.2 £4,370 £16,649

Rest of Scotland £858 £732 £996 £2,586 8 27 £1,002 £37,287

Scotland £5,432 £3,733 £2,220 £11,385 2.096 216 289 1.339 27.8 £5,372 £18,565

Rest of UK £888 £711 £2,371 £3,970 8 32 £1,360 £42,803

UK £6,320 £4,444 £4,591 £15,355 2.430 224 321 1.432 30.8 £6,732 £20,963


Total spend

£10,420,527


Bait, 9.2%

Charter, 4.3%

Other, 9.3% Food Pub, 12.5%

Fuel, 27.9%

Food Shops, 9.1%

Boats, 0.3%Accommodation, 10.4%

Clothing, 2.2%



0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North


North:1.26 Scotland:1.34 UK:1.43


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North



246


Lochaber Scotland

Survey results




£152,750 £404,080 £396,435 £359,868 £251,111 £167,053 £669,762 £247,243 £186,647 £25,187 £27,759 £2,887,895

5.3% 14.0% 13.7% 12.5% 8.7% 5.8% 23.2% 8.6% 6.5% 0.9% 1.0% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


producers

Falling on all

Moray producers


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£2,887,895 £435,732 £128,398 £374,271 £2,513,624 £1,558,708 £14,147 £11,693 £149,784 £277,437 £2,011,769 £265,487 £236,368

100.0% 15.1% 4.4% 13.0% 87.0% 54.0% 0.5% 0.4% 5.2% 9.6% 69.7% 9.2% 8.2%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North £1,559 £409 £47 £2,014 1.292 71 82 1.157 28.4 £1,369 £16,666

Rest of Scotland £176 £100 £67 £343 2 5 £162 £33,857

Scotland £1,734 £509 £114 £2,357 1.359 73 87 1.187 30.1 £1,531 £17,613

Rest of UK £277 £136 £202 £616 3 7 £266 £37,885

UK £2,012 £645 £316 £2,973 1.478 76 94 1.232 32.5 £1,797 £19,128


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North £1,559 £962 £409 £2,930 1.880 71 88 1.245 30.6 £1,511 £17,085

Rest of Scotland £176 £139 £255 £569 2 7 £218 £33,242

Scotland £1,734 £1,101 £664 £3,499 2.018 73 95 1.296 32.9 £1,728 £18,199

Rest of UK £277 £217 £702 £1,196 3 10 £397 £38,562

UK £2,012 £1,318 £1,366 £4,696 2.334 76 105 1.380 36.4 £2,125 £20,191


Total spend

£2,887,895


Bait, 12.5%Charter, 5.8% Other, 8.7%

Food Pub, 13.7%

Fuel, 5.3%

Food Shops, 14.0%

Boats, 8.6%


Clothing, 0.9%

Books, 1.0%

Rods, 6.5%


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North




0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North



247


Lochaber RUK

Survey results




£259,348 £93,435 £396,435 £121,573 £95,334 £16,416 £258,047 £199,697 £307,921 £146,796 £151,375 £2,046,376

12.7% 4.6% 19.4% 5.9% 4.7% 0.8% 12.6% 9.8% 15.0% 7.2% 7.4% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


producers

Falling on all

Moray producers


and Lochaber

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£2,046,376 £362,449 £103,301 £357,637 £1,688,739 £1,042,505 £7,233 £4,225 £102,825 £206,908 £1,363,697 £124,495 £200,547

100.0% 17.7% 5.0% 17.5% 82.5% 50.9% 0.4% 0.2% 5.0% 10.1% 66.6% 6.1% 9.8%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North £1,043 £279 £31 £1,352 1.297 49 56 1.151 27.5 £915 £16,242

Rest of Scotland £114 £68 £41 £223 1 3 £106 £37,283

Scotland £1,157 £348 £71 £1,576 1.362 50 59 1.181 28.9 £1,021 £17,250

Rest of UK £207 £93 £132 £432 2 5 £197 £39,180

UK £1,364 £441 £203 £2,007 1.472 53 64 1.222 31.4 £1,218 £18,965


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

North £1,043 £654 £275 £1,972 1.892 49 61 1.238 29.6 £1,011 £16,686

Rest of Scotland £114 £93 £167 £375 1 4 £143 £35,704

Scotland £1,157 £748 £443 £2,347 2.029 50 65 1.289 31.6 £1,154 £17,863

Rest of UK £207 £158 £476 £841 2 7 £288 £39,431

UK £1,364 £905 £918 £3,188 2.337 53 72 1.368 35.1 £1,442 £20,056


Total spend

£2,046,376


Bait, 5.9%

Charter, 0.8%

Other, 4.7%

Food Pub, 19.4%

Fuel, 12.7%

Food Shops, 4.6%

Boats, 9.8%


Clothing, 7.2%

Books, 7.4%

Rods, 15.0%


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North




0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

North



248

Region: South East Angus Glasgow Home

Survey results




£5,112,531 £1,872,284 £1,512,794 £2,300,499 £1,315,167 £350,566 £1,225,048 £4,491,859 £3,232,203 £938,289 £2,351,030 £24,702,270

20.7% 7.6% 6.1% 9.3% 5.3% 1.4% 5.0% 18.2% 13.1% 3.8% 9.5% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all South

East producers

Falling on all

Angus producers

Falling on all

Glasgow producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£24,702,270 £4,654,917 £1,433,472 £5,209,722 £19,492,548 £10,325,868 £17,696 £274,087 £1,998,178 £3,241,003 £15,856,832 £1,480,488 £2,155,228

100.0% 18.8% 5.8% 21.1% 78.9% 41.8% 0.1% 1.1% 8.1% 13.1% 64.2% 6.0% 8.7%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

South East £10,326 £3,913 £1,265 £15,504 1.501 321 403 1.256 16.3 £9,126 £22,669

Rest of Scotland £2,290 £1,558 £477 £4,325 22 51 £1,800 £35,642

Scotland £12,616 £5,471 £1,742 £19,828 1.572 342 453 1.324 18.3 £10,927 £24,116

Rest of UK £3,241 £1,922 £2,283 £7,447 36 81 £3,291 £40,658

UK £15,857 £7,393 £4,025 £27,275 1.720 378 534 1.413 21.6 £14,217 £26,623


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

South East £10,326 £7,325 £5,945 £23,595 2.285 321 443 1.380 17.9 £10,472 £23,659

Rest of Scotland £2,290 £2,064 £2,852 £7,206 22 72 £2,370 £32,789

Scotland £12,616 £9,388 £8,797 £30,801 2.441 342 515 1.505 20.8 £12,842 £24,941

Rest of UK £3,241 £2,895 £7,627 £13,763 36 116 £4,719 £40,628

UK £15,857 £12,283 £16,424 £44,564 2.810 378 631 1.670 25.5 £17,561 £27,828


Total spend

£24,702,270


Bait, 9.3%

Charter, 1.4%

Other, 5.3%

Food Pub, 6.1%

Fuel, 20.7%

Food Shops, 7.6%

Boats, 18.2%

Accommodation, 5.0%

Clothing, 3.8%

Books, 9.5%

Rods, 13.1%


-100000

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

South East


South East:1.38 Scotland:1.5

UK:1.67


-100000

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

South East



UK:1.41

249

Region: South East Angus Glasgow Scotland

Survey results




£60,921 £169,985 £170,100 £159,418 £127,470 £79,399 £280,205 £1,509,435 £1,139,492 £153,770 £169,470 £4,019,665

1.5% 4.2% 4.2% 4.0% 3.2% 2.0% 7.0% 37.6% 28.3% 3.8% 4.2% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


East producers

Falling on all

Angus producers

Falling on all

Glasgow producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£4,019,665 £965,288 £265,414 £567,785 £3,451,879 £1,748,989 £1,705 £73,519 £196,870 £626,546 £2,647,629 £306,622 £497,628

100.0% 24.0% 6.6% 14.1% 85.9% 43.5% 0.0% 1.8% 4.9% 15.6% 65.9% 7.6% 12.4%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

South East £1,749 £616 £201 £2,565 1.467 58 71 1.220 17.7 £1,570 £22,052

Rest of Scotland £272 £156 £66 £494 3 6 £212 £33,774

Scotland £2,021 £772 £267 £3,059 1.514 62 77 1.258 19.3 £1,782 £23,002

Rest of UK £627 £343 £356 £1,326 8 16 £589 £36,156

UK £2,648 £1,114 £623 £4,385 1.656 70 94 1.345 23.3 £2,371 £25,290


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

South East £1,749 £1,196 £992 £3,937 2.251 58 78 1.337 19.4 £1,799 £23,063

Rest of Scotland £272 £247 £476 £995 3 10 £317 £30,736

Scotland £2,021 £1,443 £1,468 £4,932 2.440 62 88 1.435 22.0 £2,116 £23,960

Rest of UK £627 £562 £1,324 £2,512 8 23 £853 £37,392

UK £2,648 £2,005 £2,792 £7,444 2.812 70 111 1.595 27.6 £2,970 £26,719


Total spend

£4,019,665


Bait, 4.0%

Charter, 2.0%

Other, 3.2%

Food Pub, 4.2%


4.2%

Boats, 37.6%

Accommodation, 7.0%

Clothing, 3.8%

Books, 4.2%

Rods, 28.3%


-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

South East



UK:1.59


-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

South East



UK:1.35

250

Region: South East Angus Glasgow RUK

Survey results




£1,161,302 £418,379 £170,100 £544,376 £426,883 £134,068 £1,155,474 £876,804 £1,351,976 £644,532 £664,637 £7,548,530

15.4% 5.5% 2.3% 7.2% 5.7% 1.8% 15.3% 11.6% 17.9% 8.5% 8.8% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes


East producers

Falling on all

Angus producers

Falling on all

Glasgow producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£7,548,530 £1,599,038 £456,014 £1,386,648 £6,161,882 £3,649,482 £4,439 £61,719 £477,448 £810,964 £5,004,052 £459,847 £697,984

100.0% 21.2% 6.0% 18.4% 81.6% 48.3% 0.1% 0.8% 6.3% 10.7% 66.3% 6.1% 9.2%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

South East £3,649 £1,298 £411 £5,359 1.468 119 146 1.229 19.3 £3,264 £22,393

Rest of Scotland £544 £367 £129 £1,040 5 12 £435 £35,301

Scotland £4,193 £1,665 £540 £6,398 1.526 124 158 1.277 20.9 £3,699 £23,399

Rest of UK £811 £475 £615 £1,900 9 21 £843 £40,149

UK £5,004 £2,140 £1,155 £8,299 1.658 133 179 1.347 23.7 £4,542 £25,364


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

South East £3,649 £2,530 £2,022 £8,201 2.247 119 160 1.346 21.2 £3,732 £23,369

Rest of Scotland £544 £490 £871 £1,904 5 19 £626 £32,298

Scotland £4,193 £3,020 £2,892 £10,106 2.410 124 179 1.446 23.7 £4,357 £24,335

Rest of UK £811 £715 £2,132 £3,658 9 31 £1,252 £40,326

UK £5,004 £3,735 £5,024 £13,764 2.750 133 210 1.580 27.8 £5,609 £26,697


Total spend

£7,548,530


Bait, 7.2%

Charter, 1.8%

Other, 5.7%

Food Pub, 2.3%

Fuel, 15.4%

Food Shops, 5.5%


tion, 15.3%

Clothing, 8.5%

Books, 8.8%

Rods, 17.9%


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

South East



UK:1.58


-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

South East



UK:1.35

251

Region: Western IslesSkye and

Lochalsh

Rest of the

Highlands and

Islands Home

Survey results




£1,033,612 £640,981 £330,247 £44,647 £361,500 £4,248 £106,669 £2,631,122 £179,270 £68,691 £121,269 £5,522,255

18.7% 11.6% 6.0% 0.8% 6.5% 0.1% 1.9% 47.6% 3.2% 1.2% 2.2% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Western Isles

producers

Falling on all Skye

and Lochalsh

producers

Falling on all Rest

of the Highlands

and Islands

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£5,522,255 £717,206 £245,410 £1,300,403 £4,221,852 £1,384,403 £598 £36,556 £473,404 £1,103,687 £2,998,648 £517,740 £705,464

100.0% 13.0% 4.4% 23.5% 76.5% 25.1% 0.0% 0.7% 8.6% 20.0% 54.3% 9.4% 12.8%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Western Isles £1,384 £452 £24 £1,861 1.344 62 71 1.149 12.9 £1,134 £15,956

Rest of Scotland £511 £346 £197 £1,053 4 12 £478 £39,130

Scotland £1,895 £798 £221 £2,914 1.538 66 83 1.258 15.1 £1,612 £19,351

Rest of UK £1,104 £604 £899 £2,607 14 31 £1,178 £38,202

UK £2,999 £1,402 £1,120 £5,520 1.841 80 114 1.426 20.7 £2,790 £24,445


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Western Isles £1,384 £931 £310 £2,625 1.896 62 77 1.238 13.9 £1,222 £15,959

Rest of Scotland £511 £480 £1,071 £2,062 4 20 £744 £36,978

Scotland £1,895 £1,411 £1,381 £4,687 2.474 66 97 1.460 17.5 £1,966 £20,333

Rest of UK £1,104 £996 £2,686 £4,785 14 43 £1,676 £38,998

UK £2,999 £2,407 £4,067 £9,473 3.159 80 140 1.745 25.3 £3,642 £26,077


Total spend

£5,522,255


Bait, 0.8%

Charter, 0.1%

Other, 6.5%

Food Pub, 6.0%

Fuel, 18.7%

Food Shops, 11.6%

Boats, 47.6%

Accommodation, 1.9%

Clothing, 1.2%

Books, 2.2%

Rods, 3.2%


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Western Isles


Western Isles:1.24 Scotland:1.46

UK:1.75


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Western Isles



UK:1.43

252


Lochalsh

Rest of the

Highlands and

Islands Scotland

Survey results




£213,511 £475,226 £484,347 £419,991 £317,139 £228,591 £906,321 £411,212 £310,429 £41,891 £46,168 £3,854,827

5.5% 12.3% 12.6% 10.9% 8.2% 5.9% 23.5% 10.7% 8.1% 1.1% 1.2% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Western Isles

producers

Falling on all Skye

and Lochalsh

producers

Falling on all Rest

of the Highlands

and Islands

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£3,854,827 £582,825 £169,899 £513,499 £3,341,328 £2,023,262 £1,907 £36,404 £150,953 £375,543 £2,588,069 £384,010 £369,249

100.0% 15.1% 4.4% 13.3% 86.7% 52.5% 0.0% 0.9% 3.9% 9.7% 67.1% 10.0% 9.6%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Western Isles £2,023 £559 £33 £2,615 1.292 85 96 1.140 25.0 £1,751 £18,157

Rest of Scotland £189 £128 £119 £437 2 6 £188 £33,517

Scotland £2,213 £687 £152 £3,052 1.379 87 102 1.179 26.5 £1,939 £19,001

Rest of UK £376 £229 £484 £1,088 4 12 £480 £38,466

UK £2,588 £915 £637 £4,140 1.600 91 115 1.262 29.7 £2,418 £21,120


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Western Isles £2,023 £1,252 £442 £3,717 1.837 85 104 1.233 27.1 £1,877 £17,994

Rest of Scotland £189 £171 £763 £1,124 2 12 £393 £34,100

Scotland £2,213 £1,423 £1,205 £4,841 2.188 87 116 1.338 30.0 £2,270 £19,595

Rest of UK £376 £343 £1,546 £2,264 4 20 £779 £39,547

UK £2,588 £1,766 £2,751 £7,105 2.745 91 136 1.493 35.2 £3,048 £22,494


Total spend

£3,854,827


Bait, 10.9%

Charter, 5.9%

Other, 8.2%

Food Pub, 12.6%

Fuel, 5.5%

Food Shops, 12.3%Boats,

10.7%


Clothing, 1.1% Books, 1.2%

Rods, 8.1%


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Western Isles



UK:1.49


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Western Isles



UK:1.26

253


Lochalsh

Rest of the

Highlands and

Islands RUK

Survey results




£350,429 £126,248 £484,347 £164,268 £128,814 £62,018 £348,670 £248,272 £382,820 £182,503 £188,196 £2,666,584

13.1% 4.7% 18.2% 6.2% 4.8% 2.3% 13.1% 9.3% 14.4% 6.8% 7.1% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Western Isles

producers

Falling on all Skye

and Lochalsh

producers

Falling on all Rest

of the Highlands

and Islands

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£2,666,584 £460,086 £131,468 £464,734 £2,201,851 £1,312,182 £777 £20,456 £116,088 £264,869 £1,714,372 £197,628 £289,851

100.0% 17.3% 4.9% 17.4% 82.6% 49.2% 0.0% 0.8% 4.4% 9.9% 64.3% 7.4% 10.9%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Western Isles £1,312 £366 £20 £1,698 1.294 56 64 1.134 23.9 £1,128 £17,721

Rest of Scotland £137 £103 £84 £325 1 4 £146 £37,802

Scotland £1,450 £469 £104 £2,023 1.396 57 68 1.179 25.3 £1,274 £18,868

Rest of UK £265 £159 £351 £774 3 9 £355 £39,903

UK £1,714 £627 £455 £2,797 1.631 60 76 1.266 28.7 £1,629 £21,316


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Western Isles £1,312 £821 £287 £2,420 1.844 56 69 1.226 25.8 £1,211 £17,592

Rest of Scotland £137 £131 £501 £770 1 8 £276 £36,120

Scotland £1,450 £952 £789 £3,190 2.201 57 76 1.335 28.7 £1,487 £19,440

Rest of UK £265 £242 £1,076 £1,583 3 14 £559 £40,421

UK £1,714 £1,194 £1,865 £4,773 2.784 60 90 1.495 33.9 £2,045 £22,651


Total spend

£2,666,584


Bait, 6.2%

Charter, 2.3%

Other, 4.8%

Food Pub, 18.2%

Fuel, 13.1%

Food Shops, 4.7%

Boats, 9.3%


Clothing, 6.8%

Books, 7.1%

Rods, 14.4%


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Western Isles



UK:1.5


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Western Isles



UK:1.27

254

Region: Orkney and ShetlandInverness and

Nairn

Rest of the

Highlands and

Islands Home

Survey results




£841,659 £198,125 £221,994 £176,981 £269,466 £16,841 £144,563 £533,129 £252,616 £95,620 £84,682 £2,835,676

29.7% 7.0% 7.8% 6.2% 9.5% 0.6% 5.1% 18.8% 8.9% 3.4% 3.0% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Orkney and

Shetland

producers

Falling on all

Inverness and

Nairn producers

Falling on all Rest

of the Highlands

and Islands

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£2,835,676 £418,377 £126,023 £742,704 £2,092,972 £1,027,619 £938 £55,751 £207,312 £317,541 £1,609,161 £216,990 £266,820

100.0% 14.8% 4.4% 26.2% 73.8% 36.2% 0.0% 2.0% 7.3% 11.2% 56.7% 7.7% 9.4%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Orkney and Shetland £1,028 £353 £39 £1,420 1.382 43 52 1.194 18.2 £873 £16,943

Rest of Scotland £264 £219 £64 £547 2 5 £242 £46,165

Scotland £1,292 £572 £103 £1,967 1.523 45 57 1.271 20.0 £1,115 £19,646

Rest of UK £318 £187 £273 £777 4 9 £350 £38,676

UK £1,609 £759 £376 £2,744 1.705 49 66 1.357 23.2 £1,465 £22,260


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Orkney and Shetland £1,028 £666 £258 £1,952 1.900 43 55 1.277 19.4 £936 £16,985

Rest of Scotland £264 £264 £361 £889 2 8 £330 £42,741

Scotland £1,292 £930 £620 £2,841 2.200 45 63 1.406 22.2 £1,266 £20,148

Rest of UK £318 £291 £864 £1,472 4 13 £509 £39,083

UK £1,609 £1,221 £1,483 £4,314 2.681 49 76 1.563 26.7 £1,774 £23,398


Total spend

£2,835,676


Bait, 6.2%Charter,

0.6%Other, 9.5%

Food Pub, 7.8%

Fuel, 29.7%

Food Shops, 7.0%

Boats, 18.8%

Accommodation, 5.1%

Clothing, 3.4%

Books, 3.0%

Rods, 8.9%


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Orkney and Shetland


Orkney and Shetland:1.28



0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Orkney and Shetland




255


Nairn

Rest of the

Highlands and

Islands Scotland

Survey results




£93,891 £189,571 £202,869 £165,611 £115,742 £110,694 £355,972 £132,401 £99,951 £13,488 £14,865 £1,495,056

6.3% 12.7% 13.6% 11.1% 7.7% 7.4% 23.8% 8.9% 6.7% 0.9% 1.0% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Orkney and

Shetland

producers

Falling on all

Inverness and

Nairn producers

Falling on all Rest

of the Highlands

and Islands

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£1,495,056 £212,148 £62,159 £199,773 £1,295,283 £828,385 £748 £12,973 £49,734 £128,054 £1,019,894 £162,675 £112,714

100.0% 14.2% 4.2% 13.4% 86.6% 55.4% 0.1% 0.9% 3.3% 8.6% 68.2% 10.9% 7.5%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Orkney and Shetland £828 £239 £30 £1,098 1.326 34 40 1.169 26.7 £733 £18,395

Rest of Scotland £63 £45 £30 £138 1 2 £60 £36,477

Scotland £892 £284 £60 £1,236 1.386 35 41 1.196 27.8 £793 £19,106

Rest of UK £128 £76 £135 £339 1 4 £147 £37,890

UK £1,020 £360 £194 £1,574 1.544 36 45 1.257 30.3 £940 £20,711


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Orkney and Shetland £828 £488 £202 £1,518 1.832 34 43 1.252 28.6 £783 £18,341

Rest of Scotland £63 £59 £150 £272 1 3 £97 £36,321

Scotland £892 £546 £352 £1,790 2.007 35 45 1.308 30.3 £880 £19,399

Rest of UK £128 £115 £438 £681 1 6 £229 £38,635

UK £1,020 £661 £790 £2,471 2.423 36 51 1.421 34.3 £1,109 £21,623


Total spend

£1,495,056


Bait, 11.1%

Charter, 7.4% Other, 7.7%

Food Pub, 13.6%


12.7%Boats, 8.9%


Clothing, 0.9%

Books, 1.0%

ods, 6.7%


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Orkney and Shetland





0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Orkney and Shetland




256


Nairn

Rest of the

Highlands and

Islands RUK

Survey results




£748,047 £269,497 £202,869 £350,657 £274,974 £183,317 £744,293 £490,166 £755,805 £360,318 £371,557 £4,751,500

15.7% 5.7% 4.3% 7.4% 5.8% 3.9% 15.7% 10.3% 15.9% 7.6% 7.8% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Orkney and

Shetland

producers

Falling on all

Inverness and

Nairn producers

Falling on all Rest

of the Highlands

and Islands

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£4,751,500 £927,368 £265,660 £865,073 £3,886,427 £2,157,737 £2,023 £59,306 £220,779 £499,302 £2,939,147 £451,486 £495,794

100.0% 19.5% 5.6% 18.2% 81.8% 45.4% 0.0% 1.2% 4.6% 10.5% 61.9% 9.5% 10.4%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Orkney and Shetland £2,158 £683 £81 £2,922 1.354 94 110 1.172 23.2 £1,868 £16,983

Rest of Scotland £282 £222 £94 £598 2 6 £265 £42,728

Scotland £2,440 £905 £175 £3,520 1.443 96 116 1.213 24.5 £2,134 £18,359

Rest of UK £499 £287 £447 £1,233 6 14 £556 £38,590

UK £2,939 £1,193 £621 £4,753 1.617 102 131 1.284 27.5 £2,690 £20,590


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Orkney and Shetland £2,158 £1,340 £535 £4,033 1.869 94 117 1.252 24.7 £2,000 £17,022

Rest of Scotland £282 £276 £514 £1,072 2 10 £392 £40,226

Scotland £2,440 £1,615 £1,050 £5,105 2.092 96 127 1.328 26.8 £2,392 £18,801

Rest of UK £499 £448 £1,450 £2,397 6 21 £826 £39,041

UK £2,939 £2,063 £2,499 £7,502 2.552 102 148 1.459 31.2 £3,219 £21,688


Total spend

£4,751,500


Bait, 7.4%

Charter, 3.9%

Other, 5.8%

Food Pub, 4.3%


5.7%

Boats, 10.3%


Clothing, 7.6%

Books, 7.8%

Rods, 15.9%


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Orkney and Shetland





0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Orkney and Shetland




257

Region: Scotland Home

Survey results




£22,489,256 £8,500,994 £7,259,544 £9,079,453 £7,059,229 £3,919,903 £4,920,837 £10,919,558 £10,646,370 £3,509,706 £5,219,431 £93,524,280

24.0% 9.1% 7.8% 9.7% 7.5% 4.2% 5.3% 11.7% 11.4% 3.8% 5.6% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Scotland

producers

Falling on all

producers

Falling on all

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£93,524,280 £16,342,616 £4,829,594 £20,649,983 £72,874,297 £42,137,688 £5,586,031 £7,390,998 £3,875,033 £611,456 £59,601,207 £5,694,494 £7,578,596

100.0% 17.5% 5.2% 22.1% 77.9% 45.1% 6.0% 7.9% 4.1% 0.7% 63.7% 6.1% 8.1%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Scotland £42,138 £15,997 £5,228 £63,362 1.504 1,329 1,661 1.250 17.8 £36,135 £21,753

Rest of UK £17,807 £11,749 £8,965 £38,521 144 376 £15,630 £41,604

UK £59,945 £27,746 £14,193 £101,884 1.700 1,473 2,037 1.383 21.8 £51,765 £25,415


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Scotland £42,138 £29,854 £22,351 £94,342 2.239 1,329 1,834 1.380 19.6 £41,069 £22,393

Rest of UK £17,807 £15,937 £27,780 £61,524 144 505 £20,568 £40,735

UK £59,945 £45,790 £50,131 £155,866 2.600 1,473 2,339 1.588 25.0 £61,637 £26,353


Total spend

£93,524,280


Bait, 9.7%

Charter, 4.2%

Other, 7.5%

Food Pub, 7.8%

Fuel, 24.0%

Food Shops, 9.1%

Boats, 11.7%

Accommodation, 5.3%

Clothing, 3.8%

Books, 5.6%

Rods, 11.4%


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Scotland




0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Scotland



258

Region: Scotland Scotland

Survey results




£1,802,389 £4,464,893 £4,491,965 £4,409,021 £3,181,766 £1,524,650 £7,914,561 £4,152,080 £3,134,457 £422,983 £466,170 £35,964,936

5.0% 12.4% 12.5% 12.3% 8.8% 4.2% 22.0% 11.5% 8.7% 1.2% 1.3% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Scotland

producers

Falling on all

producers

Falling on all

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£35,964,936 £5,803,879 £1,707,825 £4,747,384 £31,217,551 £21,777,769 £1,189,789 £2,348,255 £445,047 £261,704 £26,022,565 £2,391,452 £2,803,535

100.0% 16.1% 4.7% 13.2% 86.8% 60.6% 3.3% 6.5% 1.2% 0.7% 72.4% 6.6% 7.8%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Scotland £21,778 £7,271 £2,345 £31,394 1.442 735 886 1.206 24.6 £18,985 £21,422

Rest of UK £4,272 £2,551 £3,101 £9,924 46 113 £4,158 £36,658

UK £26,050 £9,822 £5,446 £41,318 1.586 780 1,000 1.281 27.8 £23,142 £23,150


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output



Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Scotland £21,778 £14,671 £10,733 £47,182 2.167 735 974 1.326 27.1 £21,492 £22,063

Rest of UK £4,272 £3,735 £10,345 £18,352 46 163 £6,070 £37,199

UK £26,050 £18,406 £21,078 £65,534 2.516 780 1,137 1.458 31.6 £27,561 £24,235


Total spend

£35,964,936


Bait, 12.3%

Charter, 4.2%

Other, 8.8%

Food Pub, 12.5%


12.4%

Boats, 11.5%


Clothing, 1.2%

Books, 1.3%

ds, 8.7%


0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Scotland




0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Scotland



259

Region: Scotland RUK

Survey results




£11,068,639 £3,987,667 £4,491,965 £5,188,571 £4,068,717 £1,649,854 £11,013,089 £8,060,021 £12,428,037 £5,924,866 £6,109,678 £73,991,106

15.0% 5.4% 6.1% 7.0% 5.5% 2.2% 14.9% 10.9% 16.8% 8.0% 8.3% 100.0%

Total effective


VAT and other

product taxes

Spend net of

product taxes

Falling on all

Scotland

producers

Falling on all

producers

Falling on all

producers

Falling on other

Scottish producers

Falling on other UK

producers

Falling on all UK


£73,991,106 £14,832,273 £4,234,618 £13,422,804 £60,568,302 £38,209,628 £3,367,564 £5,417,422 £2,010,463 £383,251 £49,388,327 £4,179,543 £7,000,432

100.0% 20.0% 5.7% 18.1% 81.9% 51.6% 4.6% 7.3% 2.7% 0.5% 66.7% 5.6% 9.5%


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Scotland £38,210 £13,249 £4,185 £55,644 1.456 1,292 1,566 1.212 21.2 £33,262 £21,238

Rest of UK £11,348 £7,038 £6,265 £24,650 106 259 £10,311 £39,856

UK £49,558 £20,286 £10,450 £80,294 1.620 1,398 1,825 1.305 24.7 £43,574 £23,877


Direct

expenditure

First round

indirect

Subsequent

indirect

Total output

effect

Output


Employment

multiplier

Jobs per £ mn

effective spend

Total GVA

generated

GVA/job

generated

Scotland £38,210 £26,214 £19,319 £83,742 2.192 1,292 1,723 1.333 23.3 £37,729 £21,901

Rest of UK £11,348 £9,979 £20,819 £42,146 106 359 £14,172 £39,432

UK £49,558 £36,193 £40,137 £125,888 2.540 1,398 2,082 1.489 28.1 £51,902 £24,927


Total spend

£73,991,106


Bait, 7.0%

Charter, 2.2%

Other, 5.5%

Food Pub, 6.1%

Fuel, 15.0%

Food Shops, 5.4%


tion, 14.9%

Clothing, 8.0%

Books, 8.3%

Rods, 16.8%


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Scotland




0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

2000000

Dire

ct

1st r

ound

2nd

roun

d

3rd

roun

d

4th

roun

d

5th

roun

d

6th

roun

d

7th

roun

d

8th

roun

dsu

bseq

uent

Total

No

of e

mpl

oyee

-job

s

United Kingdom

Scotland

Scotland



w w w . s c o t l a n d . g o v . u k

© Crown copyright 2009

ISBN: 978-0-7559-9068-9 (web only)

RR Donnelley B61548 07/09

Documents

Detailed Scottish Sea Angling Study