Allen et al.: Seafood consumption rates among recreational anglers 



607 



Gender 



Ethnic background 



Age 



• 20 1 6 

 Refused (4%) 

 71-80(1%) 

 61-70(10%) 



Household 

 income ($1,000) 



Fishing mode 



Location 



Refused 

 <S5 /-s. (42%) 



(11%)[ 



S5-S10V \ /S25-S50 



(11%) X ^_V' |1S ""' 



510 S25 

 (17%) 



Seasons fished 



Pnvale boats 

 (14%) 



Party boats 

 (4%) 



Malibu Pier (7%)-' 



-'\ Cabrillo 



boat ramp (8%) 



Manna Del Rey 

 boat ramp (6%) 



Years fishing 



Times eaten 

 in last four weeks 



Unknown (10% I 



Fall-Sum-Spr(4%) 

 Fall-Sum (6%) 

 Spr-Sum (6%) 



Parts eaten 



Amount eaten 

 vs. fillet 



Cooking method 



Unknown (1%) 



Whole wilh 

 inleslme (3%) 



' Combo (7%) 



' Soup (6%) 

 Bake/boil/sleam 

 Bro BBC! < 4 %) 



(4%) 



Figure 6 



Characteristics of recreational anglers who consumed white croaker, 

 Genyonemus lineatus. in the Santa Monica Bay seafood consumption study. 

 September 1991 to August 1992. Sample size = 72 anglers. 



lation (Fig. 2) (USBC, 1990; SCGWRP and MBC Ap- 

 plied Environmental Sciences 9 ). Surprisingly, the 

 gender, age, and ethnic characteristics of Santa 

 Monica anglers in 1991-92 had not changed much 

 since 1980 (Puffer et al., 1981, 1982). 



Santa Monica Bay anglers commonly caught white 

 croaker, chub mackerel, and Pacific bonito in 1980 

 (Puffer et al. 1981, 1982) and 1991-92. However, they 

 caught fewer white croakers in 1991-92. Local an- 

 glers in 1991-92 caught similar species to southern 

 California anglers in 1989, who primarily caught 



9 SCCWRP l Southern California Coastal Water Research Project) 

 and MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1994. Santa 

 Monica Bay seafood consumption study. Report prepared for 

 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Monterey Park, CA. 

 Southern Calif. Coastal Water Res. Project, Westminster, CA, 

 199 p. 1 101 p. + appendices. ) 



barred sand bass, Pacific bonito, and chub mackerel 

 (NFSP, 1992). In all three surveys, similar survey 

 methods were used and anglers were interviewed at 

 piers and jetties, party boats, and private boats. 



In seafood consumption studies, estimated rates are 

 commonly based on consumable portions (Puffer et 

 al., 1981, 1982; Landolt et al, 1985, 1987; SDCDHS 1 ). 

 However, in some studies (e.g. Murray and Bur- 

 master, 1994) fillet-model estimates have been used. 

 Of the two methods, we preferred the fillet-model 

 method because the angler gave specific information 

 on meal size. With the consumable-portion method, 

 the number of household consumers influenced the 

 estimated meal size. With consumable-portion esti- 

 mates, we assumed that household consumers would 

 eat the entire consumable portion and would catch 

 similar-size fish on other fishing days. This resulted 

 in unreasonably high estimates for large and less 



