600 



Fishery Bulletin 94(4), 1 996 



Table 1 



Information collected by a questionnaire administered to recreational anglers during the Santa Monica Bay seafood consumption 

 study, September 1991 to August 1992. 



No. Information 



1 Interviewer(s) 



2 Date 



3 Location 



4 Interview time (begin and end) 



5 Fishing technique used by angler — hook-and-line (number of poles), other 



6 Observed gender of angler 



7 Permission or not to interview angler 



8 Angler previously or not interviewed for this study 



9 Length of time angler fished at location during day of interview (number of hours) 



10 Additional time angler expected to fish during day of interview (boat anglers excluded) 



11 Number of years or months angler fished in Santa Monica Bay 



12 Seasons angler fished 



13 Number of times angler fished at location during past four weeks 



14 Angler's fishing experience elsewhere in Santa Monica Bay during past four weeks (number of times, fishing mode, site) 



15 Number of times angler consumed fish caught in Santa Monica Bay during past four weeks 



16 Number of fish caught during day of interview 



17 Permission or not to examine angler's catch 



18 Species caught: 



a correct species name, angler's name for species 



b fish length (cm) 



c fate offish (eat, throw back, give away, other) 



d parts offish consumed (whole gutted, fillet/steak, whole with intestines, other) 



e how much consumed (relative to fillet model) 



f preparation method (fry, broil/barbecue, bake/boil/steam, raw/smoked/ceviche, soup, other) 



19 Specific species (shown in photos): (a-f, same as in question 18) 



20 Was angler aware of fish consumption health warnings for Santa Monica Bay? 



21 How was angler informed of the health warnings (posted signs, TV, newspapers or magazines, anglers/friends, other)? 



22 Did angler respond to warnings? (If yes, how? Eat less of all or specific species? Stopped eating all or specific species?) 



23 Importance of warnings to angler 



24 Angler's town and zip code of residence 



25 Angler's occupation 



26 Angler's age 



27 Angler's racial or ethnic background 



28 Number of angler's family members fishing at site that day 



29 Others in angler's household: number, ages, participation in and frequency of consumption of catch from Santa Monica 

 Bay, relative amounts eaten (compared with fillet model) 



30 Angler's family income 



31 Permission to call angler 



32 Best time of day to call angler 



33 Angler's phone number 



34 Angler's name 



35 Interviewer observations (quality of interview, survey type, comments, language used in interview) 



Results 



Angler characteristics and catch 



During the survey year, interviewers counted 2,376 

 anglers and approached 1,740 for interviews. Of those 

 approached, they did not interview 149 (9% ) because 

 of language barriers and 347 (20%) because they re- 

 fused information. They interviewed 1,244 anglers; 



of these, 555 provided sufficient information for con- 

 sumption-rate calculations (Table 2). Of these 555 

 consumers, 232 (42%) were interviewed on party 

 boats, 210 (38%) on piers and jetties, 106 (19%) on 

 private boats, and 7 (1%) at beach and intertidal ar- 

 eas. Hence, we did not consider beach and intertidal 

 areas as a major fishing mode. On the average, they 

 interviewed 52% of the anglers at a site. By mode, 

 the mean percentage interviewed at a site was 59% 



