Table 8. — Distribution of lobstermen in target groups by trap-days, gross income, and capital invested. 



Trap-days 



I 



502.799 



II 



1,753.287 



Target groups 



in 



973,198 



IV 



185,560 



Total 



Sample 



3,470,000 



*The number in parentheses refers to the total number of fishermen relevant to a particular category; the other number is the relevant 

 number of fishermen expressed as a percentage of the sample. 

 Source: University of Maine Survey Data, 1970. 



Distribution by Trap-days, Income, 

 and Capital Invested 



Table 8 presents a distribution of the lobster- 

 men in each of the target groups by trap-days, 

 gross income and capital invested in boat and 

 gear. Target Group I emerges as a critical 

 group in that its share in trap-days, income 

 and capital investment is the lowest relative 

 to its size in the total sample. Target Group 

 II contributes more trap-days, more capital, 

 and more income compared to Group I. How- 

 ever, relative to its size, its share in income 

 and capital investment is less than in propor- 

 tion. Target Group III contributes relatively 

 more in trap-days and relatively less in capital 

 and its income share corresponds closely to 

 its size. Target Group IV accounts for more 

 capital relative to size and to number of trap- 

 days and substantially more income relative 

 to size. For this reason, this group can hardly 

 be considered as a target group for limited 

 entry on the basis of income-effort relation- 

 ship. However, if the income-capital ratio is 

 considered, this group does not appear to 

 be equally efficient. 



Socioeconomic Characteristics of the 



Fishermen in Each of the 



Four Target Groups 



Beals will be most affected if Target Group 

 II is eliminated, and Corea the least. If Target 



Group I is considered, the Impact on the three 

 communities is comparable. Corea will be af- 

 fected in the least if one focuses on Target 

 Group III. The effect on the other two com- 

 munities is about the same. Target Group IV 

 does not affect Phippsburg but will affect 

 the other two communities equally (Table 9). 

 Table 10 provides average values for certain 

 socioeconomic characteristics of the lobster- 

 men In each of the Target Groups. 



Table 9. — Geographic distribution 



'Beals 61. 



^Corea 26. 



3 Phippsburg 44, includes 10 from Bath. 



Source: University of Maine Survey Data. 1970. 



The average income of Group I is the lowest 

 attributable both to low labor and low capital 

 intensity in its operation. In constrast. Group 

 IV has the highest average income primarily 

 due to high capital intensity in its operation 

 in spite of low labor intensity. Group II ranks 

 second in average income which can be ex- 

 plained in terms of relatively more effort and 



167 



