HomeMy WebLinkAboutOutdoor Recreation & the Commercial Fishery in TOS 1967OUTDOOR RECREATION
AND THE
COMMERCIAL FISHERY
IN THE
TOWN oF SOUTHOLD
By Bruce T. Wilkins
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERV:~ii[iI~
NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICUL
A STATUTORY C,OLLEGE OF THE STATE
i! !I;I:I:II.BII~ILTJ~I~'T~Ii&'III|~,II~,. N.'i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT~
A number of individuals and groups aided this study. Appreciation
is extended to Dr. Lawrence Hamfltoo for guidance in the study;
Dr. Howard Couldin, Dr. Dwight Webster and Mr. David Wallace for
review of the manuscript. Particularly helpful were the field efforts
of Messrs. Jerald Jossem and Richard Frost; Miss Sylvia Mattet's
excellent work in preparing data; Mrs. Helen Albertson's typing of the
manuscript. Mr. Phillip Briggs was most helpful by providing exten-
sive unpublished data on the sport fishery.
The preparation of this report was financially aided through a
Federal Grant from the Urban Renewal Administration of the Housing
and Home Finance Agency, under the Urban Planning Assistance
Program authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 as
amended. This report was prepared under the Urban Planning Assist-
ance Program for the New York State Department of Commerce. It
was financed in part by the State of New York and the New York State
College of Agriculture, and the Town of Southold. Publication was
financed largely through state funds allocated to a study of the impact of
recreation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................... i
LIST OF TABLES .......................... iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...................... ix
INTRODUCTION ........................... i
CHAPTER I: STUDY AREA ..................... 4
Physiography ........................... 4
Climate .............................. 7
Salt Water Resource ....................... 8
Population ............................. 8
Town Economic Base ....................... 9
CHAPTER II: EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION ............ i0
Techniques Used ......................... i1
Results .............................. 12
Other Outdoor Recreational Activity ............... 14
Comparisons ........................... 16
CHAFFER III: CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS ...... 18
Findings .............................. 23
TABLE OF CON TENTS (cont.)
Swimmers at Public Beaches .............
Swimmers at Private Beaches .............
Boaters .....................
Park Picnickers ...................
Shore Fishermen ...................
Rental Rowboat Fishermen ..............
Open Boat Fishermen .................
Charter Boat Fishermen ................
Picnickers Outside the State Park .........
Clammers ......................
Hunters ......................
Correspondence Among Activities ............
Expenditures . . ~ ...................
Comparison with Other Data ...............
Generalized Picture of Participants ............
Potential Town Action ..................
CHAPTER IV: COMMERCIAL FISHERY HARVESTS ......
Methods Used .....................
Findings .......................
Some Factors Influencing Harvests ............
Diminished Species ..................
ii
Page
23
28
32
37
41
45
48
52
55
58
61
62
65
67
68
71
75
75
77
83
86
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Oysters .......................
Bay Scallop ....................
Planning Considerations .................
Stimulating the Commercial Fishery ...........
CHAPTER V: SHALLOW SALT WATER AREAS AND
MAN'S INFLUENCE ............. 95
Influence of a Canal .................. 98
Other Man-Wrought Changes ............... 102
Protection Afforded .................. 103
Experiences of Other States .............. 103
Zoning ...................... 106
Subdivision Control ................. 108
Acquisition of Easements .............. 109
Community Stimulation ............... 110
Conclusion ........................ ' i10
CHAFFER VI: PROJECTED RECREATIONAL USE ....... 111
CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION ................ 118
LITERATURE CITED ................... 122
APPENDIX ...................... 129
Page
86
87
89
91
iii
Table
1
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
LIST OF TABLES
Average monthly temperatures and departure from normal,
Bridgehampton, New York ...............................
Family income of respondents, Town of Southold ..........
Value of exports by specified sectors, Town of Southold,
1963 ..................................................
Number of participant days spent in specified activities,
average for the summers of 1964 and 1965, Town of
Southold ..............................................
Approximate total number of participant days, number of
interviews scheduled and completed, by activity, Town of
Southold (Summers of 1964 and 1965 combined) ............
Number of interviews scheduled and completed, by activity,
Town of Southold (Summers of 1964 and 1965) .............
Permanent residence of swimmers at public beaches,
Town of Southold, 1964-65 ...............................
Age of swimmers interviewed (as of 1965) at public'
beaches, Town of Southold, 1964-65 ................ :. t...
Gross annual income of swimmer's family, public beaches,
Town of Southold, 1954-55 ..............................
Primary attractant of beach to swimmers at public beaches,
Town of Southold, 1964-65 ..............................
Primary attractant of the town to swimmers at public
beaches, Town of Southold, 1965 only ....................
Page
7
8
9
13
2O
21
24
26
26
28
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table
PS-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
P-1
P-2
?-3
P-4
P-5
Residence of swimmers at private beaches, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 ....................................
Age of swimmers interviewed (as of 1965) at private
beaches, Town of Southold, 1964-65 ....................
Family income of swimmers at private beaches, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 ....................................
Primary attractant of beach to swimmers at private beaches,
Town of Southold, 1964-65 .............................
Primary attractant of the town to private beach swimmers,
Town of Southold, 1965 only ...........................
Residence of boaters, Town of Southold, 1964-65 .........
Age of boaters interviewed (as of 1965), Town of Southold,
1964 -65 .............................................
Gross annual family income of boaters, Town of Southold,
1964-65 .............................................
Primary attractant of interview site to boaters, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 ....................................
Primary attractant of the town to boaters, Town of
Southold, 1965 only ................................. : .- -
Residence of park picnickers, Town of Southold, 1964-65..
Age of park picnickers interviewed (as of 1965), Town of
Southold, 1964-65 .....................................
Gross annual family income of park picnickers, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 ....................................
Primary attractant of Orient Beach State Park to park
picnickers, Town of Southold, 1964-65 .................
Primary attractant of the town to park picnickers, Town
of Southold, 1965 only .................................
V
Page
29
3O
31
32
33
33
35
35
36
36
38
38
39
40
40
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table
F-1 Residence of shore fishermen, Town of Southold, 1964-65 .....
F-2 Age of shore fishermen interviewed (as of 1955), Town of
Southold, 1964-65 .........................................
Gross annual family income of shore fishermen, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 .........................................
F-4 Primary attractant of fishing site to shore fishermen, Town
of Southold, 1964-55 ......................................
F-5 Primary attractant of the town to shore fishermen, Town of
Southold, 1965 only .......................................
RF-1 Residence of rental rowboat fishermen, Town of $outhold,
1964 -65 .................................................
RF-2 Age of rental rowboat fishermen interviewed (as of 1965),
Town of Southold, 1964-65 .................................
RF-3 Gross annual family income of rental rowboat fishermen,
Town of Southold, 1964-65 .................................
RF-4 Primary attractant of the site to rental rowboat fishermen,
Town of Southold, 1964-65 .................................
RF-5 Primary attractant of the town to rental rowboat fishermen,
Town of Southold, 1965 only .......................... :. ~.
FO-i Residence of open boat fishermen, Town of Southold, 1964-65..
FO-2 Age of open boat fishermen interviewed (as of 1965), Town of
Southold, 1964-65 .........................................
FO-3 Gross annual family income of open boat fishermen, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 .........................................
FO-4 Primary attractant of a site to open boat fishermen, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 ........................................
FO-5 Primary attractant of the town to open boat fishermen, Town
of Southold, 1955 only .....................................
vi
Page
42
42
43
44
44
45
46
47
47
48
49
50
50
51
51
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table
CF-1
CF -2
CF -3
CF-5
OP-1
OP-2
OP -3
OP -4
OP-5
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
Residence of charter boat fishermen, Town of Southold,
1964 -65 ...................................................
Age of charter boat fishermen interviewed (as of 1965), Town
of Southold, 1964-65 .....................................
Gross annual family income of charter boat fishermen, Town
of Southold, 1964-65 .......................................
Primary attractant of the town to charter boat fishermen,
Town of Southold, 1965 cmly ................................
Residence of picnickers outside the SYate Park, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 .........................................
Age of picnickers outside the State Park (as of 1965), Town
of Southold, 1964-65 .......................................
Gross annual family income of picnickers outside the State
Park, Town of Southold, 1964 =65 ............................
Primary attractaut of the site to picnickers outside the State
Park, Town of Southold, 1964-65 ............................
Primary attractant of the town to picnickers outside the State
Park, Town of Southold, 1965 only ...........................
Residence of clammers, Town of Southold, 1964-65 ...........
Age of clammers interviewed (as of 1965), Town of Southold,
1964 -65 ..................................................
Gross annual income of clammer's family, Town of Southold,
1964 -65 ..................................................
Primary attractant of clamming site to clammers, Town of
Southold, 1964-65 .........................................
Dockside value of selected fish landings, Town of Southold
(1, 000's of 1965 dollars) ...................................
Pa~e
52
53
54
54
56
56
57
57
58
59
60
6O
61
78
vii
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table
9
l0
Poundage landed of selected fish, in the Town of Southold,
(in 1, 000's of pounds) ......................................
Bay scallop landings for selected years, New York and
Massachusetts (in 1, O00's of pounds) ........................
Page
79
89
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Town of Southold study area ............... 6
2 Portion of the northern shoreline of the Town of Southold . . 7
3 Portion of the southern shoreline of the Town of Southold . 7
Dockside value of selected fish landings, Town of Southold
(in 1,000's of 1965 dollars) ...............
80
Dockside value of selected finfish landed in Town of
Southold (in 1,000's of 1965 dollars) ...........
81
Dockside value of selected shellfish landed in Town of
Southold (in 1,000's of 1965 dollars ...........
82
Stylized curve of a typical commercial fishery illustrat-
ing total revenue, cost and sustained yield varying as
effort varies. (Adapted from Christy and Scott, 1965) . .. -.
84
8 Jamual attendance at Orient Beach State Park ....... 112
INTRODUCTION
There is near unanimity of findings and opinion on recreation's growing role
as a consumer of human time and disposable income. Expansion of recreational
activity is frequently suggested as a means by which communities can improve the
amenities of life in the area as well as increase economic activity. Many com-
munities have for these reasons attempted to stimulate recreational activity.
Typically this has been done in the absence of research on either the existing level
of recreational activity, or on the characteristics and desires of the present
participants in these activities.
If communities are to arrive at hoped-for goals, it is desirable for them to use
quantitative measures in planning their future actions, increasing the possibility of
achieving the goals established. Such data, useful in planning recreational develop-
ment should be derived by communities interested in expanding their recreational
opportunities.
Development of factual information on participation in recreational activities
in restrictive geographic areas has only recently been undertaken. Similarly the
characteristics and attitudes of recreationists have until the recent past been
assumed, or ignored. Development of such information would permit communities
to more wisely allocate the resources available to them.
2
Fishing is a major recreational pursuit in this area and certain species of fish
are harvested by commercial fishermen as well as by recreationists. For this
reason (and due to the Town Planning Board's interest in the commercial fishery)
data on that fishery were gathered and analyzed.
This was one of three studies concurrently undertaken in the Town of Southold.
An input-output table for the town's economy was developed by Morton and Allee
(1966) in one of those studies. Carroll (1965) developed sociologic and economic
data on residents in the town by use of household interviews.
In'this report the general setting and conditions existing in the town during the
study are first set forth. An estimation of the extent of participation in specified
activities is developed. Comparisons are then made with town data developed by
others using different techniques. Detailed explanation of the techniques used in
this study as well as proposed modifications are contained in a separate report
(Wilkins, 1967).
Specified characteristics of participants in eleven outdoor recreation activities
are then viewed. A discussion of the characteristics follows, together with some
suggestions of town action based upon the data developed.
Secondary data were used to derive information on the commercial fishery.
These are presented together with suggestions for areas of planning consideration.
The marine ecosystem which enfolds the commercial fishery also exerts
substantial influences on most outdoor recreation in the study area. Consideration
is given to the importance of shallow water areas and the wrenching impacts man
may exert upon these. The need and specific tools for modifying such impacts are
discussed.
3
Finally, possible participation rates (by 1985) in selected activities in the
study area are indicated.
In this study, outdoor recreation was considered to be a leisure time activity
in which an individual may participate, the activity being dependent upon a natural
resource. This definition excludes work activity and spectator sports and any
activity not requiring water, wild land, trees or wild animals. In this study, the
activities covered were swimming, boating, fishing, picnicking, clamming, hunt-
ing and camping.
CHAFFER I
STUDY AREA
Physiography
The study was carried out in 1964 and 1965 in Southold, a town some 49 square
miles in size (Koppelman, 1962), located on the northeastern tip of Long Island,
New York (Figure 1). The area is primarily composed of Manhasset formation
gravel and glacial till, overlain with deposits from the Harbor hill moraine and
outwash plains from this moraine. Beach ridges, fresh and salt water marsh areas
are common. In limited areas Gardiner clays and Jacobs sands are exposed (Fuller,
1914).
The tovm's mainland 24-mile northeru shoreline characteristically consists of
20- to 100-foot cliffs adjacent to boulder- and rock-strewn shores (Figure 2).
Interspersed with these steep slopes are some seven miles (30 percent of that shore)
of gradually sloping beach ridges or marsh lands (Figure 2).
The 41-mile shoreline on the southern and eastern portion of the town is pre-
dominantly beach ridge and marsh lands (Figure 3) with five miles (12 percent of
this shore) having steep, cliff-like approaches. Inlets, fresh water ponds and salt
water marshes are more common on this southern portion.
Five major islands (Fishers, Plum, Big Gull, Little Gull and Robins) occur in
the town. Fishers Island has only sporadic direct transportation to the remainder
4
&.
Figure 2. Portion of the northern shoreline of the Town of Southold.
The foreground is a beach ridge while the background illustrates the
steep cliffs adjacent to boulder and rock strewn shores.
Figure 3. Portion of the southern shoreline of the Town of Southold.
Sandy beaches, wetlands and dredged boat channels are evident.
7
of the town. Plum, Big Gull and Little Gull islands are owned by the federal
government, with virtually no public access; and Robins Island is under a single,
private owner. These islands are such discrete portions of the town that they were
not considered under the major portion of the study.
Climate
Climate is important in determining the extent and type of recreational activity
occurring in a community. The climate of the area is characterized as a humid
continental climate with water masses modifying this typical pattern (Taylor, 1927).
Summer monthly temperature averages for 1964 and 1965 from Bridgehampton
(17 miles from the town center), together with their departure from normal are
given in Table 1 (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1964a, 1964b, 1965a).
Table 1. Average monthly temperature s and departure from normal, Bridgehampton,
New York. (Ail figures in degrees Fahrenheit. )
Average Monthly Temperature Departure from Normal
Month 1964 1965 1964 1965
June 65.9 65.2 +0.6 ~0.1
July 71.2 69.7 -0.1 -1.6
August 67.7 70. S -3.0 ~0.4
September 64.0 63.9 -0.4 -0.5
During this study summers were cooler than normal. Pack (1964, 1965) has
noted that August 1964 and July 1965 were exceptionally cool. Further verification
of the general coolness of these two summers is the virtual absence of recorded
temperatures in excess of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. On only two days (June 30 and
July 1, 1964) in the eight months considered, did temperatures reach or exceed 90
degrees.
8
Salt Water Resource
Southold's climate is greatly modified by the salt water masses nearly encirc-
ling the town. The major water bodies are Long Island Sound on the north, Peconic
Bay on the south, and Gardiner Bay to the east (Figure 1).
Published oceanographic studies in this area indicate surface salinities in
waters adjacent to the town of 28.2 to 29.1 parts per thousand in Peconic Bay in
July (New York State, 1963), 28 in Gardiners Bay, and 27 to 28 in Long Island
Sound during June (Riley, 1952).
Population
Carroll (1965) estimated Southold town's population in 1964 as I1,945 seasonal
residents and 14,444 permanent residents (942 and 258 respectively on Fishers
Island). The distribution of family incomes of the part-time and permanent
resident populations are adapted from Carroll (ibid), (Table 2).
Table 2. Family income of respondents, Town of Southold. (Adapted from
Carroll, 1965, page 6 of Appendix A. )
Income per Year
in Dollars
Part-time Resident Permanent Resident . Total
(N = 162) (Iq = 270) (N = 432)
Percent Freqneney
0 - 4,999 7 33 23
5,000 - 6, 999 6 26 19
7,000 - 8,999 12 14 13
9, 000 - 10, 999 19 10 13
11,000 - 12,999 6 4 5
13,000 + 50 11 26
Sum 100 98 99
9
Town Economic Base
Mox'ton and Allee (op. cit. ) have prepared an input-output table for this town.
The dominant economic base or export sectors considered by them were: seasonal
residents, permanent residents, farm and farm supply, federal government, fish-
ing and fish processing. Dollar exports by these sectors in 1963 ai:e given in
Table 3. These "base" sectors export products or services to users dwelling out-
Table 3 o Value of exports by specified sectors, Town of Southold, 1963. (~kdapted
from Morton and Allee, 1966.)
Export Value
Sector in Dollars
Seasonal residents
Permanent residents
Farm and farm supply
Federal government
Fishing and fish processing
15, 052,000
5, 188, 000
5, 123,000
3,963,000
3,730, 000
side the town. They introduce, therefore, additional or "new" dollars into the
community. It is only through growth of base or export sectors that a community's
economy expands. This study has relevance to the recreational attraciiveness of
this area to the two major export sectors, as well as to the fishing and fish process-
ing sector.
CHAPTER II
EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION
Three major types of recreational participant measures have been used in other
studies: average number of participants, total number of participant days (a person
participating in a given activity for any portion of a 24-hour period generates one
participant day), and total number of different participants.
Most enumerations of fishermen and hunters develop the average number of
hours individuals fish or hunt. Most surveys of other types of recreational activity
develop figures on the total number of participant days. Although license sales may
indicate the total number of different participants at national or state levels, no
studies of limited areas that I have encountered concern themselves with enumerating
the total number of different participants.
In this study the total number of participant days for the "summer", (}une 27 to
September 7, 1954 and June 25 to September 5, 1965) was developed for the follow-
ing activities within the mainland portion of the town:
Swimming at public beaches
Swimming at private beaches
Boating
Use of Orient Beach State Park
Fishing from shore
Picnicking outside the Park
Clamming
Camping
Various approaches to determining the number of participant days have been
used. Marcus et al. (1951) have listed many of these and noted three main methods:
10
11
direct counts of participants, indirect or inferential counts based upon such items
as cars or sales of tickets, and self-counting systems.
Grasslein (1962) considered in detail the problems encountered in estimating
the average number of fishermen fishing a lake. Lucas (1964), Cushwa et al.
(1965), and Davis (1963) have noted problems in determining total participant days
in other recreational activities.
Techniques Used
For dispersed activities such as swimming on extensive shoreline areas, boat-
ing, and salt-water fishing, self-counting systems do not seem applicable. Direct
enumeration is possible although the cost of £ull time enumeration would usually be
prohibitive. Part-time enumeration methods seemed most feasible and those used
in this study were based upon direct counts using land observation and aerial obser-
vation. In one instance, time lapse camera observation was attempted. Indirect
counting by using number of cars and boats was also employed.
Counts from land of persons engaged in specified activities, or of conveyances,
were stratified by segments (A, B, C, on Figure 1), time of day,. ~zeekday or week-
end days and holidays, calendar period, and good or inclement weather. Details of
stratification are available in a separate report (Wilkins, 1967).
Instantaneous counts derived were expanded to compensate for areas unobserved,
and for individuals or boats participating but not active when instantaneous counts
were taken.
Separate participant rates were established for four possible "type" days: good
weather weekend days (39 in the two years); good weather weekdays (75 in the two
12
years); inclement weather weekend days (9); inclement weather weekdays (23).
Incidence of inclement weather days during observations were determined at the
time of observation, and totals for the summers of 1954 and 1955 were determined
from temperature records at Bridgehampton, precipitation records at Cutchogue,
and maximum wind velocities exceeding 19 mph recorded at New Haven, Connecti-
cut. New Haven was the nearest station with published "Local Climatological Data"
(U.S. Weather Bureau, 1954c and 1955b).
The number of participant days In a given activity in this town during the
"summer" were computed for each segment using the formula Ps -- (O x F) , N
where O represents participants observed on the observational route for a given
"type" day, F represents the factor applied to expand the instantaneous counts to
an entire day's participant total, and N represents the number of observational "rv~s"
involved.
The resultant participant figure for each segment was then multiplied by the sum
of the number of days of that type occurrIng in 1954 and 1955 and divided by 2 to give
an annual summer average. Resultant figures are shown In Table 4. It should be
emphasized that the summers of 1954 and 1955 were cooler than normal in this
town.
Results
Persons were identified as swimmers ff they were actively swimming, or on the
shore not engaged in other enumerated activities. Persons merely lying on the beach
were thus identified as swimmers though they may never have entered the water.
Public beaches were interpreted as those beaches owned or under control of public
14
groups such as the town, special park districts, or the Long Island State Park Com-
mission. An average of 303,000 swimmer days were spent at these beaches in the
summers of 1964 and 1965 (Table 4).
Swimmers at beaches owned by individuals or nongovernmental groups were
enumerated as using private beaches. An annual average of somewhat over 190, 000
swimmer days were spent on these beaches in the summers of 1964 and 1965.
An estimated annual 180, 000 boater days were spent in this town in the summers
of 1964 and 1965.
Those using the picnic or beach facilities at the single state park in the town
spent nearly 29, 000 park user days each year. Approximately ha]/ of these are also
recorded as swimmers at public beaches.
Nearly 18, 000 fishermen days were spent fishing from the shoreline or jetties or
from bulkheads in each of the years studied.
Several picnic areas exist in this town, outside of the State Park. In addition,
use of beaches by picnickers was noted. These areas provided an additional 13,000
picnicker days in each of the two years studied.
In 1964, waters under town control were prominently posted to prevent nonresidents
(those neither permanent nor seasonal residents) from clamming in town waters.
An estimated 2, 700 recreational days were spent in town and nontown waters by
clammers.
Other Outdoor Recreational Activities
(a) Camping
Although there is no provision for camping in this town, on several occasions
family groups did camp, using tents, trailers, or pick-up trailers. An estimated
15
150 camper days were spent in each of the two summers, all occurring on the
northern shoreline.
(b) Boat Fishin~
Fishing from varied categories of boats is a prominent activity in this town.
Data on these fishermen were gathered by the New York State Conservation Depart-
ment during 1964 and 1965 in this town.
Averages of their 1964 and 1965 estimates for July and August indicate 12, 253
fishermen on private boats, 8, 032 rental rowboat fishermen, 4, 254 charter boat
fishermen, and 2, 178 open boat fishermen (Briggs, personal communication, 1964,
1965).
The technique used for determining these fishermen numbers is similar to that
described by Briggs (1964). Basically this consists of instantaneous counts of boats
by aerial observation, with expansion by the number of fishermen per boat as deter-
mined by land observation of the number of fishermen landing per craft. Definition
of the boat terms as given by Briggs (ibid) are:
"The different types of boats may be described as follows:
rowboats - rented boats with outboard motors, usually 1~ to 18 feet long
open boats and charter boats - large, Coast Guard-documented
vessels (35 to 65 feet long) with a licensed captain
and mate; these boats are available to the general
public, open boats on a 'first come -first served'
basis, charter boats by reservation to single groups
private boats - all other sport fishing boats."
16
(c) Huntin~
Hunting is the only other resource-based recreational activity for which par-
ticipant data were developed. Each of the three geographic segments was observed
a minimum of four times, combining 196~ and 1965 observations. Calculations
indicate somewhat more than 3,000 "hunter days" a year are spent in this
t own 0
Comparisons
Independent measures of participation by two types of recreationists (park users
and shore fishermen) exist in this town for the period studied. These are presented
in order that comparisons may be made with the estimates made by the author.
The Long Island State Park Commission develops data on attendance at Orient
Beach State Park (Long Island State Park Commission, personal communication).
Based solely on $3,219.50 entrance fees collected in 1965 (using an indicated 4 per-
sons per car), park attendance in that year of 25,756 persons is represented. The
period for which fees were charged corresponded closely to "summer" as used in
this study. Fees collected in 1964 reveal an estimated 24, 408 fee-paying patrons
of the park.
Official estimates of attendance at this park are derived from the superintendent's
estimates, plus the entrance fee computations noted above. The official estimate
(for 1965) would indicate an additional 10, 744 persons used the park during hours when
no fees were charged (primarily 6:00 p.m. until dark) during the study period. Park
use, calculated from fees paid, averaged 25, 082 days in the period 1964 to i965. This
corresponds to my estimate of 28,829 days of use for the same years. The difference
17
of 3,747 users is approximately one-third of the superintendent's estimate of non-
fee-paying patrons.
The New York State Conservation Department's fishery study records shore
fishermen in much of this town through aerial observation. Their coverage excludes
approximately two-thirds of the shoreline of Area A and fails to note approximately
three-quarters of the shore fishing activity in that area. Additionally, their air
coverage, flown at midday periods (10:00 a.m. to noon, or noon to 3:00 p.m.),
assumes all fishermen will be observed. This is clearly not the case in this fishery
as noted by continuous observations. Had I used midday counts and excluded 75
percent of Area A's anglers, an estimated 2, 413 shore anglers would have resulted.
This is quite similar to the average of 2, 564 shore anglers reported by the New
York State Conservation Department survey in July and August of 1964 and 1965.
CHAFFER III
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS
Characteristics of participants in outdoor recreational activities have recently
been intensively studied. Studies of hunters and fishermen throughout the United
States were instituted in 1955 (Crossley, 1956). The preeminent study of other
types of recreationists is the series of reports prepared by the Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission (1962). Approximately 16, 000 individuals were
interviewed at home in one of those studies (Study Report 19) to derive character-
istics of outdoor recreation participants. Copp (1964), Carroll (op. cit. ) and others
have used similar techniques to develop information on recreationist characteristics.
On-site inte~wiews with participants have been used to elicit information related
to users of relatively small geographic regions. Briggs (op. cit. ) carried out such
interviews with fishermen. Sno-Engineering (1965) carried out on-site .int. erviews
with snow skiers. Others (Carruthers, [1966], Davis [1964], and King [1965]) have
used this approach with campers. Typically these studies have selected the persons
to be interviewed based upon some variant of random selection, within a campsite
or at one or more points through which individuals ftmneled into, or from, the geo-
graphic area studied. Sharer (1964) interviewed every nth picnicker over a minimum
age (personal communication), along a randomly chosen course.
18
19
I have fotmd no studies which interviewed recreational clammers and dispersed
hunters at the site of their activity. I have encountered no studies in which rigid
selection and interview of boaters or swimmers was described.
Of interest at the inception of this study were questions of the feasibility of
conducting on-site interviews with swimmers, boaters, clammers and shore fisher-
men. Could personal characteristics be obtained and what problems in sampling
and in eliciting responses would occur?
During this study 1, 116 usable interviews were recorded.
Initially, an optimal total number of interviews for the two-year period was
established. This number was intended to represent over 100 interviews in each
of the assumed major activities, and a minimum of one interview per 100 groups
engaged in other activities. The total participant days in the two summers, the
number of responses initially scheduled and the number and percent of responses
attained, are shown in Table 5.
Interviews were stratified so that equal numbers were obtained in calendar
periods established as well as for weekdays and weekend days within each period.
The number of interviews scheduled yielded approximations of how many individuals
could, and needed to, be by-passed to achieve the desired number of interviews with
the above constraints.
In 1964, observational routes were run and interviews conducted daily. It was
apparent after 1964 that interviews in most activities, at the preconceived rate,
could not be achieved with restraints on time caused by varied interview locations
and daily route observations. Thus in 1965, nttmbers of interviews for most activi-
ties were lowered, but shore fishermen and boater interview numbers were increased
20
Table 5. Approximate total number of participant days, number of interviews
scheduled and completed, by activity. Town of Southold (Summer of 1964 and 1965
combined)
Total Percent of
Participant Total Scheduled
Days Interviews Interviews Interviews
Activity (in thousands) Scheduled Taken Taken
Swimmers at
public beaches 607 275 238 .87
Swimmers at
private beaches 381 135 114 .84
Boaters 361 310 315 1.02
Park picnicke rs 58 110 78 .71
Fishermen
From shore 36 60 89 1.48
From rental
rowboats 16 200 143 .72
From charter
boats 9 55 36 .65
From open
boats 4 60 43 .72
Picnickers outside
the Park 26 40 27 .68
Clammers 5 40 33 .83
to reflect greater participation than originally conceived (Table 6).
Times at which interviews were taken and selection of interviewing sites were
varied to approximate levels of use. In 1965 the general physical area in which
interviews were to be conducted was predetermined but not stricfly adhered to.
21
Table 6. Number of interviews scheduled and completed, by activity; Town of
Southold (Summer of 1964 and 1965)
1964 1965
Interviews Interviews Interviews Interviews
Activity Scheduled Taken Scheduled Taken
Swimmers at
public beaches 175 146 100 92
Swimmers at
private beaches 75 60 60 54
Boaters 150 171 160 144
Park Picnickers 70 38 40 40
Fishermen
From shore 20 56 40 33
From rental
rowboats i00 50 i00 93
From charter
boats 40 19 15 17
From open
boats 30 14 30 29
Picnickers outside
the Park 30 14 10 13
Clammers 20 16 20 17
A questionnaire and "approach statement" pretested on over 50 persons were
used (Appendix A).
22
Interviewers were instructed in use of the questionnaire, used the common
"approach" statement, and interviewed 20 or more persons in a pre-test process.
The individual selected for interview was the assumed decision-maker within the
k th group. The adult male was interviewed if present; ff not, an adult female was
interviewed. If no adults or more than one adult male, or in their absence more
than one adult female, were present, the interviewer randomly selected the individ-
ual to be surveyed.
Selection of k varied with the activity. In the case of swimmers at a public
beach, k_ was 4. A random choice of numbers 1 through 4 selected the first group
decision-maker to be interviewed. Direction of movement of the interviewer (from
left or right) was chosen prior to arrival at the beach at which interviews were to
be made. If an additional beach needed to be covered to attain the predetermined
number of interviews the count was carried over to that beach.
Interviews of swimmers at private beaches followed a similar pattern except
every second group decision-maker was interviewed. Every boater decision-maker
encountered was interviewed except on boats moored, inwhich case every other
boat's decision-maker was interviewed. Picnickers at the State Park' were surveyed
on the basis of every third group. Every second decision-maker clammer and
"picnicker outside the State Park" was interviewed. The decision-maker in each
rental rowboat and charter boat (the lessee) was interviewed. All hunter decision-
makers encountered were interviewed in 1965.
For open boats, every fifth decision-maker was interviewed, although occasion-
ally, when the second or third decision-maker to be interviewed had already left,
a replacement was arbitrarily chosen.
23
Find~gs
Findings are given by activities. Participants identified that activity as their
main reason for being at a site. Additionally, breakdowns for three residency
groups (visitors, seasonal residents, and permanent residents) are frequently
used. Visitors were those individuals whose families would spend less than 31
days a year in the town. Families who would spend 31 days to 24 weeks in the
town were classed as seasonal residents. Ail others were classed as permanent
residents. Residency groups are not separated in a table if fewer than 10 inter-
views are represented.
Swimmers at Public Beaches
The more than 600, 000 days spent by swimmers at public beaches in 1964 and
1965 are represented by 238 interviews. Ail data and conclusions about swim-
mers on public beaches are based upon this group or portions of it.
Visitors comprised 42 percent of these swimmers,while seasonal and perma-
nent residents comprised 28 and 30 percent respectively.
Thirty percent of those interviewed made their permanent home in the Town of
Southold (Table S-I). Nassau County was the neXt most common residence for
users of these beaches, 20 percent having permanent homes in that county. The
place of permanent residence of the visitors and the seasonal residents appear
similar to each other in frequency.
Table S- 1.
1964-65
24
Permanent residence of swimmers at public beaches, Town of Southold,
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal
Residence (N = 84) (N = 57)
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 200)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 0 30
Other Suffolk County 10 9 7
Nassau County 31 25 20
Queens County 18 18 13
Brooklyn 12 10 8
Other New York City 7 17 8
Other New York State 6 5 4
New Jersey 11 7 7
Connecticut 4 0 2
Other 2 7 3
Sum 101 98 102
Half of the visitors swimming at these beaches do spend over 7 (but less than 31)
days a year in the town. Nearly one-fourth (23 percent) spent only the day of the
interview in town on that trip although 37 percent were on a trip on which 7 or more
nights would be spent in the town. Approximately one-fourth of the v{sitors stayed
at the home of relatives (19 percent) and friends (8 percent). Another fourth (26
percent) drove out from home on the day they were interviewed, while 16 percent
stayed at motels and hotels. Thirty-one percent of the visitors indicated they spent
the night in "other" accommodations. Data from 1965 revealed most of these (85
percent) were persons using rented dwellings for less than a month. Persons stay-
ing on boats or sleeping in cars were also grouped under "other."
Seventy and 72 percent of the seasonal and permanent respondents respectively
25
were married, while 86 percent of visitors interviewed were married. This doubt-
less reflects the increased likelihood of visitors having the entire family with them
at the beach, reducing the likelihood of the decision-maker being unmarried using
the sampling method chosen in this study.
Substantiation of this is provided by the increase in the proportion of visitors
interviewed who were male (68 percent) versus seasonal resident male respondents
(56 percent) and permanent resident male respondents (37 percent). The difference
between the latter two groups is believed to be indicative of the higher proportion
of permanent resident males working when their families are swimming.
Additional verification of a greater proclivity for visitors being in family groups
is revealed by data on the relationship between members of each group. Only 2 per-
cent of the visitors went to the beach unaccompanied by others, versus 11 and 12
percent respectively of the seasonal and permanent residents. Higher proportions
of seasonal and permanent residents went to the beach with nonrelatives than did
visitors (40, 36, and 26 percent respectively).
Ages of visitors peaked at the 41-45 age class interval, while young (under 21)
seasonal and permanent residents were most frequently encountered. In the aggre-
gate, decision-makers 21-30, and over 55 years of age, were comparatively scarce
(Table S-2). Minimal representation of visitors interviewed in the youngest age
group reflects the greater likelihood of an adult's presence.
Family income levels (Table S-3) reflect a marked difference between permanent
residents' family income levels versus other residency groups. This difference
between permanent and visitor or seasonal resident family income levels was also
noted by Carroll's (op. cit.) study which used household interviews.
26
Table S-2. Age of swimmers interviewed* (as of 1965) at public beaches, Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
VisKor Seasonal Permanent
Age in Years (N = 118) (N = 55) (N = 58)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 231)
Percent Frequency
20 or under 8 22 26 16
21 - 25 5 5 5 5
26 - 30 10 4 7 8
31 - 35 11 15 22 15
36 - 40 19 13 14 16
41 - 45 22 11 12 17
46 - 50 7 5 7 6
51 ~ 55 6 7 3 6
56'- 6O 7 I1 0 6
61 - 65 3 2 2 2
66 or over 3 5 2 3
Sum 102 100 100 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Table S-3. Gross annual income of swimmer's family, public beaches, Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
All Residency
Annual Income Visitor Seasonal Permanent Groups Combined
in Dollars (N = 102) (N = 48) (N = 36) (N = 186)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4,999 9 4 22 10
5,000- 6,999 14 15 28 17
7,000- 8,999 21 17 11 18
9,000-10,999 15 17 14 15
11,000- 12,999 15 17 22 17
18,000 + 27 31 3 24
Sum 101 101 100 101
27
Proximity to their current residence was an important factor in attracting each
of the residency groups to a particular beach (Table S-4). Social aspects (friends
going there; traditionally go there; quietness; children like it; lifeguard present,
etc. ) were also major attractants. Physical features (a sandy beach, colder water,
warmer water, cleaner water) had less influence on persons choosing a particular
beach.
Table S-4. Primary attractant of beach to swimmers* at public beaches, Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal Permanent
Attractant (N = 113) (N = 56) (N = 56)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 225)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 52 30 36 43
Physical features 13 11 25 16
Proximity 27 55 27 34
Other 8 3 11 8
Sum 100 99 99 101
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
The rustic aura of the town (expressed as quietness, uncrowded, rural or simply,
atmosphere) appeared as the major attractant to all residency groups of swimmers
at public beaches (Table S-5). Physical attributes (clean beaches or water, sand,
etc. ) were other major attractants to the town. Social factors (friendly people,
presence of friends, "good for our family") impressed a number of persons. The
facilities in the town (the existence of public beaches, eating places and marinas)
were important to some. Others stated only "any convenience desired" was present.
28
Table S-5. Primary attractant of the town to swimmers* at public beaches, Town
of Southold, 1965 only
Residency Group
All Residency
Visitor Seasonal Permanent Groups Combined
Attraction (N = 51) (N = 19) (lq = 21) (N = 91)
Percent Frequency
Physical factors 23 32 19 24
Social factors 6 5 19 9
Aura 48 37 25 40
Quietness 22 16 5 16
Uncrowded 4 11 i0 7
Rural 14 5 5 10
Atmosphere 8 5 5 7
Facilities 10 16 10 10
REcreation activities 0 5 14 4
Other 14 5 15 11
Sum 101 100 102 99
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Swimmers at P~ivate Beaches
The nearly 200, 000 days spent by swimmers at private beaches in the summers
of 1964-1965 are represented by 114 interviews.
Seasonal residents and visitors were the dominant residency group on private
beaches (53 and 36 percent respectively) (Table PS-l). Permanent res/dents com-
prised only 11 percent of those interviewed on these beaches.
Nassau County residents were most frequently encountered on the beach
(Table PS-l). "Other" New York City boroughs was the next most frequently men-
tioned permanent residence, with Queens County ranking third as a major residence
29
Table PS-1.
Residence of swimmers at private beaches, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal
Residence (N = 37) (N = 54)
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 102)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 0 11
Other Suffolk County 11 4 6
Nassau County 38 30 29
Queens County 16 15 14
Brooklyn 8 7 7
Other New York City 10 24 17
Other New York State 0 9 5
New Jersey 11 6 7
Connecticut 0 2 1
Other 5 4 4
Sum 99 101 i01
A preponderance of visitors (56 percent) expected to spend over seven days in
the town that year, although most visitors (60 percent) on the day of the interview
were on a visit in which fewer than seven nights would be spent in the town. Ninety
percent of the visitors would spend at least one night in town on the trip they were
on.
A fourth (26 percent) of the visitors interviewed spent the night prior to the
interview at a friend's or relative's home. Another fourth (24 percent) stayed at
motels. A dominant group 04 percent) indicated they spent the night in "other"
accommodations. Data from 1965 revealed over half (57 percent) of those using
"other" accommodations were persons renting cottages or cabins for less than a
month. Only 16 percent of the visitors came directly from their permanent home
30
to the private beach where they were interviewed.
Sixty-four percent of the visitors interviewed were male, while 48 percent of
the seasonal residents interviewed were males. This is believed to result from
variation in family participation patterns in the two groups (see discussion under
"Swimmers at Public Beaches," above). The relationships between persons in
groups going to these beaches followed those described for public beach swimmers.
Ages of these swimmers were rather evenly distributed in age classes between
31 and 50 years of age and in the class of "20 or under" (Table PS-2).
Table PS-2. Age of swimmers interviewed* (as of 1965) at private beaches, Town
of Sonthold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal Permanent
Age in Years (N = 48) (N = 53) (N = 11)
Percent Frequency
All Residency
Groups Combined
(n = n2)
20 or under 12 13 27 14
21 - 25 2 4 0 3
26 - 30 8 6 9 7
31 - 35 19 13 9 . .15
36 - 40 10 17 9 13
41 - 45 8 13 18 12
46 - 50 10 13 9 12
51 - 55 8 8 9 8
56 - 60 6 6 0 5
61 - 65 8 8 9 8
66 and over 6 0 0 3
Sum 97 101 99 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
31
Incomes of the families of swimmers at private beaches were skewed toward
higher levels (Table PS-3). A third (34 percent) of the families of visitors had
incomes of $13,000 a year or more, but 60 percent of the seasonal residents had
incomes of this level.
Table PS-3. Family income of swimmers at private beaches, Town of Southold,
1964 -65
Residency Group
Annual Income Visitor Seasonal
in Dollars (N = 38) (N = 38)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 82)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4,999 5 0 2
5,000- 6,999 16 0 11
7,000- 8,999 11 11 12
9,000 - 10,999 24 16 18
11,000 - 12,999 i1 13 11
13,000 + 34 60 45
Sum 101 i00 99
Swimmers at private beaches rated social aspects of the beach as a major factor
in selecting the beach to attend (friends come; tmcrowded, etc. ) (Table PS-4).
Seasonal residents were often influenced by the proximity of the beaches, while the
physical features of a beach influenced many visitor decision-makers.
Their right of access to a private beach was given by only 8 percent as the main
reason for use of a particular beach (included under "other").
32
Table PS-4. Primary attractant of beach to swimmers* at private beaches, Town
of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
All Residency
Visitor Seasonal Permanent Groups Combined
Attractant (Iq = 47) (N = 51) (N = i0) (N = 108)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 38 45 80 44
Physical features 26 8 10 16
Proximity 19 35 0 25
Other 16 12 10 14
Sum 99 I00 100 99
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
The town's rustic aura was cited as the major attractant (Table PS-5) by those
swimming at private beaches. Physical factors also were indicated as a primary
attractant by substantial numbers of respondees.
Boaters
Over 360, 000 boating days were spent in the summers of 1964 and 1965 in the
Town of Southold. Three hundred fifteen boaters were interviewed, 53 percent
were visitors, 32 percent were seasonal residents, while 15 percent were perma-
nent residents in the town.
A/though in aggregate more boaters made their permanent home in Nassau
County than elsewhere, visitor boaters predominately came from Suffolk County
(Table B-i). Uniquely among activities studied, the next most common group of
visitors resided in Connecticut.
33
Table PS-5. Primary attractant of the town to private beach swimmers*, Town of
Southold, 1965 only
Residency Group
Ail Residency
Visitor Seasonal Groups Combined
Attraction (N = 28) (N = 23) (N = 54)
Percent Frequency
Physical factors 29 17 22
Social factors 7 9 9
Aura 53 56 55
Quietness 14 30 20
Uncrowded 7 9 9
Rural 11 13 13
Atmosphere 21 4 13
Facilities 4 0 2
Recreational activities 4 4 4
Other 4 13 8
Sum 101 99 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-maker."
Table B-1. Residence of boaters, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal
Residence (N = 131) (N = 78)
Ail Residency
Groups. Combined
· (N = 247)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 0 15
Other Suffolk County 27 13 18
Nassau County 20 36 22
Queens County 6 15 8
Brooklyn 5 6 4
Other New York City 8 13 8
Other New York State 6 4 4
New Jersey 6 8 6
Connecticut 21 5 13
Other 2 0 1
Sum 101 100 99
34
Over hal~ (55 percent) of the visitor boaters would spend seven or more days in
the town in a year. Nearly one-fifth (19 percent) were on a trip where no nights
would be spent in the town, while 14 percent would spend seven or more nights in
the town. Of those spending the prior night in town (74 percent) 78 percent spent
that night on their boat.
Substantial numbers of boaters arrived at the spot of interview by boat (50 per-
cent), although seasonal and permanent residents usually arrived by car (56 percent
and 61 percent respectively).
Most boaters interviewed were in age classes between 41 and 60 years of age,
but widely differing distributions occurred among the three residency groups
(Table B-2). Whereas 20 percent and 26 percent respectively of seasonal and perma-
nent resident boaters were 20 years of age or younger, only 3 percent of the visitors
interviewed were this young.
Over one-half of the visitor and seasonal boater families had gross annual incomes
of $13,000 or more; only 12 percent of the permanent residents fell in this group
(Table B-3)o
The boaters in different residency groups were attracted to the interview site
by different featttres (Table B-4). Visitors were primarily attracted by social
aspects (friends come), but the facilities offered and their desirable features attract
20 percent of the visitors. Seasonal and permanent residents gave the presence of
permanent moorings as the prime reason for landing at a chosen site o
The primary town attractant differed among each residency group (Table
While visitors cited the facilities (usually for boats) most frequently, the rustic
aura of the town was the attraction most frequently named by seasonal residents.
35
Table B-2. ~ of boaters interviewed* (as of 1965), Tov~ of $outhold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal Permanent
A4e in Years (N = 187) (N = 84) (N = 38)
Percent Frequency
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 309)
20 or younger 3 20 26 10
21 - 25 3 7 5 4
26 - 30 5 2 3 4
31 - 35 8 1 13 7
36 - 40 6 11 8 7
41 - 45 22 10 11 17
46 - 50 14 15 13 15
51 - 55 16 12 5 13
56 - 60 14 12 8 13
61 - 65 4 7 5 5
66 or older 5 4 3 4
Sum 100 101 100 99
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Table B-3. Gross annual family income of boaters, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
All Residency
Annual Income Visitor Seasonal Permanent Groups Combined
in Dollars (N = 170) (N = 69) (N = 25) (N = 264)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4,999 3 0 12 3
5,000- 6,999 7 6 12 7
7,000 - 8,999 11 10 32 12
9,000 - 10,999 12 12 16 12
11,000 - 12,999 8 14 16 11
13,000 + 59 58 12 54
Sum 100 100 100 99
36
Table B-4. Primary attractant of interview site to boaters*, Town of Southold,
1964 -65
Residency Group
All Residency
Visitor Seasonal Permanent Groups Combined
Attractant (N = 90) (N = 47) (N = 22) (bi = 159)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 44 19 23 34
Physical features 6 4 0 4
Proximity 4 11 9 7
Permanent mooring 3 40 50 21
Facilities 20 19 9 18
Other 22 6 10 16
Sum 99 99 101 i00
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Table B-5. Primary attractant of the town to boaters*, Town of Southold, 1965 only
Residency Group
All Residency
Visitor Seasonal Permanent Groups Combined
Attraction (N = 85) (N = 40) (bi = 15) (N = 140)
Physical factors 20 25 27 22
Social factors 9 12 27 . 12 -
Rustic aura 24 32 20 26
Quietness 6 10 7 7
Uncrowded 4 2 0 3
Rural 1 10 13 5
Atmosphere 13 i0 0 11
Facilities 27 12 7 21
Recreation activities 2 12 0 5
Other 18 5 20 15
Sum i00 98 101 101
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
37
Permanent residents noted physical and social factors as a primary attracant. A
substantial portion of boaters noted still other factors as a primary attraction. In
all the other activities studied two of the categories used would encompass over one-
half of all persons interviewed. The boaters' choice of primary attractions were
more dispersed than choices by participants in other activities.
Park Picnickers
Nearly 60, 000 persons visited the State Park in the town in the two summers
studied. Of 78 picnickers interviewed at this park, 88 percent were visitors and
the remaining 12 percent were permanent residents. No seasonal residents were
encountered picnicking in this park.
Contrasting with visitors in most activities studied, nearly half (46 percent) of
the park picnickers made their permanent home in Suffolk County, outside of the
Town of Southold. Nassau County (15 percent), Queens (12 percent), and Brooklyn
(10 percent) were the most heavily represented areas outside of Suffolk County
(Table P- 1).
In contrast to most activities studied, half (49 percent) of these visiror~ would
spend only one day in the town in the year and an additional third (32 percent) would
spend seven or less days in the town during a year.
Only 7 percent of these visitors planned on staying overnight in the town on the
trip they were on, and only one party planned to stay more than two nights in the
While 83 percent of the visitors spent the prior night at home, 3 percent spent it
with friends, 4 percent at motels and 10 percent at other lodgings (in this case
38
Table P-1. Residence of park picnickers, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor
Residence (N = 67)
Visitor and Permanent
Residency Groups
Combined
(N = 76)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 12
Other Suffolk County 46 41
Nassau County 15 13
Queens County 12 11
Brooklyn 10 9
Other New York City 4 4
Other New York State 4 4
New Jersey 1 i
Connecticut 3 3
Other 3 3
Sum 98 101
Table P-2. Age of park picnickers interviewed* (as of 1965), Town of Southold,
1964 -65
Visitor
Age in Years (Iq = 65)
Residency Group
Visitor and Permanent
Residency Groups-
Combined
(bi = 74)
Percent Frequency
20 or yonnger 3 3
21 - 25 6 5
26 - 30 6 7
31 - 35 8 9
36 - 40 15 15
41 - 45 23 24
46 - 50 14 14
51 - 65 14 14
66 or older 11 9
Sum 100 100
*Interviews with group "decision-makers."
39
typically rented cottages or summer homes in adjacent towns).
The ages of park picnickers interviewed are given in Table P-2. Over half (53
percent) of those interviewed were ages 36 to 50 inclusive, although interviewees
were typically 41 to 45 years of age. No one interviewedwas picnicking by himself
and only 4 percent came with just one other person. Nearly two~thirds (62 percent)
of those interviewedwere accompanied only by family members. Large groups were
common, 35 percent of those interviewed being accompanied by seven ormore
persons.
Income levels of the families of park picnickers had a mode at $7, 000 - $8,999
(Table P-3); only 11 percent had incomes of $13,000 a year or more.
Table P-3. Gross annual family income of park picnickers, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Annual Income Visitor
in Dollars (N = 62)
Visitor and Permanent
Residency Groups
Combined
~q = ?0)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4,999 14 16
5,000- 6,999 23 21
7,000- 8,999 29 30
9,000 - 10,999 16 17
11,000 ~ 12,999 5 4
13,000 + 13 11
Sum 100 99
Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the park picnickers chose this park for social
reasons (typically "uncrowded") while the physical features present were the dom/-
nant attractant to 14 percent (Table P-4). It would appear the lack of crowding
40
Table P-4. Primary attractant of Orient Beach State Park to park picnickers*,
Town of Southold, 1964-65
Visitor
Attractant (N = 64)
Residency Group
Visitor and Permanent
Residency Groups
Combined
(N = 73)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 67 64
Physical features 16 14
Proximity 2 4
Facilities 12 14
Other 3 4
Sum 100 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Table P-5.
1965 only
Primary attractant of the town to park picnickers*, Town of Southold,
Visitor
Attraction (N = 29)
Residency Group
Visitor and Permanent
Residency Groups
Combined
(N = 36)
Percent Frequency
Physical factors 21 22
Social factors 7 6
Rustic aura 70 67
Quietne s s 14 14
Uncrowded 21 22
Rural 14 14
Atmosphere 21 17
Facilities 0 3
Other 3 3
Sum 101 i01
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
41
typical of this park compensates many for the substantial distance which must be
traveled in order to reach it.
The rustic aura of the town assumed major importance with these recreationists,
too, 67 percent giving a reason included in this category as primary attractants of
the town (Table P-5). Physical factors were another commonly mentioned primary
attractant of the town.
Shore Fishermen
More than 35, 000 persons fished from shore, or prominences, in the town dur-
ing the two summer study periods. Visitors comprised 70 percent of the 89 shore
fishermen interviewed. Seasonal and permanent residents each comprised 1~ per-
cent of those interviewed (Table F-i). Residents of Queens County were most
commonly encountered in interviews; residents of the remaLuing New York City
counties in total were slightly more numerous than Nassau County residents.
Most (51 percent) visitors fishing from shore would spend more than seven days
a year in the town, although only 29 percent were on a stay of that duration when
interviewed. Forty-one percent of the shore fishermen had com~ directly from
their permanent home on the day they were interviewed. Twenty percent had stayed
with friends and relatives the prior night, while 1965 data indicated another 32 per-
cent stayed at rented cabins or houses the prior night. Only 5 percent stayed at
motels or hotels.
Shore fishermen were nearly equally distributed among the age groupings used,
from 31 to 55 years of age (Table F-2).
42
Table F-1. Residence of shore fishermen, Town of Sonthold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal
Residence (bi = 46) (lq = 10)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 66)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 0 15
Other Suffolk County 13 0 9
Nassau County 17 40 18
Queens County 33 0 23
Brooklyn 7 0 5
Other New York City 13 30 14
Other New York State 4 10 5
New Jersey 7 10 6
Connecticut 2 0 2
Other 4 10 5
Sum 100 100 102
Table F-2. Age of shore fishermen interviewed* (as of 1965), Town of Southold,
1964 -65
Residency Group
Ail Residency
Visitor Seasonal Permauent Groups Combined
Age in Years (Iq = 65) (N = 12) (N = 10) (N = 87)
Percent Frequency
20 or younger 3 8 0 3
21 - 25 2 8 0 2
26 - 30 3 0 10 3
31 ~ 35 14 17 10 14
36 - 40 15 17 i0 15
41 - 45 14 8 10 13
46 - 50 14 8 0 11
51 - 55 12 8 20 13
56 - 60 8 0 30 9
61 - 65 9 8 0 8
66 or older 6 17 10 8
Sum i00 99 100 99
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
43
The distribution of the annual income level of shore fishermen families was
nearly uniform up to $10, 999, each interval used containing approximately one-fifth
of all shore fishermen interviewed (Table F-3). Visitor family incomes did tend
to be lower than seasonal residents', however.
Table F-3. Gross annual family income of shore fishermen, Town of Southold,
1964 -65
Residency Group
Annual Income Visitor Seasonal
in Dollars (N = 64) (N = 11)
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 82)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4, 999 17 18 23
5, 000 - 6, 999 23 9 20
7,000- 8, 999 19 · 0 16
9, 000 - 10, 999 22 27 21
11,000 - 12, 999 5 9 5
13,000 q- 14 36 16
Sum 100 99 101
Shore fishermen selected a fishing site primarily because oth'ers were going to
that site (included in "Social" in Table F-4). The expectation of good fishing at the
spot chosen was responsible for the choice made by 29 percent of the shore fisher-
men.
The rustic aura of the town again was given by the highest proportion of the
fishermen (36 percent) as a prime town attractant (Table F-5). "Good fishing" was
given by 24 percent as a primary town appeal and among visitors assumed primary
importance as an attractant. Physical features were also important attractants to
these fishermen.
44
Table F-4. Primary attractant of fishing site to shore fishermen, * Town of South-
old, 1964-65
Residency Group
All Residency
Visitor Seasonal Permanent Groups Combined
Attractant (N = 65) (N = 11) (lq = 10) (N = 86)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 42 45 10 38
Physical features 5 0 10 5
Proximity 22 36 0 21
Good fishing 23 18 80 29
Other 9 0 0 7
Sum 101 99 100 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers".
Table F~5. Primary attractant of the town to shore fishermen*, Town of Southold,
1965 only
Visitors
Attraction (N = 29)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(IN'= 37)
Physical factors 21 16
Social factors 7 11
Rustic aura 23 36
Quietness 7 11
Uncrowded 3 3
Rural 3 8
Atmosphere 10 14
Facfl~ies 6 6
Fishing 31 24
Other 10 8
Sum 98 101
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
45
Rental Rowboat Fishermen
Rental rowboat fishermen fished approximately 16, 000 days during the summers
of the two years, in tow~ waters. Ninety-two percent of the 143 participants respond-
ing to interviews were visitors, with 6 percent and 2 percent seasonal and permanent
residents respectively (Table RF-1).
Table RF-1. Residence of rental rowboat fishermen, * Town of $outhold, 1964-65
Residence
Residency Group
Visitor
(N = ,24)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 135)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 2
Other Suffolk County 6 6
Nassau County 13 12
Queens County 14 15
Brooklyn 18 16
Other New York City 26 27
Other New York State 15 14
New Jersey 5 4
Connecticut 2 1
Other 2 2
Sum 101 99
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers,"
New York City contributed 58 percent of all rental rowboat patrons. Upstate New
York and Nassau County each contributed over 10 percent of these fishermen.
Nearly half (42 percent) of the visitors would spend more than seven days in the
town in a year. Nearly three-fourths (74 percent), however, were on a trip of a
single day's duration, Only 3 percent were interviewed on a trip in which over six
nights would be spent in the town. Seventy percent of visitors spent the night prior
46
to the interview at home while 11 percent had spent it at a motel in the town and 12
percent had used "other" accommodations, frequently rented cabins or houses.
No single age class contained as much as 20 percent of these fishermen
(Table RF-2). Between 11 and 18 percent of the total were in each of the five five-
year intervals between 31 and 55 years of age.
Table RF-2. Age of rental rowboat fishermen interviewed* (as of 1965), Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
All Residency
Visitor Groups Combined
Age in Years (N = 129) (N = 140)
Percent Frequency
20 or younger 1 1
21 - 25 2 2
26 - 30 8 7
31 - 35 14 14
36 - 40 16 16
41 - 45 10 11
46 - 5O 19 18
51 - 55 16 14
56 - 60 7 8
61- 65 3 4
66 or older 5 5
Sum 101 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Family income levels of rental rowboat fishermen were rather uniformly dis-
tributed and thus modest in comparison with swimmers and boaters. Over 60 per-
cent of the rental rowboat patrons had incomes of $5, 000 to $10, 999 (Table RF-3).
These fishermen were nearly equally attracted to a boat livery by expectation
of good fishing (45 percent) and social reasons (40 percent), such as liking the
47
Table RF-3. Gross annual family income of rental rowboat fishermen, Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Annual Income Visitor
in Dollars (N = 114)
Residency Group
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 125)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4, 999 11 11
5,000 - 6, 999 21 20
7,000 - 8, 999 19 19
9, 000 - 10, 999 21 22
11, 000 - 12, 999 13 13
13,000 + 15 15
Sum 100 i00
Table RF-4. Primary attractant of the site to rental rowboat fishermen*, Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Visitor
Attractant (N = 114)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N .- 121)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 41 40
Physical features 4 5
Proximity 3 4
Good fishing 46 45
Other 6 6
Sum 100 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
owner, friends go there, etc. (Table RF-4).
48
These people were interested in fish. Thirty-seven percent gave good fishing
as the most attractive aspect of the township (Table RF =5). Many of these fisher-
men simply had no interest or recognition of other attractants in the town.
Table RF-5. Primary attractant of the town to rental rowboat fishermen*, Town
of Southold, 1965 only
Residency Group
Visitor
Attraction (N = 83)
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 90)
Percent Frequency
Physical factors i0 10
Social factors 5 7
Rustic aura 15 15
Quietness 5 4
Uncrowded 1 1
Rural 7 7
Atmosphere 2 3
Facilities 3 3
Fishing 40 37
Other 26 27
Sum 99 99
*interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Open Boat Fishermen
Of 43 open boat fishermen interviewed, 88 percent were visitors, 7 percent were
seasonal residents and 5 percent were permanent residents. While Nassau County
residents predominated, New York City boroughs other than Queens and Brooklyn,
and Upstate New York areas were important contributors to the open boat patrons
(Table FO-l).
49
Table FO-1. Residence of open boat fishermen, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor
Residence (N = 36)
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N: 41)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 5
Other Suffolk Comity 3 5
Nassau County 28 24
Queens County 8 10
Brooklyn i 1 10
Other New York City 25 22
Other New York State 19 17
New Jersey 0 2
Connecticut 3 2
Other 3 2
Sum 100 99
Though 32 percent of the visitors would spend more than seven days a year in
the township, 71 percent would spend no nights in the town on their current trip.
The night prior to the interview was spent at home by 63 percent of these visitors
while 13 percent stayed at motels or hotels, 8 percent stayed at homes'of friends
or relatives and 16 percent stayed at other properties, typically a rented house or
cabin. Patrons interviewed were frequently 36 to 40 years of age but over half
(59 percent) were 46 to 60 years of age (Table FO-2).
Incomes of $7,000 - $8,999 predominated among visitors, although among all
open boat fishermen this was equaled in number by those whose family incomes
were $13,000 or more per year (Table FO-3).
Open boat fishermen commonly chose a particular boat because fishing was ex-
pected to be good in the area (36 percent) or belief in a particular captain's ability
5O
Table FO-2. Age of open boat fishermen interviewed* (as of 1965), Town of
So.hold, 1964-65
Visitor
Age in Years (N = 36)
Residency Group
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 41)
Percent Frequency
20 or younger 0 0
21 - 25 3 2
26 - 30 6 5
31 - 35 3 2
36 - 40 22 20
41 - 45 6 5
46 - 50 14 17
51 - 55 14 12
56 - 6O 17 15
61 - 65 8 15
66 or older 8 7
Sum 101 101
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Table FO-3. Gross annual family income of open boat fishermen, Town of Southold,
1964 -65
Annual Income Visitor
in Dollars (lq = 30)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 35)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4, 999 7 6
5,000 - 6, 999 13 11
7, 000 - 8, 999 27 26
9, 000 - 10, 999 20 23
i1, 000 - 12, 999 I0 9
13,000 + 23 26
Sum 100 101
51
Table FO~4. Primary attractant of a site to open boat fishermen*, Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor
Attractant (N = 35)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 39)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 40 43
Physical features 3 3
Proximity 6 5
Good fishing 40 36
Other 11 13
Sum i00 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Table FO-5. Primary attractant of the town to open boat fishermen*, Town of
Southold, 1965 only
Visitor
Attraction (N = 24)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 27)
Physical factors 8 i1
Social factors 12 11
Rustic aura 20 - 2'6 '
Uncrowded 0 4
Rural 12 11
Atmosphere 8 11
Facilities 4 4
Fishing 42 37
Other 12 11
Sum 98 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
(15 percent, under "Social" in Table FO-4).
As with rental rowboat fishermen, good fishing was noted as the prima~y town
attractant by more open boat fishermen than any other single factor (37 percent),
52
although the aura of the town was indicated as the primary attractant by 26 percent
of these fishermen (Table FO-5).
Charter Boat Lessees
Charter boat fishermen in Southold spent somewhat under 9, 000 recreation man-
days in the two summers studied. Thin]z-six charter boat lessees were interviewed,
representing 215 charter boat fisherman-days.
Visitors comprised 83 percent of all charter boat fishermen interviewed, while
11 percent were seasonal residents and 6 percent permanent residents.
Nassau County and New York City boroughs (other than Queens and Brooklyn)
were the most common residences of charter boat fishermen (Table CF-I). Upstate
New York and the rest of Suffolk County were the most common permanent homes of
the remaining charter boat lessees.
Table CF-1. Residence of charter boat fishermen, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Visitor
Residence (N = 27)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined.
(N = 33) '
Southold 0
Other Suffolk County 15
Nassau County 26
Queens County 4
Brooklyn 4
Other New York City 22
Other New York State 22
New Jersey 4
Connecticut 0
Other 4
Sum 101
Percent Frequency
6
15
21
3
3
21
18
9
0
3
99
53
Visitors chartering boats infrequently (30 percent) would spend more than seven
days in the town during a year, and most (77 percent) would spend only the single
day in the town when interviewed. Five of the nine charter boat lessees who spent
the prior night in the town stayed at a motel or hotel.
Lessees 51 to 55 years of age were the dominant age class (Table CF-2). Few
persons under 41 years of age were lessees.
While 38 percent had annual family incomes of over $13,000, nearly one-fourth
(24 percent) of charter boat lessees had incomes of $9, 000 - $10, 999 (Table CF~3).
Table CF-2. Age of charter boat fishermen interviewed* (as of 1965), Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Visitor
Age in Years (N = 29)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 35)
Percent Frequency
20 or younger 0
21 - 25 3
26 - 3O 7
31 - 35 7
36 - 40 3
41 - 45 14
46 - 50 7
51 ~ 55 24
56 - 60 21
61 - 65 7
66 or older 7
0
3
6
6'
3
11
14
29
17
6
6
Sum 100 101
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
54
Table CF-3. Gross annual family income of charter boat fishermen, Town of
Southold, 1964-65
Annual Income Visitor
in Dollars (N = 24)
Residency Group
Ail Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 29
Percent Frequency
0 - 4, 999 4 3
5, 000 - 6, 999 8 7
7, 000 - 8, 999 12 17
9, 000 - 10, 999 29 24
11, 000 - 12, 999 12 10
13,000 + 34 38
Sum 99 99
Table CF-5. Primary attractant of the town to charter boat fishermen*, Town of
Southold, 1965 only
Visitor
Attraction (N = 14)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 17)
Physical factors 21
Social factors 7
Rustic aura 35
Quietness 7
Uncrowded 7
Rttral 7
Atmosphere 14
Fishing 36
Sum 99
Percent Frequency
18
6
42
35
101
6
12
12
12
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
55
Social aspects (familiarity with the captain, 13 percent; prior use of the vessel
by friends, 33 percent; and other social reasons, 17 percent) attracted most
persons to a pa~icular vessel. Good fishing was cited by another 20 percent as
their reason for coming to the site to charter a boat.
The composite rustic aura of the town was the primary attraction of the town to
42 percent of these fishermen (Table CF-5). Good fishing was the primary attrac-
tion to 35 percent and 18 percent found physical factors most appealing.
Picnickers Outside the State Park
Over 26, 000 picnicker days were spent in this town, in areas outside the State
Park during the summers of 1964-1965. Of 27 such picnickers interviewed, visitors
comprised 74 percent, while seasonal and permanent residents comprised 15 and 11
percent respectively.
Residents of Suffolk County (outside the Town of Southold), of Nassau, of Queens,
and of "Other New York City" boroughs each comprised 17 percent of those iht er-
viewed (Table OP-1).
Thirty percent of the visitors interviewed would spend over seveh days in Southold
in a year, and 40 percent were interviewed on a trip when some nights would be spent
away from home. Half of these would spend three or less nights in the town on this
trip.
Along with swimmers, picnickers interviewed tended to be younger than partici-
pants in most other activities, nearly two-fifths (38 percent) being 31 to 40 years of
age (Table OP-2). Family income levels of these picnickers peaked at $7, 000 -
$8, 999 with almost equal representation at a level of $11, 000 - $12, 999 (Table OP-3).
Table OP-I.
1964 -65
56
Residence of picnickers outside the State Park, Town of Southold,
Visitor
Kesidence (N = 17)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 23)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 13
Other Suffolk County 18 17
Nassau County 24 17
Queens County 24 17
Brooklyn 6 4
Other New York City 18 17
Other New York State 0 0
New Jersey 12 9
Connecticut 0 4
Sum 102 98
Table OP-2. Age of picnickers outside the State Park*, as of 1965, Town of Southold,
1964 -65
Residency Group
All Kesidency
Visitor Groups Combined.
Age in Years (N = 20) (N = 27)'
Percent Frequency
20 or younger 0 7
21 - 25 10 7
26 - 30 0 0
31 - 35 10 19
36 - 40 20 19
41 - 45 20 15
46 - 50 15 11
51 - 55 10 7
56 - 60 5 4
61 - 65 5 4
66 or older 5 7
Sum i00 100
*Interviews were with gToup "decision-makers."
57
Table OP-3. Gross annual family income of picnickers outside the State Park, Town
of Southold, 1964-65
Annual Income Visitor
in Dollars (N = 16)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N -- 23)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4,999 0 4
5, 000 - 6, 999 12 13
7,000 - 8, 999 38 30
9, 000 - 10, 999 12 17
11, 000 - 12, 999 25 26
13,000 + 12 9
Sum 99 99
Social aspects ("friends coming," 16 percent) were a dominant attractant to a
particular picnic spot (Table OP-4) but physical factors of the town had the greatest
appeal to these picnickers (Table OP-5).
Table OP-4. Primary attractant of the site to picnickers* outside the State Park,
Town of Southold, 1964-65
Visitor
Attractant (N = 20)
Residency Group
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N -- 2S)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 55 56
Physical features 20 20
Proximity 10 12
Other 15 12
Sum 100 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers.
58
Table OP-5. Primary attractant of the town to picnickers* outside the State Park,
Town of Southold, 1965 only
Residency Group
Visitor
Attractioa (N = 12)
All l{e sidency
Groups Combined
(N =
Percent Frequency
Physical factors 42 38
Social factors 25 23
Rustic aura 17 23
Quietue s s 17
Kural 0
Other 16 16
Sum 100 100
15
8
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Clammers
Thirty-three clammers interviewed serve to represent characteristics of a total
of nearly 5, 500 clammer days spent during the two summer stud~ periods.
Visitors comprised 41 percent of those interviewed with seasonal ~ permanent
residents represented by 32 and 9_8 percent of those interviewed, respectively.
Queens County and New Jersey residents were the most frequent non-permanent
residents encountered (Table
All but one of these visitors would spend more than seven days a year in the
town. Only 14 percent of those interviewed were out on a trip of just one day, the
others were spending at least one night in the town on the trip when interviewed.
Approximately one-fifth (21 percent)of the visitors spent the previous night at
their permauent home, but 36 percent used accommodations such as rented cabins
59
Table C-i. Residence of clammers, Town of SourJ~old, 1964-65
Residence
Residency Group
Visitor
(N = ll)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N= 27)
Percent Frequency
Southold 0 $0
Other Suffolk County 18 11
Nassau County 18 11
Queens County 36 19
Brooklyn 0 0
Other New York City 9 7
Other New York State 0 4
New Jersey 18 15
Connecticut 0 0
Other 0 4
Sum 99 101
or leased houses, and an equal number stayed with relatives or friends. One
individual (7 percent) spent the prior night in a motel.
Age levels peaked in the 46 - 50 year age class for all clammers, bm no uniform-
ity in their distribution is apparent (Table C-2).
Income levels of clammers do not appear to be substantially clustered, although
26 percent did have annual family incomes of $11, 000 - $12, 999 (Table C-3). This
distribution of income levels varied markedly between residency groups, however.
Clammers used the area on which they were interviewed largely because of its
productivity of clams (Table C-4), but social factors ("Only place I know of to
clam") were also of major importance in selecting a clamming site. Of 16 clam-
mers indicating a major appeal of the town 37 percent cited the rustic aura of the
town as the primary attractant. Twelve percent indicated each of the following
as primary attractants: social factors, physical factors, and biological factors.
Table C-2.
A~e of clammers interviewed* (as of 1965), Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Visitor Seasonal
Age in Years (N = 14) (N = 10)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 33)
Percent Frequency
20 or younger 7 0 3
21 - 25 14 10 12
26 - 30 7 10 9
31 - 35 0 10 3
36 - 40 21 20 15
41 - 45 7 10 9
46 - 50 21 30 18
51 ~ 55 7 0 9
56 - 60 7 0 3
61 - 65 7 0 6
66 or older 0 10 12
Sum 98 I00 99
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Table C-3. Gross annual income of clammers' family, Town of Southold, 1964-65
Residency Group
Annual incume Visitor
in Dollars (N = 13)
All Residency
Groups Combined
(N = 27)
Percent Frequency
0 - 4, 999 8 15
5, 000 - 6, 999 15 19
7,000- 8, 999 15 7
9, 000 - 10, 999 23 15
11, 000 - 12, 999 31 26
13,000 + 8 18
Sum i00 100
Table C-4.
1964 -65
61
Primary attractant of clamming site to clammers*, Town of Southold,
Attractant
Residency Group
All Residency
Visitor Seasonal Groups Combined
(N = 12) (N = 10) (N = 30)
Percent Frequency
Social aspects 41 30 30
Physical features 8 10 7
Proximity 8 0 13
Good clamming 25 40 37
Other 16 20 13
Sum 98 100 100
*Interviews were with group "decision-makers."
Hunters
Original plans called for interviewing hunters in the same manner as other
participants. Lack of success in encountering hunters in 1964 led to the use of a
mail questionnaire, together with personal interviews, in 19~5.
The mail questionnaire was enclosed with a stamped, addressed envelope and
a small pencil in a plastic sandwich bag, and sealed. This was similar to a method
used by Burgess (1966). This was placed under the windshield wiper (on the
driver's side) of cars parked while the users were believed to be actively hunting,
Individual questionnaires were identified by writing consecutive numbers inside the
envelope and recording the license plate of the corresponding car.
62
In addition, 14 hunters were interviewed in 1965. Of these, one-half were
permanent residents, 21 percent were visitors and the other 28 percent were
seasonal residents. It should be noted that no data on characteristics of hunters
were obtained on weekend days, although hunters active on the opening days of the
small game season were contacted.
Of 24 mail questionnaires distributed as described above, 12 were returned.
One was a man fishing (this had been suspected) and the residency group of one
respondent was unclear. Of the 10 usable returns, eight were from permanent
residents and two from visitors. There were no seasonal resident respondents.
While the number of responses is indeed small for strong conclusions, both
mail questionnaires and interviews revealed a preponderance of permanent resi-
dents as participants.
Younger persons predominated; only four (28 percent) of the interviewees were
41 or more years of age, with other age groups used (see any Table X-2) each
having one to three persons in them. Marl questionnaires placed 30 percent as
over 41 years of age and all other age classes had one to three representatives.
Interviews indicated that 50 percent of the hunters had annual family incomes of
$7,000 - $8, 999, while 25 percent had incomes of $13, 000 a year or more. The
latter group contained no permanent residents of the town.
Correspondence Among Activities
A characteristic of participants was often quite similar among activities, with
the exception of one, or a few, activities. These aspects are presented herein.
63
Over 80 percent of all participants arrived at the recreation site by car, except
for swimmers at private beaches (only 23 percent arriving by car, most walking),
boaters (44 percent arriving by car), and hunters (29 percent walking to the hunt-
ing area).
For all activities, three-quarters or more of the decision-makers interviewed
were married.
Males were predominant in the sample interviewed. The sample used them
where possible. All fishermen and hunters interviewed were males with only five
exceptions (all fishing). Ninety-five percent o£ the boaters interviewed were male.
Eighty-five and 83 percent of the clammers and of picnickers in the State Park
interviewed, respectively, were males. Seventy percent of those interviewed
while picnicking outside the park were males. The swimmers at pttblic and at
private beaches yielded lower male interview figures (58 and 53 percent respect-
ively), and this is discussed in detail within these sections.
Data on years of experience with town areas (obtained only in 1965) were
analyzed for three activites, in each of which 19 or more persons in one residency
group were interviewed. Seventy-three percent of the seasonal resident boaters
interviewed had first come to the town prior to 1955. Of seasonal residents swim-
64
ming at public beaches, 61 percent had similar lengths of exposure to the town,
while the corresponding figure for seasonal residents swimming at private
beaches was 46 percent.
Visitors' experience in the town extended over shorter periods in seven
activities analyzed, although 45 percent of the shore fishermen had first come
to the town prior to 1955. Swimming at puhlic beaches was the only other activity
analyzed in which 40 percent or more of the visitor participants had first come to
the town prior to 1955. In all other activities analyzed, between 31 and 37 percent
of the visitor participants had first come to the town prior to 1955.
The number of years the interview sites had been used by these two residency
groups was determined for the same activities. Seasonal residents typically had
visited the interview site for many years. Between 43 and 49 percent had used a
site for 11 or more years. Ranking by activity paralleled that of years in the
town (boaters, 49 percent, public beach swimmers, 47 percent, and private beach
swimmers, 43 percent).
RankIng of activities by the percentage of visitor participants having used a site
for 11 or more years was not similar to length of exposure to the towlaship.
Most visitors using a site for an activity had used that site in a previous year.
Fifty to 83 percent of the visitors In the various activities analyzed had spent one
or more days at the Interview site the previous year. Open boat fishermen were
most likely to have used the site the previous year; only one-half of the visitor
park picnickers and shore fishermen had spent any days at the interview site in
1964.
65
Swimmers at public beaches were the most likely visitors to have spent 20 or
more days at the interview site the previous year, 17 percent of the public beach
swimmers had done so. No picnickers at the State Park had spent this many days
at the interview site the prior year.
Seasonal residents were more likely to have used au interview site in the
previous year. This ranged from 77 percent of the seasonal residents at private
beaches to 82 percent of the public beach swimmers, and 84 percent of the boaters
having spent some days the previous year at the interview site.
Over one-half of the seasonal resident participants in each of these three
activities had spent 20 or more days at the interview site the previous year.
The proportion varied from 54 percent of the boaters to 59 percent of the public
beach swimmers to 73 percent of the swimmers at private beaches having spent
20 days or more at the interview site the previous year.
Some eloquent replies were received to the query If anything about this place
"should be changed?" While most persons gave a "no" answer, it typically
could be interpreted as "I don't know" or "I don't think of any right now." Others
did suggest methods, feasible in their view, to improve a site. A substantial
number in several activities responded with strong opposition to any changes.
For instance, 24 percent of all clammers, 22 percent of all charter boat fisher-
men and 20 percent of the swimmers at private beaches felt a_~ change would be
detrimental.
Expenditures
Data on trip expenditures are frequently developed to indicate the "value" of
recreation in an area. Data on trip expenditures were gathered from visitors
(only) in this study but because a more sophisticated input-output matrix was
developed for the town (Morton and Allee, op. cit), detailed analysis of the
economic impact of the varied activities was not developed. Several aspects of
expenditure patterns, however, are explored for their importance in planning.
These data relate only to visitor participants.
Most visitor participants (over 90 percent in all activities) had made some
expenditure on the trip which included their visit to the town. Expenditures were
made within the town (prior to the interview) by 90 percent or more of the partici-
pants in most activities. Exceptions were swimmers at private beaches (65 per-
cent with such expenditures) and picnickers outside the State Park (74 percent had
made expenditures in the town).
The length of stay in the town prior to the interview obviously influenced the
total of expenditures but certain activities yielded typically higher expenditure
patterns. The percentage of visitor participant groups making expenditures ex-
ceeding $80 may indicate these patterns. As an example, 86 percent of charter
boat user groups spent over $80, while 40 percent of all boaters spent in excess of
o
$80 on the trip prior to the interview. Approximately one-third of the' shore fisher-
men, swimmers at private beaches and swimmers at public beaches spent sums of
this magnitude. Least likely to spend these sums were park picnickers (4 percent)
and rental rowboat patrons (12 percent).
Expenditures for use of a boat were incurred (by definition) by rental rowboat,
open, and charter boat fishermen. Virtually all State Park users, too, had paid a
parking fee. Eliminating those charges, in all activities (except shore fishing)
food was the most commonly purchased item. Fifty-seven to 84 percent of visitor
67
groups in the various activities made these purchases.
three-quarters of this food was purchased in the town.
Typically two-thirds to
Rental rowboat fishermen
and charter boat patrons, however, made only some 40 percent of their food pur-
chases in the town. Gasoline and supplies were nearly equally likely to be pur-
chased on the trip by shore fishermen (79 percent versus 78 percent making food
purchases).
Comparison with Other Data
Only limited data relating to characteristics of recreational participants in any
activity in the town are available from other sources. Briggs (Personal communi-
cation) found Southold residents comprised 3 percent of 910 rental rowboat fisher-
men from whom this information was obtained in July and August of 1964 and 1965.
This compares with 2 percent in my findings. New York City residents comprised
54 percent of those he interviewed. Nassau County was the next most common
residence of rental rowboat patrons (19 percent). The same ranking was
found in the present study in which New York City residents totaled 57 percent and
Nassau County residents 12 percent of the participants.
Briggs, grouping charter and open boat fishermen, found Sonthold residents
comprised 4 percent of 502 of these anglers for which a residence was determined
in July and August of 1964 and 1965. New York City residents (50 percent) and
Nassau County residents (13 percent) were most commonly encountered. Propor-
tions for these two groups of fishermen in my study are 3 percent permanent resi-
dents; 35 percent New York City residents; 23 percent Nassau County residents.
Rankings of these residences are identical in the two studies.
68
Generalized Picture of Participants
Using the data developed on characteristics and op'mions of pa~ticipauts, a
generalized profile of "typical" decision-maker participants may be sketched for
each type of activity. Such generalizations are fraught with danger, and yet there
appears to be value in presenting a composite of the most common characteristics
or opinions held by the individuals participating in each of the recreational forms
studied.
It would be well to note the small sample size in several activities, and the
lack of a truly randomized sampling design do not permit valid statistical tests of
the significance of the differences attributed to the participants.
Swimmers at public beaches normally are visitors, althoul/h nearly one-third
are permanent residents. If visitors, there commonly is a male 36 - 45 years of
age with the group. Often the swimmer would be a youth (20 years of age or under)
unaccompanied by an adult. The family income would tend to be quite high, par~
ticularly ff visitors or seasonal residents. They use a particular beach because
of various social aspects, but a rustic aura is the prime attract/mt of the town.
They swim 20 or more days a year but ff they are visitors they s~ent few of
these days at this site last year. Seasonal residents have spent many years com-
ing to that beach to swim and have come to the town for many years.
Swimmers at private beaches are typically seasonal residents. An adult 3i -50
years of age is usually with a group. Family income exceeds $13,000 a year.
These swimmers are attracted to a particular beach by social factors and, if sea-
sonal residents, have been coming to it for many years. These persons swim
69
more than 20 days a year, virtually all their swimming is done from this beach.
They find the rustic aura of the town most appealing and have 11 or more years
of experience in the town and with this site.
Usually a visitor, the boater is likely to be older than other recreationists
and his income will be higher. He too cites social factors as a prime cause for
his using a particular site, while the rustic aura of the town is its major appeal.
Although he boated 40 or more days last year he used this site vex-y seldom, ff a
visitor, and for less than half those days if a seasonal resident. He has, however,
used this site for many years.
Out for only the day, the picnicker at Orient Beach State Park comes from Suffolk
County. He is 41 - 45 years of age and his family's income is $7, 000 - $8, 999.
He was attracted to this park by social factors, but has begun using it only in the
past few years. He spent no days at this park last year and spent only six or so
days on such picnics last year. The rustic aura of the town appeals to him, but
he had never been in the town until the past few years.
The shore fisherman, a xrisitor, is between 31 and 55 years of age, with a
o
family income less than $11,000. He is attracted to this site by social aspects,
but has been coming to it for many years. Although he fishes 20 or so days a year,
very few if any of those days were spent at this site. He has been coming to the
town for many years, however.
The rental rowboat fisherman comes from New York City for a day's fishing.
This fisherman is 46 - 50 years of age; his family income is $9, 000 - $10, 999 a
year and the good fishing he anticipated brought him to the town and this site. He
70
fished a few more days than the shore fisherman but spent far less than half of those
days fishing from this site. He is a relative newcomer to this site, although he has
been coming to the town for a number of years.
The open boat fisherman comes out for a day's fishing from Nassau County or
New York City. This fisherman is over 46 years of age and his income tends to
be moderate ($7,000 - $10, 999 per year). He chose the site because he expected
good fishing at that site, with that captain. Good fishing is also the primary town
attractant to him. He spends roughly the same number of days fishing in a year
as the rental rowboat fisherman, but he is more likely to have done much of his fish-
ing from the site the prior year, He first came to the town five or more years be-
fore and has used this site for the past two or three years.
The charter boat fisherman, too, is out for the day from the New York urban
area. An older (51 - 55 years of age) man, his family income is in excess of
$13,000 a year. He uses a particular craft because he believes he will catch
more fish with that captain. The rustic aura of the town, in combination with good
fishing, are the prime town attractants.
Although he fished a number of times last year he spent only two or three days
on this charter boat. His group (in total) has already spent over $80 on the trip
they are on. He first went fishing from this site five or more years ago, and it
was this use that first lured him to the town.
The picnicker outside the State Park is a visitor from the westerly portion of
Long Island. He is likely to be younger than most participants interviewed and
his family's income is lower than most participants, being $7,000 - $8, 999 a year.
Social factors prompted him to use this site, but the physical aspects of the town
71
exert the greatest appeal to him. He did not use this picnic site last year, and
first visited the town in relatively recent years.
The clammer is the most cosmopolitan of the recreationist studied. Most
often a visitor, seasonal and permanent residents are frequently encountered.
His age may vary widely, as does his income level. Good clamming dictated his
choice of a site but the rustic aura was the major attractant of the town, to this
recreationist. The probability of his having clammed at this spot last year is as
great as his not having clammed here. He first clammed at the spot six or more
years before and began coming to the town at roughly the same time.
The hunter is, uniquely, likely to be a permanent resident. He is younger than
participants in other activities and his family income is $7,000 ~ $8,999 per year.
Potential Town Action
Communities are frequently encouraged to stimulate development of recre-
ation as an income generator. The abundance of varied and high quality natural
resources in the Town of Sonthold; their location (a rather short travel time from
large population centers); the existing facilities, have all perniitred and facilitated
development of a large recreationalsector in the Town of Southold. Growth of
participation in recreation can be expected in this town (see Chapter VI). Specific
means of maximizing the desirable aspects of such growth and concurrently
minimizing the undesirable aspects is of concern to planning groups.
Communities frequently attempt to increase recreational use of their area
through advertising brochures, information booths and other general approaches.
Though often of value, this approach frequently seems to presume people pursue
72
a nebulous something called "recreation." However, outdoor recreation frequently
focuses on specific activities such as those studied, k is suggested that the Torsi
of Southold (and most other communities) would benefit by identifying the type of
recreational activity they wish to stimulate and then carrying out specific steps to
encourage and facilitate that (or those)activities. Lifeguards may stimulate swim-
ming, while fishing piers would entice fishermen. Decisions as to what group or
groups of participants the community wishes to attract or satisfy, will permit
more efficient investment for recreational purposes.
Participant responses would imply that fishermen would be relatively uncon-
cerned with a loss of the rustic flavor in the town as long as fishing success did
not deteriorate. These participants put little drain on community facilities, com-
ing out only for a day's fishing, in most cases. Substantially larger numbers of
these fishermen could conceivably use town waters with little alteration to most
portions of the town. Most of these participants now contribute directly to the
town's economy through rental of boats (rowboats, open boats or charter boats).
In addition, this group participates for a rather extended period of the year
(April - November), distributing much of their economic impact in "off-season"
periods. With incomes typically lower than those of swimmers and boaters (charter
boat fishermen excepted), increasing the length of stay of fishermen seems a less
likely possibility than in the case of certain other recreationists.
An exception to this genera] picture of fishermen may be the shore fishermen.
Those fishing from shore usually (85 percent of the visitor group) had members
of their family with them. In total, these fishermen comprise a substantial portion
of the summer fishing participants. Development of fishing piers or bulkheads in
73
choice town fishing areas would probably lead to increased (and concentrated) shore
fishing. It is likely that visitors would be willing to pay for use of such areas,
particularly if developed in conjunction with nearby picnic or swimming areas.
Such development might well entice more of these fishermen to linger in the town
for several days.
Swimming is the outdoor recreation activity most favored Ir] the permanent
and seasonal town residents (Carroll, op, cit, ). Interest and support of this
activity by these residents is perhaps reflected by the existence of three local
park districts in the town in addition to substantial provision for this activity by
the town. Proximity of a beach was predominantly cited (by those not visitors)
as a major factor in the choice of a public beach for swimming. Further indication
of the importance of this factor was evidence that 92 percent of the seasonal
residents and 79 percent of the permanent residents lived less than three miles
from the beach where they were interviewed.
Provision of additional beaches for seasonal and permanent residents within a
three-mile radius of population concentrations would probably be warmly received.
The relatively uncrowded conditions o£ beaches was a strong attractant to all
residency groups and insurance of continued uncrowded conditions would likely
receive widespread support.
Approximately one-third of all swimming in this town was carried out from
private beaches. These swimmers are primarily summer home owners, and their
guests, and they reflected one of the highest income levels of participants in any
activity analyzed. The importance of this activity in attracting persons with greater
disposable income to the town should be emphasized. These persons also comprise
74
the largest group of potential voters who like the town as it is. The rustic aura
of the town is a primary appeal to most of these people. Loss of this atmosphere
would cause many to look elsewhere for a summer home (Carroll, op. cit.).
Higher incomes were most prevalent among boaters. These recreation partici-
pants, too, are strongly attracted to the town by its rustic qualities. Other
aspects--the water and beaches, good facilities and good fishing--also appeal to
many boaters.
Limited latmching facilities have discouraged many trailer boaters from coming
to the town. Use of Long Island Sound water is severely restricted due to the
distance between safe harbors. Provision of additional facilities for boaters would
doubtless result in increased use of town waters and increased business for related
town firms. The Mattituck Park District's development of a marina at the head of
Mattituck Inlet has resulted in thousands of additional nights being spent by vessels
in that area, bringing additional business to that community.
CHAPTER IV
COMMERCIAL FISHERY HARVESTS
Harvesting of animals from the sea has been an important occupation in the
Town of Southold since man's settlement. Artifacts demonstrate the Indian's
extensive use of both finfish and shellfish for food and other uses (Gabriel, 1960).
Colonization by the white man was abetted by these same resources. The whal-
ing industry provided early economic stimulus to the town, captains and crews corn~
monly dwelling in the town and numerous ships being outfitted by the town's chandlers.
The menhaden (Brevoortia sp. ) industry next assumed major importance. Follow-
lng this, bay scallops (Aequipecten irradians) and then oysters (Crassostrea
virginica) provided major economic stimulii. For many years commercial fishing
has been an important employment sector in the area's economy. It is considered
in this study because of its relation to the sport fishery.
Methods Used
Harvests and values of fish as given in various state and federal publications
were reviewed to determine yields in this town. Shellfish harvests from 1961 to
1965 were listed for the Town of Southold by Mr. Churchill Smith (personal com-
munication), Fishery Reporting Specialist, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. Town finfish harvests used in this study were those listedas landed from
75
76
Long Island Sound, Gardiners, Peconic and adjoining bays (Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, New York Fishery Landings, 1955 through 1965). In addition, specified
portions of landings taken in the ocean outside the three-mile limit were attributed
to the town in accord with apportionments recommended by Mr. Edward Bevelander
of the New York State Department of Conservation and Mr. Churchill Smith (personal
communication). These portions of the harvest were landed at Southold ports,
primarily Greenport. The finfish harvest figure s provided poundage yields. The per-
centage which the town poundage harvest comprised of the state poundage harvest,
for each species, was used to allocate the value per species in the town after 1954.
Prior to 1955 (inclusive in the case of shellfish) published yields for comparable
within-state areas, were not located. Thus an assumption was made that the ratio
of Southold yields to state totals were the same as the average of such ratios in
1961-1965 (1961-1964 for oysters). These ratios were used to allocate the propor-
tion of the state yield contributed by the Town of Southold prior to 1955 (prior to
1956 for shellfish).
As dollar values were to be a primary indices of yield, it was deemed desirable
to convert all values to a common price period. The wholesale price index for all
commodities, as given by the Economic Statistics Bureau (1967), were used to
inflate or deflate annual values to the 1965 price level.
A semi-logarithmic scale is used in a graph in this chapter for two reasons:
comparisons of values with extremely wide ranges was facilitated by such a scale;
proportionate changes could more readily be perceived over the wide range of
values encountered.
Scientific names of species generally follow those given by Lyles (1966).
77
Findings
During this century, shellfish rather than finfish have been of primary economic
importance in this town (Tables 8 and 9, and Figure 4). The dominance of the shell-
fish value has been diminishing in recent years, however.
Figure 5 portrays the vaine of certain finfish landed in this town for specified
years, starting in 1901. Species selected had reported annual harvests in recent
years valued at over $50, 000. These species include scup (Calamus s_~. and
Stenotomus sp. ); the flounders: blackback (Pseudo~01euronectes americanus), yellow-
tail (Limanda ferruginea), flake (Paralichthys sp. ); and butterfish (Poronotus
triacanthus). These species represented 87 percent of the total finfish value landed
in this town in 1964. Certain species (notably weakfish or squeteague [Cynoscion
re~alia~ though abundant in harvests in earlier years no longer are landed in numbers
sufficient to loom important as an economic factor and thus do not appear in the calculations.
The value of finfish landed in this town has exceeded $500, 000 a year in four of
the years of 1961 to 1965. This represents increased value of these species from
the early part of this century (with the exception of a peak in the mid-1940's). Scup
represent the most important species to the economy of this town, with the flounder
group almost equal in importance. Frequently, in recent years, expansion in the
value of the catch of one of these has counteracted a contracted value of the
other.
Figure 6 gives landed value, for specified years, of four shellfish species:
oysters, sea scallop (Placopecten ma~ellanicus), bay scallops and hard clams
(Mercenaria mercenaria). In a recent year (1964) these species represented 92
percent of the value of all shellfish landed in the town.
?8
oo 0
CD
0
79
8O
H~d~d
Thousands
of Dollars
TOTAL
3O
"',,X-il--"',.\
F x7
, , _
1940 1950 1960
Year
1970
Figure 4. Dockside value of selected fish landings, Town of Southold (in 100,000 1965 dollars).
81
Thousands
of
Dollars
700.
60C~
50(~
400'
300-
100.
0
1915 1926
BUTTERFISH
1901 1935 1946 1955 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
Year
Figure 5. Dockside value of selected finfish landed in the Town of Southold (in 1000 1965 dollars).
82
Thousands
of
DollarsTotal
3468
1200~
3220
1000
8OO
600
500-
400
300
2O0
100
0
la01
Total
2196
2006
Total
3431
2934
OYSTE
SEA SCALLOP
SCALLOP
BAY
1946 1955
Year
1926 1935 I96I 1962 1963 1964 I965
Figure 6. Dockside value of selected shellfish landed in the Town of Southold (in 1000 1965 dollars).
83
The value of oysters harvested in this town has been the primary cause of the
sharp decline of the total shellfish harvest value in this century. The value of
oysters harvested in the town was one to three million dollars per year in the first
half of this century. In recent years this harvest has virtually disappeared. In-
creased values in bay scallop and hard clams harvested has served to maintain
the total value of shellfish in excess of $800, 000 in each of the years 1961 through
1965.
Some Factors Influencin~ Harvests
Whales, weakfish, oysters, and bay scallops, viewed in historic perspective,
point up important biological relationships to the economic development of
natural resources.
Two major factors can diminish the biological yield of a fishery resource:
habitat deterioration and overfishing. Discussion of habitat deterioration or
change is contained in Chapter V. In addition to diminished biological yields,
commercial fisheries frequently face an economic dilemma for economic ineffici-
ency is a common situation in this industry. A brief discussion of the related prob-
lems of overfishing and economic inefficiency in a commercial fishery may help
clarify the reason legislation is required for efficient production in many commer-
cial fisheries.
Christy and Scott (1965) have provided a detailed description of these problems.
Basically the problem of inefficient production results from the fishery resource
being under public ownership. Figure 7 gives an illustration of typical sustained yields
from a commercial fishery as effort varies. Line O-G in Figure 7 represents
costs increasIng directly proportionate to an increase in effort. The curve
84
Maximum
Maximum sustained
net economic yield
revenue P
0 A M B
Effort
Figure 7. Stylized curve of a typical commercial fishery illustrating total revenue, cost and
sustained yield varying as effort varies (Adapted from Christy and Scott, 1965).
85
O-E-P-G represents the sustained poundage and economic yield of a fishery as
effort is varied. This is the typical curve fouud in most commercial fisheries.
Point P, the apex of that curve, represents the maximum poundage of fish which
can be harvested from this fishery over an infinite period, other conditions being
equal. The yield on either side of this point will be less, over time, than if pre-
cisely M effort is expended.
Point E (the point at which the slope of curves O-E-P-G and O-F-N are equal)
represents the maximum net economic yield available from a commercial fishery.
It should be noted that point E, yielding the greatest economic efficiency, requires
less effort (point A) than does point M, the effort required to reach the maximum
sustainable poundage yield (P).
It would at first glance appear that biological overfishing (going beyond point P)
is improbable for no wise businessman would go beyond point E. Although this is
generally accepted as true in most businesses, the commercial fish harvested are
generally a public resource with no individual or firm owning title to the resource.
Thus increased effort is committed to fishing while any profit is. available (area
within E-G-F).
This gross oversimplification ignores changes in the location of the line O-G
resulting from cost reduction through new fishing gear, increased value of the
product harvested, and all biological changes possible over time. The linear form
of line O-G also assumes other employment alternatives are available. Nonetheless,
the diagram does illustrate that maximum economic efficiency would occur at
a harvest lower than that required to achieve maximum sustainable yield. In a
fishery with virtual free entry, however, each fisherman is better off to capture
86
any profit (move to point G), leaving no residue for the owner of the resource. Of
even greater concern and the heart of many commercial fishery problems, the
point at which any increase in fishing stops (point G) is well beyond point E and
even beyond point P.
It is not uncommon to find in a commercial fishery, therefore, "overfishing"--
that is fishing a stock of fish so heavily that the yield of that stock becomes less
than it might have been with less effort.
Diminished Species
Whales and weakfish appear to effectively demonstrate the results of such
overfishing. Perlmutter et al. (1955) have documented the demise of the large
weakfish harvest in northern waters and imply the decline is largely due to greatly
increased harvests of stocks in more southerly waters of the Atlantic. This same
fate can befall other species important to the Town of Southold.
Oysters
The oyster fishery in most of New York State would appear to have a notable
opportunity for avoidance of the problem of economic inefficiency and overfishing.
Section 302 of the state's Conservation Law (McKinney's, 1967) permits leasing of
certain underwater lands owned by the state to residents of the state, for periods
as long as 15 years. Additional lands have been purchased by companies, giving
them ownership of the bottom. Thus in this portion of the fishery, private owner-
ship of the resource does, in effect, occur. This has not precluded a virtual
extirpation ofharvested oysters in the Town of Southold in the past two decades
(Table 9). This extirpationis the culmination of a long-term decline in oyster
harvests in the town.
87
Prior to 1890 few oysters were harvested in the Town of Southold. Evermarm
noted in 1902 (p. 442): "One of the most interesting . . . developments . . . is
the extensive planting of seed oysters at the eastern end of Long Island, especially
in the vicinity of Greenport and Southold. This began 10 years ago and at present
about 350, 000 bushels are planted almually, the seed being obtained from Long
Island Sound." By 1954 the oyster production of all of New York was less than that
quantity, indicating a general decline. In Southold this decline persists and virtually
no oysters were landed from the waters of that town in 1965.
Clearly, the recent virtual loss of the oyster in the Town of Sour. hold is not due
to overfishing. Causes ot the decline in the northeastern part of the United States
are still unclear although biological factors are doubtless responsible. Pollution,
failure of spat to catch on historic beds, predators and diseases are all blamed to
greater or lesser degree for this problem. Experimental work to bring back the
oyster industr5~ in New York and in the town is being carried out by private con-
cerns, state and national agencies. The impact of a revived industry could be of
tremendous importance to the community. Since 1946 fishery lo.~di~gn valued at
nearly three million dollars have effectively vanished with the oyster.
The bay scallop provides an equally interesting, but at present a much more
satisfactory, situation than do oysters.
Bay Scallop
The harvesting of the bay scallop in recent years has provided a significant
source of income generation to Southold. Also of importance, its harvest--
commencing in mid-September and continuing to spring--provides a fine supplemen-
tary occupation for many of those who could be employed in the area's massive
88
summer recreational activities. The loss of a significant portion of the bay scallop
harvest would thus create widespread dislocation, as occurred with the decline of
the oyster industry in the town.
Numbers of scallops vary widely within restricted time periods, even when no
man-made changes are apparent. Records of the U.S. Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries indicate historic, short-term, widespread fluctuations in the New York
scallop harvest. For example, in 1887, 317, 000 pounds of scallops were taken; in
1888, only 200, 000 pounds; in 1889, 457,000 pounds (more than double the previous
year's yield) were harvested (Bureau of Fisheries, 1932). These fluctuations are
largely due to the short life span of bay scallops, few living beyond two years of
age. Thus one-year class composes most of the scallops taken and any breeding
failure is quickly revealed by catch decline.
The records are not clear, but it is believed that most of the scallops included
in those early reports were bay scallops rather than the sea scallop. This latter,
though today providing an important segment of the scallop harvest, was nut even
noted separately in fishery landings until after the turn of the century.
Natural factors have made drastic inroads into the population of the bay scallop
at times. Belding (1931) notes that this scallop has disappeared from areas of the
Massachusetts coast, north of Boston. Perhaps the most extreme evidence of this
type of loss is the drastic decline in the bay scallop harvest (reflecting a population
decline) which occurred in the late 1930's in the northeastern United States (Table 10).
The low point in the decline was generally attributed to the hurricane in 1938
which ravaged much of the coastal region of the Northeast, and all of New York's
scallop areas. The slow rise of the harvest following this date, and the low level
89
Table 10. Bay scallop landings for selected years, New York and Massachusetts*
(in 1, 000's of pounds)
Year New York Massachusetts
1929 620 1,498
1935 107 1, 142
1939 7 521
1940 19 870
1949 23 983
1962 988 1,261
*Data from Fishery Statistics of the U.S., for respective years.
preceding it has never been completely explained, akhough it usually is assumed
to be related to the equally obvious (and poorly diagnosed) great decline in the beds
of eelgrass (Zostera marina) along much of the eastern seaboard in the 1930's
(Cottam and Addy, 1947). It had long been recognized that these two species
appeared together and it has been postulated that the Zostera provided the substrate
upon which the young scallops developed (Balding, op. cit. ), or at least held the
adults and young from being washed away (Marshall, 1960).
Increases in eelgrass populations in recent years have been associated with the
increase in the bay scallop population.
Planning Considerations
Whales and weakfish have lost major importance in Southold's economy and way
of life. They have been lost primarily because of overharvesting of the stock by
man. Alteration of the environment, by nature or man, can cause equal or greater
depletion of biological resources.
90
Commercial fishery landings have contributed in recent years some $1, 500, 000 annually
to the town's economy. It is the main basis for the $3,730, 000 export value of
fishing and fish processing sector noted by Morton and Allee (op. cit. ).
k appears the commercial fishery can, with appropriate measures and safe-
guards, remain a viable, dynamic portion of the town's economy and still permit
extensive recreational use of the fishery. Several possible future trends and
developments in the commercial fishery appear probable to me, recognizing that
fulfillment of these is dependent upon the action of many groups and individuals.
k appears that hard clams will become a more important aspect of the com-
mercial fishery, continuing the trend of recent years. Action by the town in stimu-
lating the hard clam harvest through aiding transplants, together with increased use
of lands formerly used as oyster beds for hard clam production, would indicate the
total value of this product harvested in the town will continue to increase in the
future.
With fruitful research on causes for its decline, the oyster industry itself may
show some increase in value, reversing its current slump. In addition, as the
value of oyster meats increase it would appear that artificial rearing of these
molluscs would assume greater financial feasibility and this again may indicate
increased future production of these animals.
One can be confident that periodic natural decimations of fish populations will
occur in the future, just as they have in the past. Although generally of relatively
short duration, these could cause widespread dislocation of those portions of the
economy associated with that particular organism.
91
In viewing the future of the commercial fishery it must be recognized that as
interest and participation in recreational fishing increases there doubtless will be
greater conflicts between these recreationists and the commercial fishermen.
Although it appears to me that in most instacnes neither one of these groups can
make most effective use of all of a given fishery stock, where conflict exists the
commercial fishery will typically be forced to give way before the pressure of the
sports fishery.
Conflicts between commercial fishing interests and recreationists (other than
fishermen) will also increase. The recreationist, through abundant numbers,
occasional poor seamanship, and complaints about commercial fisheries create a
disturbing influence for the commercial fishery. Couversely, noise, odors, and
sights generated by the commercial fishermen will at times be in conflict with
boaters and other pleasure seekers, How effectively the conflicts are minimized
or prevented will doubtless influence to a major degree the use of the town waters
by many commercial finfishermen.
Stimulating the Cqmmercial Fishery
What actions might planning groups take relative to commercial fishery? There
would be two main areas on which comment will be made: overfishing and economic
efficiency, Habitat maintenance or improvement certainly is a major concern for
planning groups, but is covered in greater length in Chapter V, as habitat affects the
recreational fishery as well.
We have noted the probability of overfishing a commercial fishery stock. This
should be a major concern of planning groups, and attempts should be made to
insure that overfishing does not occur. To effectively control harvests with many
92
of the finfish, cooperation between various levels of government is required. It
should be recognized that Southold can protect its self-interest through giving
cooperation in establishing harvest regulations, as well as urging similar action
upon other governmental groups. Cooperation of other governmental units in
cases where the finfisheries are overfished is essential.
The shellfish, being relatively stationary, provide a much more direct oppor-
tunity for local governmental influence. Cooperation with the state, and perhaps
nearby communities, could lead to insuring maximum sustained yields. This will
require a knowledge of the point at which harvests can be maintained, and local
governments could provide maximum aid by attempting to stimulate the derivation
of these maximum sustained yield points, in addition to regulating the harvest.
Clearly the town is now aiding efforts to derive maximum yields. Four
examples of interest and activity on the part of the town relative to regulating the
shellfishery can be cited: encouraging the establishment of a biological research
station in the town; assistance in establishing in one area (Goose Creek) a detailed
study of the impact of dredging upon the ecosystem; clam transplanting;' scallop
harvest restrictions imposed in Town waters. Further emphasis on activities
such as the first two would lend additional support and impetus for deriving maxi-
mum yield points.
The economic efficiencyof the commercial fishery, too, may have importance
in the town. Increased or more efficient economic activity can be generated
through various actions. Facilities for commercial fishermen are at present one
of the prime reasons for use of the area by commercial craft. The importance of
such items as ice, good docking facilities, reasonable and available supply and
93
repair facilities--no~ only for traditional needs bm also for such modern equip-
ment as electronic navigation and fishing gear--is difficult to overemphasize.
The importance of these items in attracting commercial fishermen is perhaps
exemplified by the presence of the menhaden steamers ("bunker boats") in the
summertime. These boats, although landing almost none of their catch in the
town, dock in the town and thus exert a significant economic impact through their
use of the various facilities and services offered by the local communities.
Like most basic products, the value of fishery products rapidly increase as
they are processed and handled. The importance of providing or stimulating
processing facilities and plants within the town should be clearly recognized.
Within recent years establishment of plants suited to handling of certain species
has stimulated the interest of commercial fishermen in landing in the Greenport
area. Expansion and improvement of the facilities would doubtless increase the
attractiveness of the area for commercial fishermen. Elimination or reduction
in the scope of processing facilities available would conversely reduce interest of
commercial fishermen in landing in the town. Use of the proc~siing plants by
commercial fishermen landing fish is important, but the presence of these plants
often may lead to additional activities which themselves may assume major
importance. The town has examples of processing plants originally established
to process fish landed in the town, but which have now expanded their scope and
their contribution to the economy far beyond this point by now processing products
brought in from other areas.
Considerations of the shellfishery should include examination of increasing
economic efficiency through restricting entry into the fishery. Most ~writers
94
studying commercial fisheries find maximum economic efficiency is obtained only
if restriction of entry to the fishery exists. This certainly should be considered
by planning groups, but recognition should be given to other considerations which
may have equal or greater importance. For example, a desire to permit as many
persons as possible to engage in commercial scalloping, or a feeling that distrib-
uting the money to be gained from the shellfishery over as many people aa are
interested, may be more important than trying to create maximum economic
efficiency.
CHAPTER V
SHALLOW SALT WATER AREAS AND MAN' S INFLUENCE
As man increases his numbers, as his teclmology expands, his actual and
potential impact on the naturally existing ecosystem increases. Impacts achieved
have permitted our present culture to develop but have also caused deleterious
changes. Drastic, ubiqaitous and covert changes in natural environments have
occurred and will occur as man alters this ecosystem. These changes need not
be detrimental and indeed may be beneficial. It is the deleterious changes which
must be guarded against: changes which may harm the natural resources which
sustain the town's recreation and commercial fishery activities.
The estuarine and salt marsh areas of the Town of Southold provide the clearest
example of possible damaging consequences of man's impact on the pcosystem
and its resultant impact on recreation and fishing.
Until rather recently, marshlands in estuarine areas have been counted as a
curse rather than as simply unimportant. Breeding areas for mosquitoes; gener-
ators of anaerobic activity; impediments to travel; unsuited in their natural state
for housing and factories--there appeared little reason to be concerned with
man's alteration of these areas.
95
96
Within recent decades research has indicated that estuarine areas, where fresh
and salt water mix, where land and sea often meet, play a uniquely important geo-
chemical and biological role on our planet.
Odum (1961) has noted the important role of estuarine areas in the production
of higher organisms valued by humans. His studies indicate estuarine gross
primary productivity of some 2500 grams /M2/year of dry weight organic matter.
This is equivalent to the highest productivity known to man, found in such areas
as sugarcane fields and coral reefs. He points out some of the reasons for this
fertility:
We can see several major mechanisms that probably are important.
First, the mixing of waters of different salinities produces efficient
vertical mixing that results in a sort of "nutrient trap." Thus, valuable
nutrients are not swept out but move up and down and cycle rapidly be-
tween organisms, water and bottom sediments. Secondly, the back and
forth tidal flow is a favorable factor since food, nutrients and oxygen
are continnally supplied and waste products removed automatically with
the result that organisms need not waste their own energy in these
processes. Other things being equal, a flowing system will be more
productive than a standing system ....
The next thing to emphasize is that the fertility of estuaries results
from the interaction of three different production units .... (1) The vast
areas of Spartina or cord grass marshes, (2) the benthic or "mud algae"
which grows throughout the intertidal sediments but especially on the
creek banks and (3) the phytoplankton in the water ....
A third great reason why estuaries are productive, namely, a year-
around crop production. We seem to have here a good example of natural
homeostasis which is to say that the system tends to maintain a constant
rate in a changing seasonal environment ....
97
This great fertiliW is transposed through food chains to higher forms of aquatic
life more readily usable by man. These areas have also been revealed as major
suppliers of food formany forms of waterfowl. In addition they are vital in key
periods of the life cycle of fish species important in the town such as bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix), various flounders and fluke, menhaden, weakfish, hard clams,
oysters and bay scallops (Perlmutter, 1960). These animals generate extensive
economic activity in Southold (see Chapter IV).
Although the value of commercial landings is large, it does not include the value
of the species used in sport and recreational activities. These values clearly equal,
and doubtless are many times, the value of the commercial harvest in this township.
As evidence of this, in addition to the seasonal residents attracted by fishing oppor-
tunities, visitor fishermen provide nearly 90 percent of the patrons of the seven
rowboat rental stations, the five open boats, and 17 charter boats in the town.
Important vs.lues, comprising tangible economic benefits and less identifiable social
benefits, accrue to the town due to the presence of productive estuarine waters.
The biological productivity of estuarine areas can be reduced b~ ~nany means.
As with most water areas, these have obvious uses for waste disposal, leading to
water pollution which may be directly fatal to organisms or lead to certain of them
becoming unfit (as in the case of shellfish) for human consumption. Another
influence on the ecosystem is eutrophication of the bays. Such enrichment through
addition of human or other animal wastes and other nutrients added through run-off
from agricultural lands has been implicated in creating extensive plant growths In
Great South Bay (Environmental Pollution Panel, 1965).
98
Addition of toxic quantities of pesticides may cause direct or indirect loss of
organisms sought by man. Alteration of the physio-chemical properties of the
water body can cause equally calamitous results, alterations such as may result
from a canal proposed in the Town of Southold, linking Long Island Sound and
Peconic Bay. The canal's potential impact on bey scallops through alteration of
the physio-chemical regimen may illustrate the complexity of man's effect on the
ecosystem.
Influence of a Canal
There have been no studies which would serve to indicate the effect on scallops
of such developments as the Cape Cod Canal, Shinnecock Canal, Fire Island Inlet
and other such manipulated changes.
Two sites have been given most consideration for the location of a canal linking
Long Island Sound and "the bay" (Figure 1).
Site A would breach the beach ridge which forms the north shore at Dam Pond
and thence into Orient Harbor. Site B would breach a beach ridge at Hashamomuck
Pond, passing water from Long Island Sound into Hashamomuck Pond before it
entered the bay proper (and reversing through this pond).
Under either plan, water would pass directly from the Sound into the bay with
little intermediate change occurring. Few salinity measurements have been
published for the specific areas which would be affected. Studies in the region lead
this author to expect Long Island Sound waters to carry a salinity of approximately
28.0 - 30.0 parts per thousand between Jane and September (Riley, op. cit.) with
the bay water being somewhat more saline.
99
These salinities would vary with many factors, including the time of year, and
the specific spot at which a reading was taken. Other natural causes for varying
salinities in embayments may be variations in the quantity of fresh water running
off the land, wind (Barlow, 1956) and evaporation.
Belding (o_~. ci._[. ) notes that scallops g-row in salinities between 10 and 27 parts
per thousand. Marshall (op. ci_.~r. ) notes salinities to 29 parts per thousand in the
Niantic River with abundant scallops. Thus Belding's upper "limit" is not a true
limit, for scallops can thrive in salinities reaching 29 parts per thousand.
Decimation of a population due to suddenly lowered salinit3r can occur. Gunter
{1953), observing the effect of flood waters on oysters near the Mississippi River,
found mortalities of 7 to 50 percent in flooded oyster beds, beds subjected to
salinities below 0.5 parts per thousand compared to the normal salinities over
these beds of 16 to 26 parts per thousand.
Another natural dieoff of this type (followed by reinvasion) was reported in the
Rhode Island Inland Fish Commission Report of 1901. A small bay's entrance to
the sea was sealed by a sandbar during a severe storm. Blocked from' its normal
source of salt water this bay lost its population of oysters and hard clams. Several
years later another storm removed the barrier and these organisms soon invaded
the bay, with its restored salinity. Both of these cases are extreme situations
where salinities fell markedly.
Based upon fragmentary evidence, it appears a canal would induce slightly
lowered salinities in the bay. The reverse--sharply increased salinities--has been
stated as the primary fear if the proposed canal were constructed in Suffolk County
100
(Newsday, 1964). Certainly mortalities could occur from hypersalinization, too.
The evidence at hand does not suggest these mortalities would occur to the bay
scallop in the Town of Southold ff a canal were constructed.
Temperature, too, affects the distribution and survival of many organisms.
Hopkins (1931) has indicated the importance of temperature on oyster survival.
Dow points up the great accuracy with which lobster growth (1962a) and sea scallop
abundance (1962b) can be forecast, given the temperature of the water at the time
of spawning. His work indicates that the number of harvested sea scallops (which
become harvestable by the commercial fishery at six years of age) has a high
correlation with the water temperature at spawning time some six years earlier.
Published temperatures from the precise areas considered as canal sites are
spotty. The waters of the bay are doubtless subject to greater temperature
extremes than those in Long Island Sound. Kyther et al. (1958) reported surface
temperatures in the summer in nearby bays for a five-year period which range
from 16 to 26.5 degrees C. at the same station. The summer extremes at the 23
stations he studied were 12 and 3 1 degrees C. Riley (op. cit. ) found t~he. surface
water temperatures in Long Island Sound were 54 and 68 degrees Fahrenheit (12.2
and 20 degrees C. respectively) in early June and late August respectively, in 1946.
It is clear that whatever the natural range in temperature of the bay water,
scallops can grow and prosper under the encountered extremes for, in fact, they do.
Although the extremes of the bay water temperature encompass the temperatures
found in Long Island Sound it would be erroneous to conclude that no harm would
result from a canal because of timing or synergistic effects.
101
Timing of the temperature extremes may play an important role in the success
of a population. Risser (1889) noted that the bay scallop normally spawned in June
in Rhode Island. Belding (op. cit. ), pointing out the later spawning of these
mollusks in Massachusetts, attributed the difference in spawning season to the
later date at which water temperatures of a given level were reached in the more
northerly location. Temperatures above 76 degrees Fahrenheit appeared to be
optimum temperatures for bay scallop spawning, according to Belding, although
he observed confined scallops throw spawn at various temperatures between 68 and
84 degrees Fahrenheit.
Sastry (1963), studying the bay scallop in Florida, noted that sub-species or
even discrete populations of scallops may develop unique spawning periods. He
found, as had Gutsell (1930), that southern scallops breed in August, later than the
more northerly Rhode Island and Massachusetts populations.
It thus appears possible that the addition of the colder summer Long Island
Sound water (water at a temperature near the lower limit for inducing spawning)
might prevent the normal spawning of the endemic scallop population in a sizable
area of the bay. If prevented from spawning by low temperatures, decimation of
scallop populations might occur. If the onset of spawning were delayed by the
presence of water of lower temperature, other less apparent problems such as
increased predation or decreased food supply might result in iow survival. Ail
studies show very few scallops living past one year of age, and thus any impact
upon young scallops will become noticed almost immediately.
Dow and Baird (1960), after a study of the Passamaquoddy scallop (P. magellanicus)
resource, predicted temperature changes there would be of greater importance
than salinity changes. This also seems a reasonable conclusion with respect to a
102
canal's influence in the Town of Sou~hold.
In addition to the scallop which has concerned us here, many other organisms
might be adversely (or favorably) affected by the mixing of the water from Long
Island Sound and the bay. For this reason it seems desirable to carry out specific
studies to determine the probable physical, chemical and biological impact of this
canal, in addition to studying its engineering feasibility. Such may be said of
most major akerations to any ecosystem.
Other Man-Wrought Changes
The above discussion indicates the possibility of loss of a bay scallop industry
resulting from alteration of the existing surface.
Dredging and filling of salt marshes and estuarine waters are another means
man has used to "improve" his environment. This action, too, reduces produc-
tivity of the estuaries and is generally accelXed as undesirable by biologists.
A 1955 survey indicated the existence in New York State of some 37,450 acres
of valuable marine wetlands (Harney, 1961). By 1959, 4, 692 acres (12.5 percent)
had been destroyed by dredging or filling.
Comparison of 1960 aerial photographs with 1965 conditions indicates that in
this five-year period 121 of 2,704 salt marsh acres in the Town of Southold were
filled. This loss averages i percer~ per year of the town's wetlands and does not
appear to be slackening.
Perhaps equal or larger areas are influenced by dredging activity. Between
1960 and 1964 the town spent an average of nearly $1, 500 per year, sharing 50
percent of the cost of dredging private waterways in the town (Town of Southold
records).
103
Protection Afforded
Belated recognition of the importance of the estuarine waters has precluded
widespread actions to maintain or preserve them. It is of interest, however, to
consider what steps have been taken or sugge~ed to insure that this water-land
interface may continue to contribute significantly to society.
The major emphasis in the United States and in New York State has been to
seek total preservation of estuarine wetland areas by public acquisition. A unique
aspect of New York estuarine water basins is that many are currently owned by
public groups. Many towns on Long Island hold title to these lands through colomal
grants (Roe v. Strong, 107, N.Y. 358). Where these lands end and wetlands begin
is a source of contention. Much of the "drier" wetland is held by private interests.
The State of New York has passed legislation (McKhmey's, 1967) permitting the
state to share costs with towns for the purchase and preservation of wetlands. New
York City has dedicated marshland areas primarily for the benefit of shorebirds
and waterfowl (Brady, 1961). Other than outright purchase, governmental action to
protect these wetland areas has been virtually absent in the State of New T;rl~.
Experiences of Other States
Failure to undertake other actions to protect estuarine areas is not restricted
to New York, as ind/cated by responses from representatives of most of the north~
eastern states with significant coastal lands.
The comments of the Director of the State of New Jersey's Division of State and
Regional Manning (Chavooshian, personal communication) could well apply through-
out the northeastern United States:
104
In checking with the Planning Boards of the various counties concerned,
we did discover that although there is a widespread knowledge of the needs
for such protections, the necessary regulations are mostly non-existent.
There is no provisions[sic] for marine protection evident in the local zon-
ing ordinances in Atlantic County. In both Monmouth and Ocean Counties
local municipalities rely solely on sewage disposal control. Several
municipalities in Cumberland County have flood plaIn zoning, but this is
due more to the nature of the land itself rather than to considerations for
protections to marine resources. In Cape May County, although there are
no local zoning regulations, dealing specifically with this matter, certain
communities have sub-division regulations which tend to discourage
development in areas of valuable marine resources. Furthermore, the
County, itself, is in the process of preparing an Official Map which will
designate those areas of unique natural resources to be protected and
held for public acquisition at a later date. This is specifically directed
towards marine resources.
It would appear that New Jersey is not only aware of a need for effort in this area
but wishes to act.
The State of Maryland apparently construes the legislation establishing the
"Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs" as including possibilities for directing
developmental processes (Murphy, personal communication). Publicly owned
underwater lands are protected under State Law Article 66C (Michie Company, 1967):
13. B. Permit to remove sand, gravel, etc., from public lands under
navigable waters of Bay
Any person, firm, association or corporation desiring permission to
extract sand, gravel, rare earth, minerals, or any other resources
from the public lands under the public navigable waters of the Chesapeake
Bay (not including tributaries and estuaries of the Bay) must make appli-
cation therefore to the Department .... The Department shall receive
and review such application and gTant a permit if deemed in the best
interest of the State. (1964, Ch. 82.)
It would also appear that paragraph 12 of the enabling legislation allows the use
of tools such as zoning and easements:
12. Transfer of powers, etc., to Department
The Department shall be responsible for the planning, development and manage-
ment of the ChesapeakeBay and all other tidal waters, including the
105
shorelines and bottoms thereof, and all resou~rces associated therewith . . ,
it also shall have the following powers: Planning and development of
recreational facilities in or on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and
o~her tidal waters and the assistance of other agencies in the planning
of public recreational facilities associated with the Chesapeake Bay and
other tidal waters; cooperation with other agencies in carrying out
measures for the protection of tidal waterfront and waterways of the
State against erosion and deposition; conduct of demonstrations of
extended duration for the purpose of improving the fisheries or for such
other needs as may be necessary in carrying out its duties herein. ~.
The State of Massachusetts has a rather extensive planning study pertaining to
Cape Cod ("Cape Cod P/aiming Program," [Carter, 1963] ). This study does not
describe means by which the commtmities might protect their resources other than
by purchase in fee simple, establishment of the Cape Cod National Seashore or
private campgrounds. The report does provide perhaps the first step in the
necessary process in any planning procedure, it does outline the current situation
and projects anticipated needs. It does not suggest how these anticipated needs
can be realistically realistically best met. The director of the Massachusetts
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, has also indicated
ordinances pertaining to salt marshes have been adopted by the towns o£ .Barnstable
and Chatham (Wilbour, personal communication).
Additionally it is known that Town Conservation Commissions established in
Massachusetts (Chapt. 40, Section 8c and Section 5, clause 53) can purchase land
or easements and otherwise safeguard natural areas in that state (Michie Co., 1966).
New York has no enabling legislation for this type of commission.
The State of Maine, too, seems to have made substantial progress in getting
communities to look at their marine resources. The Town of Wells (Sewall Co.,
1963) has a master plan which points up the important role of the salt marshes and
tidal flats and stresses the need for their retention. Again, no means other than
106
outright purchase appears to be suggested.
Since 1926, in New York State, there has been a growing recognition that areas
beyond the urban core must be considered in planning and that natural resources
also had a rule to play in future developments (New York State, 1926). Since that
time, increasing emphasis in New York and other states has been directed towards
planning the development of large areas including, but not restricted to, urban
centers.
Planning efforts may enable new and powerful tools to be brought into play which
can further the attempt to retain shore areas in a near natural state. Such tools,
allowing the implementation of urban plans to achieve desired goals, have evolved
through the years. Clearly these are not yet perfected (Reps, 1964). Some of the
tools which have proved useful in urban plarming may, however, be useful in safe-
guarding estnarine areas.
Zoning
Zoning is perhaps the best known tool for implementing planning. It has been
widely used since its inception in New York City in 1916. Anderson (o_t},. _cit.) has
traced the development of zoning'.
The Common law of nuisance proscribed unreasonable uses of land
which substantially diminished the values of neighboring property.
Restrictive covenants outlawed certain uses on specific parcels. But
few land-nsc restrictions were imposed by state or local govern-
ments .... Other municipalities had adopted regulations which pro-
hibited noxious uses in certain areas. But beyond these modest and
scattered limitations a landowner enjoyed the right to improve his land
and to use it without official interference ....
Thus we see that only such flagrant violations of common law as would be upheld
by courts could be prevented. For instance, in 1907 Anderson (op. cit.) notes a
107
factory emitting black smoke which discolored nearby homes was enjoined from
this action.
Other ordinances limited the use of land because of matters clearly hazardous
to the health or safety of people. Production of dynamite was forbidden in areas
which were heavily popuiated (in those regions where this activity was carried out).
Following adoption of the first comprehensive zoning ordinance by New York
City in 1916 the use of zoning regulations quickly spread and during the 1920's be-
came common in big cities as well as many smaller ones· Anderson has defined
zoning as follows:
Comprehensive zoning is the legal tool most widely used . . . to
strict land use and to implement community planning ....
Comprehensive zoning consists in the division of the whole territory
· . . into districts, and the imposition of restrictions upon the use of
land in such districts. Unl/ke restrictive covenants or the common law
of nuisance, zoning regulations do not depend for their enforcement
upon the initiative of private landowners.
The legal basis for this and most other regulatory devices discussed in this
paper is the State's power to protect the public heakh and welfare through restraints
on private actions ("police power").
Today, in New York State the law on zoning states:
Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive
plan and designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety
from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; to promote health and
general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the over-
crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate
the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks
and other public requirements .... (Town Law, Section 263, McKinney's
1965b)
It is suggested that zoning be used to prohibit the construction of buildings on
specified low-lying estuarine lands and forestall economic losses due to occasional
108
flooding. Such zoning (" flood plain zoning") has long had recognized value in in-
land areas~ although it has not been extensively implemented.
Prevention of dredging from selected areas by zoning would also preserve many
highly productive, shallow water areas. Additionally it would make "filling" of
marsh lands less attractive due to the relative absence of fill material. This has
been attempted in the Town of Hempstead, Long Island, where interested citizens
have encouraged the town to zone underwater areas, some of which may be dredged,
and some of which may not. Interestingly, a major rationale for this activity has
been to permit families to dig clams.
Prohibition of filling, and of the bulkheading of naturally occurring land-water
interfaces, are other zoning devices which would help maintain the productive state
of estuarine areas.
Subdivision Control
A device often used in connection with zoning is subdivision control. This may
affect all properties in New York that are proposed to be divided into two or more
parcels. State health regulations, however, pertain only to five or more parcels
(Public Health Law, Section 1115, McKinney's, 1954). Virtually all land likely to
be developed on shore areas is potentially subject to subdivision control by town
governments.
The purpose of subdivision regulation is:
·.. and affording adequate facilities for the housing, transportation, dis-
tribution, comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its popu-
lation (Town Law, Section 276, McKinney's 1965b).
Through use of this authority, a community could restrict development of
houses within specified distances (say 200 feet) of the mean high water mark.
109
This, together with zoning regulations and other sanitary precautions, could assist
in reducing the flow of contaminants, including pesticides and nutrients, into
estuarian waters.
Acquisition of Easements
Purchase of certain rights from property owners by communities is a little used
technique which is gaining favor among planners. Only rights purchased are trans-
ferred; all others are held by the owner. This has been extensively used with
respect to mineral rights, and has been used to acquire any rights to erect billboards
along the highway. One example referred to by Whyte (1962) was the purchase of
scenic easements along the Great River Road in one Wisconsin county for only
$23.75 an acre versus nearly $45.00 an acre to acquire land in fee simple. The
New York State Conservation Department had acquired fishing rights, through
easements, on over 904 miles of streams in Upstate New York by 1964 (New York
State Conservation Department, 1965).
The purchase of development rights on land (particularly agricultural land)
might preclude extensive construction, and towns are empowered to make such
purchases (Section 247 of the General Municipal Law, McKirmey's, 1965). The
purchase of mineral or dredging rights from private owners could also contribute
to protecting estoarine areas.
The public purchase of property by fee simple, and subsequent selling to others
of those rights not desired by the public (such as the use of the land for agriculture),
is an additional method that might be utilized in this town to preserve existing
estuarine values. If not sold, rights could be leased under a "purchase and lease
back" device.
110
Community Stimulation
Community encouragement of desired conditions and, conversely, discourage-
ment of unwanted conditions is another means by which communities can direct
development. While these actions often have limited value they can be useful as
part of a total community effort.
Preferential or deferred taxation of properties to maintain a desired condition
is one example of this type of stimulant. This approach, used in forestry in New
York (Real Propercy Tax Law, Section 480, McKinney's, 1960) and for retention of
open agricultural land in Virginia (House, 1961), has not precluded eventual
development of these lands or their conversion to other uses. k has helped to
reduce the economic pressure for such change, however.
Conclusion
No one of these approaches can be entirely satisfactory in preserving the
estuarine areas; nor should only one be considered. The Town of Southold should
heed Tyrrell and Johnson's advice (1961):
Since demand for shoreline, particularly for commerce, industry ~nd
utilities, greatly exceeds the supply in densely populated areas, special
techniques available for preserving the waterfront for public use must
be fully exploited and many miles of shore must be procured for recre-
ation.
CHAPTER VI
PROJECTED RECREATIONAL USE
Predictions of demand for, or use of, outdoor recreation areas are needed in
order to plan intelligently for their development, in recent years several attempts
have been made to project levels of recreation demand or use (Clawson and I<netsch,
1966; Holum, 1966; Storey, 1964). Such projections have frequently used data
from the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) reports
(1962). One of those (Churchill, 1962) projects national increases by the year
1976 in participant days amounting to 76 percent of the 1960 level for swimming,
79 percent for boating, 50 percent for picnicking and 35 percent for fishing (Table 6,
page 22). She notes improvement in the quality and quantity of facilities available
on a per capita basis might lead to levels of participation 90 percent greater than
the 1960 level for swimming, 96 percent for boating, and 67 percent for pichi6king.
She could make no such estimate for fishing.
One cottld use these figures directly to predict levels of recreational use in the
town, btm they are nationally derived and could be in error for Sonthold. Another
means of estimating future participation is through projection of a time series,
extending past patterns into the future. Lack of prior statistics on recreation
participation in the town precludes this approach, except for the use of Orient Beach
State Park. Figure 8 gives attendance at this park. Inspection of this figure
reveals the difficulty and hazards of attempting such projections on a limited area.
111
Attendance
in
~housands
of persons
90
112
70
3O
2O
10
1935 1940
1950 1955 1960
Year
1965
Figure 8 Annual a~t~ndance at Orient Beach State Park.
113
It is generally recognized that increases in recreation participation result from
many factors. Primary among these are increased affluence, population growth,
greater mobility and leisure time.
Some data are available on the growth and future income levels of the population
using the Town of Southold for recreation. These two elements (growth of popula-
tion and in higher net incomes) were used to derive indications of future recreational
use of the town's natural resources.
Population increase is a major stimulus to recreational participation. If we
assume the future populations of geographic areas will participate in a given activity
to the same degree as now occurs, we can derive one measure of change in partici-
pation. The product of a population increase times the percent of participants now
carrying out the activity would give an indication of growth in recreational use.
The Regional Plan Association (1962) projects a population increase in Suffolk County
of 120 percent between 1960 and 1985, and an 8 percent increase in Nassau County's
population in the same period. New York City, in total, they foresee retaining its
1965 population.
Income is a variable having a major influence on participation by individuals, at
least for those summer activities studied in the Town of Southold and also identified
by the ORRRC reports (Mueller and Gurin, 1962, page 29). Clawson (1960) foresees
a per capita real income growth of approximately 1.9 percent annually between 1955
and 1985 in the Greater New York region, which includes Suffolk and Nassau counties.
The median income of families in the region in 1959 was $6, 548 (New York State
Department of Commerce, 1963). With a 1.9 percent annual increase this income
would have averaged $7, 262 for 1964 - 1965 (or $7, 193 for 1964). The same annual
114
increase to the year 1985 would yield a median, real family annual income, 48
percent higher than in 1964, or $10, 680 (if family size remains constant).
The National Recreation Survey (Ferriss, 1962) indicates participation in
swimming increased 31 percent when the extent of participation in swimming at
these two income levels are compared. Increases in boating were 156 percent,
but fishing reflected an 11 percent decline with the greater income level. Partici-
pation in picnicking increased by. 3 percent when families with these higher income
levels were encountered. These rates pertaIn to the period June - August 19150, by
persons in the northeastern United States.
Il: was noted in the present study that swimmers and boaters tended to have
higher incomes, whereas most fishermen (charter boat lessees excepted) and
picnickers had greater representation of families with more modest incomes.
Increases due to population growth and changes in levels of participation
accompanying the forecasted income increases are multiplied to make the projec-
tions herein.
Swimming at public beaches may experience by 1985 an increase of 91 percent
from the 1964-1965 level. The derivation of this statistic follows. In this activity,
37 percent of the participants come from Suffolk County (including the Town of
Southold) and 20 percent come from Nassau County. The 120 percent increase in
Suffolk County's population would thus be reflected among 37 percent of this swim-
mer group (1.20 x .37 = .44), with an .08 percent increase in the .20 percent of
this swimmer group from Nassau County (.08 x .20 = .02). Thus a 46 percent
(.44 + .02) increase in use of public beaches by swimmers through population
growth alone may occur.
byl
than
31[
incr,
poter
1964.
Si
and o
figure
Pa~
anticif
partic
in real
would ~
contrib
of patti
than thc
Usin}
by 1985,
It she
assume ,
alter use
case the
114
increase to the year 1985 would yield a median, real family annual income, 48
percent higher than in 1964, or $10, 680 (if family size remains constant).
The National Recreation Survey (Ferriss, 1962) indicates participation in
swimming increased 31 percent when the extent of participation in swimming at
these two income levels are compared. Increases in boating were 156 percent,
but fishing reflected an 11 percent decline with the greater income level. Partici-
pation in picnicking increased by 3 percent when families with these higher income
levels were encountered. These rates pertain to the period June - August 1960, by
persons in the northeastern United States.
It was noted in the present study that swimmers and boaters tended to have
higher incomes, whereas most fishermen (charter boat lessees excepted) and
picnickers had greater representation of families with more modest incomes.
Increases due to population growth and changes in levels of participation
accompanying the forecasted income increases are multiplied to make the projec-
tions herein.
Swimming at public beaches may experience by 1985 an increase of 91 percent
from the 1964-1965 level. The derivation of this statistic follows. In this activity,
37 percent of the participants come from Suffolk County (including the Town of
Southold) and 20 percent come from Nassau County. The 120 percent increase in
Suffolk County's population would thus be reflected among 37 percent of this swim-
mer group (1.20 x .37 = .44), with an .08 percent increase in the .20 percent of
this swimmer group from Nassau County (.08 x .20 = .02). Thus a 46 percent
(.44 + .02) increase in use of public beaches by swimmers through population
growth alone may occur.
115
In addition, the projected increase in real income may increase participation
by 31 percent (Ferriss, 1962) by existing and future populations. Thus rather
than an increase to 146 percent of the 1964-1965 level of participation, a level
31 percent greater than that occurring from the present population and its projected
increase (1.46 + [1.46 x 31] -- 1.91) or 191 percent of the 1964-1965 use, may
po~entially occur by 1985. This would be an increase of 91 percent from the
1964-1965 level.
Similar calculations yield possible increases of swimmers at private beaches,
and of boaters, to levels 61 percent and 262 percent greater than the 1964-1965
figures respectively.
Park picnicking, with 53 percent of its users from Suffolk County, migfit be
anticipated to have the greatest increase in use. As previously indicated, however,
participant days involving picnicking may increase by only 3 percent with the increase
in real income. Thus, although Suffolk County's population increase of 120 percent
would itsel£ result in a 64 percent increase in park use, and Nassau County would
contribute an additional increase of 1 percent by 1985, a 3 percent increase in .rates
of participation by the future population would give a level of use 70 percent greater
than the 1964-1965 level (1.65 + [1.65 x .03] -- 170).
Using this same rationale, picnicking outside the park may increase by 41 percent
by 1985.
It should be recognized that this approach is fraught with peril. All projections
assume certain consistencies. Natural- or man-caused catastrophes can sharply
alter use as can be noted in the data on the use of Orient Beach State Park (in this
case the influence of wars and hurricanes).
116
A major error can be injected if people's desires and tastes change. Ten years
ago the current level of participation in SCUBA diving or surfboarding could not
have been predicted by this approach.
In addition, a constant rate of use by participants and an equivalent opportunity
to exercise this use in 1985 is assumed. /his may not be a valid assumption,
particularly when one recalls the strong appeal the rustic aura of the town has to
the present participants. If a doubling in participation occurs, individuals may
decide, on the basis of crowding, not to use the town as a recreation area.
Fishing activities exhibit a clear example of possible errors in unthinking
acceptance of projections derived as above. /he proportion of charter boat fish-
ermen whose families had incomes of $11,000 or more tended to approach that of
swimmers and boaters. /he method outlined above would indicate an increase by
1985 of 154 percent of the 1964-1965 level of participation in charter boat fishing
(assumes a 100 percent increase in this type of fishing due to increased income).
Accompanying an increase in the level of fishing from private boats of 262 percent
of the 1964-1965 figures; a 16 percent increase in shore fishermen (re.fle.cting a
negative relationship between the rate of fishing participation and incomes increased
to the projected level); a 2 percent decline in rental rowboat fishermen and a 1 per-
cent increase in open boat fishermen, we would be projecting 86, 042 fishing days
in a summer.
This represents an increase of 93 percent from the present fishing pressure
(44,657 days). If the town's fishery were subjected to 86,000 days of fishing,
doubtless fishing success as measured by catch per hour would decline. With this
decline, many persons would cease fishing, lowering participation. The depressing
117
effect of lowered catch rates on fishing participation has been demonstrated in the
weakfish sport fishery in the Town. Caution must be observed, then, in using any
figures derived in this manner.
This method of calculating future use cannot reasonably be applied to hunting.
Land use is so closely linked with opportunity to hunt and probable success that
projections in this limited area, based solely on participant data, are unwarranted.
It is my belief that the general magnitude of change is indicated by the teclmique
used. Thus this town can anticipate roughly a 250 percent increase in boater
participant days by 1985 and a doubling in the use of public and private beach areas
by swimmers by 1985. The greatest increase in fishing pressure will come from
types of fishing which take place from private and charter boats.
CHAPTER VII
C ONC LUSION
Those concerned with the future of the Town of Southold face a c o m m o n
dilemma. In order for the economy to grow, existing natural and created environ-
ments must be altered. To stimulate or permit alteration but yet retain or improve
the desirable aspects of the environment must be the major focus for those planning
the community's future.
If recreation and a commercial fishery are to play major roles in the desired
economic growth, communities--including the Town of Southold--need data on the
status of these elements in the economy.
Morton and Allee (op. ci__t. ) have developed an input-output table for this town
which indicates recreation and wildlife are currently major factors in the town's
economy. Seasonal residents and commercial fishery activities injected nearly
$19,000, 000 into the town's economy in 1963.
Interviews indicated participants in varied activities often had substantially
differing socio-economic characteristics, participation rates and differing attitudes
toward the town. However, most recreationists visiting the town were primarily
attracted to its distinctive rustic aura. Loss of this aura, through such develop-
cl
fo.
119
ments as suburbanization, extensive commercial recreational development or
c6mmercial developments of other types, would apparently repel many of those
now visiting the town. This same aura is prized by many of the seasonal residents.
Twenty-six percent of the seasonal residents in Carroll's study (op, c~it. ) said the
only major occurrence which would cause them to go elsewhere for the summer
was increased population and development. No other change would deter as many
as eight percent of the seasonal residents.
The commercial fishery contributes substantially to the desired rustic aura, as
well as to the town's economy. To retain this strong fishing industry, the town
should stimulate and encourage further biological studies to determine maximum
sustained yield points for various shellfish species, as well as to develop accessory
biological information needed for the most efficient management of these resources.
Although the commercial fishery lends support to the town's attractiveness to
recreationists, conflicts between the recreationist and the commercial fishery will
occur. This conflict may well be less than the conflict which will occur among
recreationists supporting different types of activity. The complexities of such.
interplay may be exemplified by a canal proposed for construction between Long
Island Sound and the "bay." Such a development, of great value to pleasure boaters,
might adversely affect bay scallop production in the town. Dependent upon the
location of the canal, public swimming opportunity might also be substantially
reduced.
Further conflict between recreational participants will involve fishermen,
clammers and boaters. The boater desires deep water. He wants this in a stable
form, in close proximity to his dwelling. This is the basic reason for his desiring
120
dredging and bulkheading. These same actions, with consequent drastic altering
of the ecosystem, are generally cited by biologists as causes for reductions in
the productivity of ~vater and the prevention of the occurrence of certain forms of
aquatic organisms in these areas, reducing the fishermen's potential take. The
question of which should have precedence--boater or fisherman--finds avid sup-
porters on each side. ~ypically the answer chosen has been to allot each group a
portion of a broader area, a portion in which their preference alone is exercised.
Such zoning of ~vater areas or underwater land appear to be among those actions
which should have v~ider application in this town.
Other actions which influence the ecosystem would generate widespread concern,
rather than a divisive response. Widespread pollution from any source ~vould, I
believe, be strenuously resisted by most persons. Extensive eutrophication of bay
waters too, if understood, v¢ould be condemned. Support for preventive measures,
such as restrictions on septic systems for homes or of waste disposal on pleasure
craft, would not be as readily obtained.
It appears certain that the Town of Southold will be hosting greater numbers of
recreationists in the future. Though the precise magnitude of the change is impos-
sible to foretell it seems likely that participation in boating will sho~v the most
marked increase, perhaps approximating a 2.50 percent addition to the
level of participation. Swimming participation in this town will nearly double be-
tween 196.5 and 198.5. Specific types of fishing will experience varied changes.
Other activities, too, will experience increases in participant days. Consideration
and provision of sites and facilities for increased boating, sv¢imming and fishing
should be encouraged by town groups planning for the future.
121
Along with these specific concerns, those planning for this community have the
difficult problem of not only retaining a rustic aura in the community, but also of
protecting the surrounding water bodies to insure their high productivity and
minimal contamination.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, A. W., and C. E. Peterson. 1952. Fishery statistics of the United
States 1949. Fish and Wildlife Service. Statistical Digest 25. 298 p.
Anderson, R. M. 1963. Zoning law and practice in New York State. Lawyers
Co-operative Pablishing Co. Rochester, N.Y. 1187 p.
Barlow, J. P. 1956. Effect of wind on salinity distribution in an estuary. J. of
Marine Sci. 15(3):193-203.
Belding, D. L. 1931. The scallop fishery of Massachusetts. Division of Fish-
eries and Game, Mass. Marine Fisheries Series No. 3. 51 p.
Brady, E.P. 1958. Jamaica Bay wildlife refuge. New York State Conservation-
ist. Oct-Nov. :30-31.
Briggs, P. T. 1962. The sport fisheries of Great South Bay and vicinity. New
York Fish and Game J. 9(1):1-36.
Burgess, L. C. N. 1966. Results of the waterfowl hunters' survey. Dep. of
Agr. Econ. New York State College of Agr., Ithaca. Mimeo. 62 p.
Carroll, R.L. 1965. A social analysis of Southold Town, Long Island. Dep. of
Rural Sociology, Cornell University Agr. Expt. Sra. Bulletin No. 66. 169 p.
Carruthers, J. A. 1966. Campers of the Finger Lakes, Pocono and Catskill
regions. M.S. Thesis. Cornell Univ. 141 p.
Carter, L. A. 1963. The outdoor recreational resources of Barnstable County,
Massachusetts. Mass. Dep. of Natural Res. 100 p.
Christy, F. T., Jr., and A. Scott. 1965. The common wealth in ocean fisheries.
The Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. 281 p.
Churchill, Betty C. 1962. Prospective demand for outdoor recreation. Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission. U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
ORRRC Study Report 26. 61 p.
122
123
Clawson, M. 1960. The dynamics of park demand. Regional Plan Association,
230 W. 41 St., New York. Bull. 94. 39 p.
., and J. L. Kuetsch. 1966. Economics of outdoor recreation. The
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 328 p.
Copp, J. H. 1964. Pittsburgh leisure time study. Pennsylvania State Univ.
Mimeo. 176 p.
Cottam, C., and C. E. Addy. 1947. Present eelgrass conditions and problems on
the Atlantic coast of North America. Proc. 12th N. Am. Wildl. Conf.: 387-398.
Cowardin, L. M., and J. E. Ashe. 1965. An automatic camera device for meas-
uring waterfowl use. J. Wildl. Mgrnt., 29(3):636~640.
Crossley, S - D Surveys, Inc. 1956. National survey of fishing and hunting.
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Circ. 44. 50 p.
Cushwa, C. T., B. S. McGinnes and T. H. Ripley. 1965. Forest recreation
estimates and predictions in the North River area, George Washington National
Forest, Virginia. Agr. Expt. Sta. Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Bull. 558.
48 p.
Davis, R. K. 1963. The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the
Maine woods. Harvard Univ. Ph.D. Thesis. Cambridge, Mass. 152 p.
Dow, R. 1962a. Use of environmental and economic factors to check biological
fluctuations in Maine lobster populations. Commercial Fish. Rev. 24(8):6-8.
1962b. A method of predicting fluctuations in the sea scallop .
populations of Maine. Commercial Fish. Rev. 24(10):1-4.
· and F. T. Baird, Jr. 1960. Scallop resource of the United States
Passamaquoddy area. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish
No. 367. 9 p.
Economic Statistics Bureau. 1967. The Handbook of Basic Economic Statistics,
Vol. XXI(1), Econ. Statist. Bureau, Washington, D.C. 256 p.
Environmental Pollution Panel. President's Science Advisory Committee. 1965.
Restoring the quality of our environment, The White House, Washington, D.C.
317 p.
Evermann, B. W. Statistics of the fisheries of the Middle Atlantic States 1902.
p. 433-540. In: Report of the U.S. Commissioner of fish and fisheries for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1902. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries.
124
Ferriss, A. L. 1962. National recreation survey. Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission, U.S. Govt. Printing Office. ORRRC Study Report 19. 394 p.
Fiedler, R.H. 1932. Fisheries Industries of the United States, 1930. Appendix II.
In: Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year ended June 30,
1931. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. p. 109-546.
1938a. Fishery Industries of the United States, 1936. Bureau of
Fisheries. Administrative Report No. 37. 276 p.
1938b. Fishery Industries of the United States, 1937. Bureau of
Fisheries. Administrative Report No. 32: 151-450.
1942. Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1939. U.S. Fish
and Wildl. Service. Statistical Digest No. 1. 220 p.
1943. Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1940. U.S. Fish
and Wildl. Service. Statistical Digest No. 4. 225 p.
Fuller, M. L. 1914. The geology of Long Island, N.Y. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper No. 82. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 231 p.
Gabriel, R. H. 1960. The evolution of Long Island. Ira J. Friedman. Port Wash-
ington, N.Y. 194 p.
Grosslein, M.D. 1962. Estimation of angler harvest on Oneida Lake, New York.
Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell Univ. 296 p.
Gunter, G. 1953. The relationships of the Bonnet Carr~ Spillway to oyster beds
in Mississippi Sound and the "Louisiana Marsh," with a report on the 1950 open-
ing. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science III, 17-71.
Gutsell, J. S. 1931. Natural history of the bay scallop. Bull. U.S. Bur. of Fish.,
45:569-632.
Holum, K. 1966. Potomac Valley. U.S. Dept. of int. 80 p.
Hopkins, Ao E. 1931. Temperature and shell movements of oysters. U.S.
Bur. of Fish. Bull. 40. 35 p.
Harney, J. E. 1961. Wetlands preservation on Long Island. New York State
Conservationist. Feb. -Mar.: 12-14.
House, P. 1961. Preferential assessment of farmland in the rural-urban fringe
of Maryland. U.S. Dept. of AgT. Bull. ERS-8. 20 p.
125
James, G.A. 1966. Instructions for using traffic counters to estimate recreation
visits and use on developed sites. U.S. Forest Service. Southeastern Forest
Expt. Sra., Asheville, N.C. 12 p.
King, D. A. 1965. Characteristics of family campers using the Huron-Manistee
National Forests. Lake States Forest Expt. Sra., St. Paul, Minn. U.S.
Forest Serv. Res. Paper LSolg. 11 p.
Kish, L. 1965, Survey sampling. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 643 p.
Koppelman, L. E o 1962. Existing land use. Suffolk Co. Department of Planning.
Hauppauge, N.Y. Multilith. 42p.
Lucas, R.C. 1964. The recreational use of the Quetico-Superior area, Lake
States Forest Expt. Sra., St. Paul, Minn. U.S. Forest Serv. Res. Paper LS-8.
50 p.
Lyles, C.H. 1966. Fishery statistics of the United States, 1964. U.S. Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries Statistical Digest 58. 541 p.
McKinney's. 1954. The consolidated laws of New York: public health law.
Edward Thompson Company, Brooklyn. Book 44. 729 p.
1960. The consolidated laws of New York annotated: real property
tax law. Edward Thompson Company, Brooklyn. Book 49 3,, 842 p.
1965a. The consolidated laws of New York: general municipal
law. Edward Thompson Company, Brooklyn. Book 23. 471 p.
1965b. The consolidated laws of New York: town law. Edward
Thompsom Company, Brooklyn, Book 61. 530 p.
1967. The consolidated laws of New York: conservation law.
Edward Thompson Company, Brooklyn. Book 10. 494 p.
Marcus, L. F., E. M. Gould, Jr., and R. L. Bury. 1961. Measuring the recre-
ation use of national forests. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Expt. Sra.,
Berkeley, California. U.S. Forest Service Technical Paper 59. 26 p.
Marshall, N. 1960. Studies of the Niantic River, Conn. with special reference to
the bay scallop. Limnol. and Oceanogr. V(1):86-105.
Michie Company. 1967. The annotated code of the public general laws of Maryland.
Charlottesville, Va. Vol. 6:966 p.
126
1966. Annotated laws of Massachusetts. La~vyers Coop. Publishing
Co., Rochester, N.Y. Vol. i-B. 308 p.
Morton, D. W., and D. J. Allee. 1966. Presentation of the input-output tables for
the calendar year 1963. Dept. of Agr. Econ., Cornell Univ. 27 p.
Mueller, Eva, and G. Gurin. 1962. Participation in outdoor recreation: factors
affecting demand among American adults. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, ORRRC Study Report 20. 94 p.
Newsday. 1964. Garden City, N.Y. Nov. 27. p. 29.
New York State Commission of Housing and Regional Planning. 1926. Report to
Governor Alfred E. Smith, Albany, N.Y. J.B. Lyon Co., Albany. 82 p.
New York State Conservation Department. 1965. Fifty.-fourth annual report for
the year 1964. Legislative Document (1965) No. 98. Albany, N.Y. 205 p.
New York State Department of Commerce. 1963. Business fact book, 1963. Nassau-
Suffolk district. Albany. 33 p.
New York State Department of Heakh. 1963. Surface waters of eastern Suffolk
County. Suffolk County Survey Series Report No. 5. 77 p.
Odum, E. P. 1961. The role of tidal marshes in estuarine production. New York
State Conservationist. June-July: 12-15, 35.
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Outdoor recreation for
America. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 246 p.
Pack, A. B. 1964. Precipitation and temperatures during August 196zk..What's
cropping up in agronomy. Dept. of Agron., N.Y. State Coil. of Agr., Ithaca.
VIII(Ii): 1-4.
1965. Precipitation and temperatures during July 1965. What's
cropping up in agronomy. Dept. of Agron., N.Y. State Coll. of Agr., Ithaca.
IX(6): 1-5.
Parten, F.S. 1950. Surveys, polls, and samples. Harper and Brothers. New
York. 624 p.
Perlmutter, A. 1959. Our changing shoreline. New York State Conservationist.
Oct, -Nov. 12-15.
, W. S. Miller and J. C. Poole. 1956. The weakfish (Cynoscion
regalis) in New York waters. N.Y. Fish and Game J. Vol. 3(1):1-43.
127
Regional Plan Association. 1962. Spread city. 230 W. 41 St., New York.
Bull. 100. 49 p.
Reps, J. 1964. Requiem for zoning. Center for Housing and Environmental
Studies. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 12 p.
Riley, G.A. 1952. Hydrography of the Long Island and Block Island Soonds.
Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coil. XIII (3):5-39.
Risser, J. 1901. Habits and life history of the scallop.
first Ann. Rept. R. I. Comm. Inland Fish. 65 p.
p. 47-55. In: Thirty-
Roe vs. Strong. 107 N. Y. 358. 1888. In: Reports of cases decided in the Court
of Appeals. Banks and Brothers, Albany, N.Y. Vol. CVII. 800 p.
Ryther, J. H., R. F. Vaccaro, Hulburt, Yentsch, Guillard. 1958. Report on a
survey of the chemistry, biology and hydrography of Great South Bay and
Moriches Bay. Unpublished manuscript 58 - 57. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Inst.
Sastry, A. N. 1963. Reproduction of the bay scallop. Biol. Bull. 125(1):146-153.
Sette, O. E., and R. H. Fiedler. 1929. Fishery industries of the United States
1927. Bureau of Fisheries. Document No. 1050:468-474.
Sewall, James W., Company. 1963. Summary report of the comprehensive plan
for the Town of Wells, Maine. Old Town, Maine. Multilith. 10 p.
Shafer, E. L., Jr. 1964. The photo-choice method for recreation research.
Northeastern Forest Expt. Sra., Upper Darby, Pa., Research Paper NE-29.
i0 p.
Sno-Engineering. 1965. The skier market in northeast North America. U.S.
Govt. Printing Office. 119 p.
Storey, E.H. 1964. A method of estimating the demand for outdoor recreation.
Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Illinois (Libr. Congr. Card No. Mdc. 65-3678). 84 p.
Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Taylor, N. 1927. The climate of Long Island. Cornell Univ. Agr. Expt. Sra.
Bull. 458. 20 p.
Tyrrell, Joyce M., and Norah Johnson. 1961. Problems and techniques of land
acquisition. In: Background Papers for Resources for Tomorrow. Queens
Printer, Ottawa. Vol. 2:1009-1026.
128
U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. 1947.
C.F.S. No. 469. 4 p.
New York Fisheries, 1946.
1956. New York landings, 1955.
1962. New York landings, 1961.
1963. New York landings, 1962.
1964, New York landings, 1963.
1965. New York landings, 1964.
1966. New York landings, 1965.
C.F.S. No. 1281. 12p.
C.F.$. No. 2850. 12p.
C.F.S. No. 3138. 12p.
C.F.S. No. 3490. 12p.
C.F.S. No.3773 . 12p.
C.F.S. No. 4077. 12p.
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 1916. Annual report of the U. S. Commissioner of
Fisheries for the fiscal year 1916. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 114 p.
1932. Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal
year 1931. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 690 p.
U.S. Weather Bureau. 1964a. Climatological data: New York: Vol. 76(6-9).
1964b. Climatic summar~ of the United States - Supplement for
1951 through 1960. New York. 111 p.
1964c. Local climatological data, New Haven, Connecticut.
June - September 1964.
1965a. Climatological data: New York. Vol. 77(6-9).
1965b. Local climatological data, New Haven, Connecticut.
June - September 1965.
Whyte, W.H. 1962. Open space action. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. ORKRC Study Report 15. 119 p.
Wilkins, B. T. 1967. Participant data development, Town of Southold. Dep. of
Conservation, New York State College of Agr., Ithaca. Mimeo. 22 p.
APPENDIX
Schedule
1
w/196~/3
Southold Stndy
~eoreat$on Participant Schedule
First I'd like to k~r~ h~ you arrived at t~is (beach, dock, etc.).
Did y~u ~ide in a car~ walk from s~ewhere else or what means did
Y~u use?
1. Auto 3. Walk
2. B~at- ~. Other i'~ntil~)
Sc~ae people sper~ all ~ear in this to~n, other~ stay for shoerter
periods. Bc~ many da2~ or weeks do you or your ~liate family expect
to spend in Southol~ town ~his year?
a) 1 day - ~ weeks (if more, go to b ~ top of Pa~e 2)
N~eaber to ? 9. 1~ - 21~
6_ 87. 8-1~ ~o. z~- 31daye
lO& 11
lA & 15
16__
How many nights will ~ou spend in
N~ber to 6
7. 7 - 13 nights 9.
You have been in the t~n
Number ~o 6
7. 7 - 13 nights
this tun o~ your present visit?
lA - 20 r~lghts
21 - ]0 r~hts
many of these nights alx~ady?
8. 14 - 20 nights
9- 21 - ]0 nights
Did you spend last night then, in a c~,~ercial lodging, at you~
home, or in sc~e other place?
1. Home 3- Hotel
2. Motel ~. Other ,, SpecifY
Where was that
Distance frcm here
(Ask only if that place was not "home") Where is your pexmanent
home? (Do not ask) Distance
No~ for the expenditures you(r group) have made on this trip..
Please est~nate those expenditures you have a~ready made Tor:
Amount ~ of that in Southold
Room or lodging
Food and beverage
Restaurant
Retail
F~,rm stand
Gas and car expense
Clothing
~oat charge or rental
Boat gas
Other (train fare, bait,
etc. ) SpecifY
129
130
b)
Over 4 weeks (n~ber 1. 4 - 6 weeks
2. 6+ - l0 weeks (1½-~
3. 10+ - 16 weeks (~-~
4. 16+ - 24 weeks (4* - 6 months)
monthsI 5. 2~ - ~0 weeks (6+ - 10 months)
months) 6. ~0+ and over (over 10 months)
18
19 _-
SO
Do you or your i~mcaiate f,m, ly own a house in this town?
No. Do you normally rent No Yes
How ~ miles is it from this spot?
Yes. How many miles is it from this spot?
Do you spend most of the year at acme other place?
21 & 22 No ._Yes Whers
2S & 24 -- -- -- (~o ~ot ~k. ~ista~c~ f~om
3. You came to this spot today to do what one thing mairnly?
4. Are there other things you ~/d or will do here to~ay? No Yes
25 & 26 ~hat are those? -- --
27 & 28 -- -- 5. On how many days ~id you (main activity) last year?
--- ma,~ activit}') fro~ this spot?
29 & 30 Sa. ~n how many of those ~ays aid you (_._~
6. 8omc people come here for particular reasons. ~hy aid you come here
31 & 32 -- -- to~ay? (Press for Ex. why are you at this sportar~ not somewhere else?)
~tre there other reasons?
33.__ 7.
Do you feel anything about this place shou/~ be cha~?
O. No 3. Yes, with constructive
1. No, e~phatic 4. Yes, with facetious c~nt
2. No, u~desirable if do If yes, "what is that"?
34 -- 8.
35
How m~ years have you been c0~htng to this spot?
To any place in Southold township (no. of years).
(If less than 10 years) Why aid you first c~ h=~e?
38 & 39 ___
9. ~hat do you like best about this general area (the township)?
10.
Now about what people spe~ for recreation.
Did you pay any fee to~ to be able to (main activity)?
uncer%ain).
Yes How much was that?
No
(Ask only if
(inclode unit per person, day, or w)
Only ask if No:
Would you he wLlling to pay something to (mai.n.a. ctivit~)
with similar facilities?
No Not even 10¢ a day __No __Yes Possibly or yes
Some people might pay more and others less to (m~n
acti~) but would you be willing to pay at least
~/-~erson to be able to (main acti.vit)')? (Raise
figure if obviousJ~y higher. )
Yes Would you be willing to pay $2 5 10 25 50
---No Would you be wiLLing to pay _5~¢ --25 --lO - --
Did you say you would be willing to pay
s~zething? -- How much?
131
41 & 42
k3 & 44
~6 &-i~'7 _ _
e
Nave you spent any money for equ~ent or clothing used in (activity)
in the past 30 days? .._No _,Yes
__ -- If yes:
How much money would you say you spent for equi{~uent or clothing?
48 12.
What equilmuent or clothing
were you including in that
figure ?
Did you buy that in the
town of Southold?
Nave you ever paid a fee to (.~ain ,a. ctivit[)?
Yes How much per unit?
--No Even at some other place?.
Its Cost
Now for the last questions we would like a Little background infomation:
49 -- 13. Nave we interviewed you this ,,,,~.r before today?.
50 -- 14. Are you married now? ._.No ._.Yes
51 ~ 52__ J 15. In ~h~t ~ar vere y~U born? , .
53 -- 16.
This qu~stic~ refers to all the members of your iu~ediate
you care to, please indicate which letter would include the income
your f-m~ly expects to make this year?
If
54 & 55
56& 57
3-9.
62
17. You came to this place at what time today?
18. What time do you expect to leave here?
What is your occupation (and if applicable former or father or husband)
Detail
Now many others came here with you? Number
(If any) Are they fmmlly or simply f~---~s? (put in number of each)
Family
_ Friends
· Thank you very much for helping us with this study.
Catch (if applicable) _ ,.
6~
65 --Sex: M
66--
Time
67 & 68 ____
Acti~ty
69__
Location
70 & 7~____
72
73
F
Temp ·
75
Day
Cloudy __ Wind Date