Fishing Effort Survey Research and Improvements

Improved 2026 Fishing Effort Survey and Data

Improved Survey Design

In January 2026, we began implementing the improved Fishing Effort Survey according to existing regional survey administration schedules. This is a result of listening to partner and industry feedback, conducting thorough research, and aiming to continuously improve our survey methods and data. We heard from the angling community and partners that our private boat and shore effort estimates were too high and not reflective of their local on-the-water experiences. 

Effective Implementation

Alongside regional partners, we developed a collaborative transition plan to guide the implementation of the improved FES. 

Scientific Validation

Extensive testing and a favorable independent peer review indicates the new design offers improved utility for stock assessments and management decisions. In 2025, we concluded data collection, data analysis, and independent expert peer reviews as part of a large-scale study conducted throughout 2024 to test improvements to the FES. This served as a follow-up to verify results from a prior smaller-scale pilot study. 

More Accurate Estimates

An independent peer review panel found the revised FES to be a substantial improvement that produces more accurate data by mitigating overreporting of fishing trips through revising the question sequence. In addition, the survey is now administered monthly as opposed to every two months, which allows for more frequent reporting and helps with angler recall. Moreover, the updated estimation methods corresponding to the monthly administration improves the precision and stability of the effort estimates.

Updating the Historical Estimates to Align with the New FES

In August 2026, we published updated recreational fishing effort and catch estimates — reflecting the improved Fishing Effort Survey design — for hundreds of species, dating back to 1981. These historical estimates were rescaled using the updated peer-reviewed calibration model.

Key Takeaways

• The historical trends in recreational fishing activity remain largely similar, but the updated historical total catch estimates are systematically lower with smaller margins of error. This is because the improved FES design addresses overreporting of private boat and shore fishing trips and produces lower effort estimates.
• The magnitude of the reduction in total catch estimates varies by species since the updated effort estimates differ by state, fishing mode (shore vs. private boat), and time of year.
• Reductions are most pronounced for fisheries occurring in low-activity months via private boat.
• Data outliers across the time series are reduced.

Note: The FES effort estimates are multiplied by the catch-per-trip estimates from in-person dockside interviews to calculate total catch. For-hire effort estimates come from the For-Hire Survey, not FES, and are unaffected by this revision. Highly Migratory Species estimates in the Northeast region are derived primarily from the Large Pelagics Survey, which is not impacted by this revision. This revision does update information for Southeast HMS species as well as Atlantic and Gulf of America coastal shark species.

Image

Image

Impact on Fisheries Management

This data revision does not trigger immediate fisheries management changes or adjustments to catch limits. Instead, NOAA Fisheries and regional partners will begin integrating the improved data into prioritized stock assessments to help determine the health of stocks and provide new management advice, if warranted, through standard public processes. 

We can’t predict specific fishery stock assessment or management outcomes, as there are other sources of data, such as biological and commercial fishing information, which influence outcomes and any needed decisions. 

Management advice is generally made the year following completion of an assessment. For more information on regional fishery assessment schedules, visit the Northeast Region Coordinating Council schedule; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission schedule; Southeast Data Assessment, and Review schedule and the West Pacific Stock Assessment and Review schedule for the full list of species, timelines, and management bodies.

Sector allocations are handled separately and exist for several managed stocks. Regional fishery management councils and marine fisheries commissions are responsible for reviewing and recommending allocation decisions for individual stocks.  

FAQs

How was the calibration model developed to update the historical estimates?

The model used to calibrate or rescale the historical estimates builds on the peer-reviewed model previously developed to calibrate historical recreational fishing estimates from the Coastal Household Telephone Survey (1981–2017) to the original FES scale in 2018. 

Compared to the previous model, the new model provides greater flexibility, improved characterization of uncertainty in the precision of the estimates to better guide assessments and management, and a stronger foundation for incorporating future potential survey improvements.

The model was favorably peer-reviewed by an independent panel of experts in late 2025. The panel asserted the model is state of the art, and it fully addresses the complexity of the survey data. We held a 2-day peer-review workshop that provided opportunity for both partner and public comment. 

Were the calibrated data reviewed prior to publishing?

The calibration model used to update the estimates underwent a rigorous, independent peer review in late 2025, which included a two-day workshop that provided the opportunity for both partner and public comment. Reviewers provided valuable feedback on the model and its preliminary results, which we incorporated prior to using the model to produce the revised estimates. 

In late July 2026, we held regional virtual briefings for state, commission, and council partners to preview high-level, near-final regional and state calibrated estimate results for key regionally identified species. 

Additionally, our staff practice standard quality assurance and control measures before our estimates are published. We check for errors in data entry and investigate any unusual changes in catch and effort trends. View more information about our data review processes.

How do the updated estimates compare to the estimates from the CHTS?

In terms of magnitude, the updated estimates vary, but are generally somewhere in-between the estimates from the original FES and the ones derived from the previous Coastal Household Telephone Survey.  The divergence from CHTS is largest toward the end of the time series, driven by the decline in landline phone use (survey coverage).

It’s important to note that there was a larger impact on the updated estimates from the transition from the CHTS to the original FES in 2018, as the survey methods were very different — transitioning from a telephone to a mail survey. 

2018 transition to a Mail Effort Survey From a Telephone Survey

In 1979, the Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) began to collect data about fishing effort by dialing a random sample of residential households in Hawaii and along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. While random digit dialing (RDD) was a standard sampling methodology for conducting household surveys, there were known limitations to this approach. As these limitations grew more pronounced over time—due in large part to a decline in the use of landline telephones—the accuracy of the survey’s estimates began to suffer.

In its 2006 review of the methods we used to collect recreational fishing data and report recreational catch, the National Research Council recommended fundamental changes to our data collection techniques and acknowledged the limitations of collecting information through RDD. In response, the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) began to explore ways to improve how we understand and estimate the number of fishing trips taken by shore and private boat anglers in Hawaii and on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In 2018, we adopted a new Fishing Effort Survey (FES).

Pilot Studies and Peer Review

Between 2007 and 2013, MRIP conducted a series of pilot studies to identify a more accurate and efficient way to estimate fishing effort. These studies evaluated alternative sample frames, sampling designs, and data collection methods.

Coverage Error

Since the early 2000s, the percentage of adults living in homes with landline telephones steadily declined. 

The exclusion of wireless-only households from the pool of households we sampled meant our samples were growing less and less representative of the general population. Demographic differences correlated with differences in fishing activity: the landline-only households—the only households that could be reached by the CHTS—were much less likely to report fishing than the general population.

It is likely that as landline usage continued to decline, fishing effort was being underestimated. 

Measurement Error

The CHTS contacted households without prior notice; asked initial respondents a series of screener questions to determine whether anyone in the household fished during the two-month reference period; and expected initial survey respondents to immediately describe household-level fishing activity without the benefit of memory cues. Under this “gatekeeper effect,” the people who were answering our calls did not always accurately report—and in many cases, underreported—their households’ fishing effort.

Non-response Bias

Several studies have indicated that non-response is not a significant source of bias in the FES. Nonresponse studies conducted in 2013 and 2020 demonstrated no significant differences in fishing activity between those who initially responded to the FES and those who responded to a follow-up questionnaire. The studies also concluded the FES estimation design effectively minimizes the potential for nonresponse bias.

Results

Compared to the CHTS:

• The FES provides a more representative sample of the population we survey.
• By reaching the wireless-only households the CHTS excluded, the FES is far less susceptible to bias resulting from non-coverage.
• The FES gives more household members more time to provide complete answers, which is believed to produce more accurate responses to questions about fishing activity.

Peer Review

In 2014, Development and Testing of Recreational Fishing Effort Surveys: Testing a Mail Survey Design (PDF, 56 pages) underwent rigorous peer review. In 2015, the design of the FES was certified as a scientifically sound and suitable replacement for the CHTS.

Transition Plan

To minimize the potential for disruptions to fisheries science and management, a cross-disciplinary team of state and federal partners, scientists, stock assessors, and managers prepared a transition plan and timeline (PDF, 34 pages).

Benchmarking

From 2015 through 2017, the FES and CHTS were conducted side-by-side. 

Discontinuing the CHTS and Implementing the FES

On Dec. 31, 2017, the CHTS was discontinued, and the original FES was implemented on Jan. 1, 2018. 

Re-estimating Historical Recreational Fisheries Statistics

Once our calibration model was peer reviewed and approved, we converted effort estimates dating back to 1981 to the scale of the original FES.

More Information

• Recreational Fishing Surveys
• FES At-a-Glance
• FES Annual Reports
• Test of a Revised Fishing Effort Survey, 2025 Study Report
• 2025 Peer Review of the Revised Fishing Effort Survey and NOAA Fisheries Response
• 2025 Fishing Effort Survey Calibration Model Peer Review Summary Report
• 2026 Transition Plan for the Improved Fishing Effort Survey
• FES Outreach and Educational Resources
• MRIP Survey Design and Statistical Methods Manual